Jump to content

Talk:Diploma mills in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allegation

[edit]

Someone keeps adding a photo that is captioned as an "alleged diploma mill". Using such a photo seems to me to be an unsupported and controversial allegation - are there no photos of proven diploma mills available that could be used instead? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Zebedee. Opinion does not make fact, and allegations must have some factual basis. An allegation of illegal activity such as being a diploma mill should have a legal basis. In fact, the picture of the school they are featuring is a legally organized, authorized and operating university. As Wikipedia's stature and credibility gains acceptance, so their integrity must improve. Allowing anonymous users to allege their opinions is highly irresponsible. Mdis (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the institution in question is certainly controversial, but it's not up to us to judge the controversy, or to use the photo for what seems to me to be purposes of disparagement - it's not like a photo of what a diploma mill looks like is essential to understanding the concept. Anyway, the IP user has been edit warring and, assuming the similar IP addresses are all the same user, has breached WP:3RR. I've warned them to stop edit-warring, and if the warring continues and the editor does not discuss it here and try to achieve consensus, I'll take it to a 3RR report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there's no reason not to have a picture of a diploma mill. It most certainly helps us understand what diploma mills are in visual comparasin to real colleges. In addition, the caption referred to it as an "alleged diploma mill". Allegations do not need factual basis. That is why they are called allegations. Go check out the Catholic sex abuse cases article, which speaks of allegations left and right with no trouble. The problem only arises when one begins to refer to what is only alleged as though it no longer were. If there are photos of proven diploma mills (IMO, Patriot is proven, but lets not talk about that for now), then perhaps that picture would be better. But until then, this picture is better than nothing.
And Boing!, check Mdis's contributions page. It is a 4-year old single purpose account whose literally every single edit has been towards trying to remove any claim that Patriot is a diploma mill from wikipedia. You think the IP is edit warring? You might want to look to Mdis instead.Farsight001 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image of Patriot Bible University should be included. It, as the caption said, "is an alleged diploma mill." There is no WP:RS to contrary. The image adds to the article.
What do you mean by a "proven diploma mill"? Do you really think someone who runs a diploma mill will admit it is such a thing? I doubt that. On the other hand, we have an image of a place that has been called a diploma mill by several academic sources. What are your concerns about including that image (of Patriot)?
Also Boing!, if you look at the page history its not that some keeps adding the image. It has been there for a long time. It is more that user:Mdis-- a person likely associated with Patriot-- kept removing it along with all negative mentions on the Patriot page. May56candoit (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks - sorry for my delay in responding. Firstly, I need to clarify my reason for starting this. I actually don't have a particularly strong feeling either way, though I'm currently marginally on the side of omitting the photo. I also don't care who started the edit-warring here, or how long it has been in either state (and if anyone thinks any specific editor is a Patriot supporter with a conflict of interest, please take it to the appropriate venue and provide evidence - making personal accusations here does not help). I'm here simply because the edit-warring must stop! We must achieve that by consensus, based on current opinions, and anyone who engages in edit-warring on either side should be blocked. To clarify my position regarding Patriot Bible University itself - personally I hold it in very low esteem, and I think the "qualifications" of Mr Hovind are of little value, so I hope that assuages any suspicions that I might be a supporter. Now, on to the photo itself...

  • I'm really not sure it has informational or educational value regarding the general concept of "diploma mill". It's a building housing a claimed distance-learning establishment - some of them might look like ramshackle huts, but I'm sure others look like spiffy modern offices just like genuine top-quality distance-learning establishments. So this just shows what Patriot looks like - it doesn't show what diploma mills look like.
  • "Alleged diploma mill" - OK, finding a confirmed one is probably not a practical suggestion, but I can't help feeling that having that photo here is just carrying the allegations/controversy regarding Patriot Bible University over to an article where it really doesn't belong - and clearly, all notable controversy does belong in the Patriot Bible University article itself.
  • On the other hand, I do think it's nice to see illustrations in articles - but I'm cautious about including a photo just for the sake of having a photo.

Anyway, those are my expanded thoughts, and I'm happy to go with whatever consensus develops here. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I think its a nice addition to add to a page with much text. On the other hand, it doesn't add anything shocking: an alleged diploma mill ran from someone's house. However, since we have an image and there is much text, it doesn't seem there is a good reason to keep it out. Thus, I'm in favor of inclusion. Maybe we can get more opinions and see if there is a good reason for exclusion.
Also I'd like to point out Mdis has been blocked for a second time in a week for edit warring and has ignored my third time asking if she/he is associated with Patriot. That user was the warring to keep it out and has been white washing the pages. May56candoit (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to the party, a little over six years since the last comment, but I've included my solution, An image of Blenheim Palace which was used in the advertising for a diploma mill. The use of the image (not the version I used) has been discussed in reliable sources.[1] I thought it was illustrative. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New "Further reading" section

[edit]

An editor recently added a "Further reading" section with two links. I reverted that addition on the grounds that those links would better be used as references to add actual information to this article. Now another editor has restored the material.

I continue to contend that the material should, if anything, be integrated into the article instead of simply thrown into a "Further reading" section where the readers are left to wonder why those materials are there and what value we see in them. Further, the editor that reverted my removal has admitted to being the author of one of the articles, a clear conflict of interest. Finally, I am dismayed that one of these articles was recently added to the (new) "Further reading" section of eight different articles in rapid succession with not explanation of how it relates to each of those topics.

Given the multiple issues associated with these links, I intend to remove the links again in a few days unless there is compelling discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford University as a specific example

[edit]

I feel that the inclusion of Ashford University (via this edit) in the lead of this article might be construed as a biased example. If it is truly a diploma mill, perhaps there could be a better way to include it in the article?

I reverted the first edit as I felt it was a factual error. However, I do not desire to start an edit war over this content. --ForgottenHistory (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ashford University perhaps shows the need for a disclaimer of the various slang definitions bandied about of "diploma mill." An actual diploma mill, as defined in law, is not a school--at all. It is a place that gives diplomas with no classes (granted, sometimes some classes), but without any substantive education as often evidenced by a lack of any kind of major accreditation. They are not just easy schools, not just online schools, not just expensive schools for low-demand skillsets with little ROI. People don't accidentally find out their degree was from a diploma mill--they are overtly schools that sell fake degrees, with no campus, but often with phone numbers to call centers who confirm that you really graduated from there. They exist for crooks. There are indeed prestigious colleges without accreditation, but there are no accredited colleges that are diploma mills. Ashford University, like Everest College or whatever, are precisely what a diploma mill is not. Ashford College is fully accredited by the Department of Education via WASC. You go there, you take classes, they can offer real student loans (that's the quickest sign.) It is a lower level trade school, yes, but it is not a diploma mill.--Mrcolj (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions About Accreditation And The Law

[edit]

Since 2011 in USA federal regulations have mandated the state governments to control the legitimacy of distance education programs that operate across state boundaries[1]. In recent years of improved communication it applies to most colleges and universities. Although the distance education part of the regulation was struck down by court order[2], State approval remains the only legitimacy that a teaching institution can acquire in USA. The same is true in most other countries. Since 2011 and before, most states in USA have passed laws legitimizing colleges and universities that operate under federally recognized accrediting agencies, in addition to short list of other institutions that have been evaluated and found to be legitimate. Example is Oregon[3]. The state laws have gone a long way toward reducing fraud and deception of diploma mills, and raised the standards that other institutions have to meet like California Coast University. The small number of state approved but unaccredited colleges prevent the recognized accrediting agencies from being classified as monopolies and regulated as public utilities. A number of federal court cases over a period of 30 years have upheld the legitimacy of state approved programs [4], but winners claim that the defeated opponents have succeeded in raising the cost of higher education for everyone in USA. College cost went up sharply during that time, and became largely financed by long term debt.

Accrediting agencies are private, non profit, and voluntary associations controlled by the colleges and universities they accredit. They do not have the power of law, and are not granted monopolies. State laws and various other legal actions tend to favor accredited education, but stop short of creating monopolies.

Diploma mills proliferated in the years when supporters of accreditation were attempting to exercise monopolistic control of education through litigation that failed. The 2011 federal regulations and state laws that derive from them have put a stop to much of the illegal activity, although a sizable number of diploma mills attempt to operate in violation of the law. Listings of the outlawed diploma mills are available from state governments like Texas [5], where conditional acceptance of state approved programs like early years of Columbia Pacific University are also recognized as legal. Astrojed (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Impact Of Federal Regulations On Accreditation" (PDF).
  2. ^ "History Of Federal Regulation For Education".
  3. ^ "Oregon State Approved Colleges".
  4. ^ Hebert, et al. v. State of Texas, et. al. (California Coast University Litigation), No. 1:08-cv-0024-SS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin 2008)
  5. ^ "Texas List Of Illegal Institutions".

Homeschooling

[edit]

What is the connection to "Homeschooling"? I do not see anything in the text about the background of "students". Dimadick (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diploma mills in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, but the archive target did not work. I was unable to find a record of the story when searching the site. An alternate source has been added. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diploma mills in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Diploma mills in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill?

[edit]

Hello! You are invited to participate in Talk:Warren National University#RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Diploma mills in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the term "university" is not legally protected

[edit]

I'd like to respond to this phrase, hoping someone will make an edit: In the United States, words usage is regulated solely by states. "The term university is not legally protected" by the US Government because it can't be. Various states do indeed protect the term--as we see most famously in the form of the lawsuit against Trump University. Look it up, it was never a lawsuit about "Trump running a fake college", it was about a real estate seminar that had the word University in their name. In New York that's illegal, but in most of the country it's not. They were incorporated and based in New York, and when they got a letter from the Department of Education of New York ordering them to change their name, they instead reincorporated in Delaware--without moving their office! And that's what they got sued for. But if you look around, you'll see a bunch of businesses in your town named University. Olive Garden University is where Olive Garden chefs are trained. Ditto with McDonalds University. But no one was accusing Trump University of telling people they would get degrees from their passive Saturday afternoon at the Holiday Inn. (But the news of course says whatever it wants.) That's all, legal protection of words is done state-by-state, and in New York 'university' is protected. But that's why you've never gotten a straight answer to "what's the difference in a lawyer and an attorney?" Because it varies by state. In some states if you've gone to 2 years of law school (but haven't entered year 3 yet) you're an attorney, in some states you're not a lawyer until you pass the bar, in many states there is zero difference. A few years ago Utah prosecuted a guy for having JD on his business card (he was indeed an attorney) because that card was for a job where he was not acting as an attorney! Actually where the fun and juicy current debate is in 2020 (and I work in law, so I actually follow this stuff!) is 'engineer.' In certain states it's illegal to call yourself an engineer if you drive a train or if you are a computer programmer. So you can get a degree in Computer Engineering but if you call yourself an Engineer it's a felony, the equivalent of calling yourself a police officer or a doctor. That's juicy protectionism. I'd enjoy your responses and I'd love someone to evolve that phrase, if only by a few words, in the article. And then take off the 'citation needed', because it's no longer needed unless you have a link to a table or map all the states' comparative policies on 'university'.--Mrcolj (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diploma_mills_in_the_United_States&oldid=1205295822"