Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

OR?

I repeat my warning that this entire list, particularly as discussed above, is dangerously close to or already is original research. Adding or retaining institutions to this list because one or more Wikipedia editors can not find evidence of their accreditation seems to me to be (a) foolish as one can not prove a negative and (b) clearly original research. If we limit this list to institutions that have been specifically cited or reported as non-accredited then we'd be in much, much better shape. Of course, then the list would necessarily be incomplete (which it almost inevitably is anyway). --ElKevbo 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the list needs to be gutted. Again, we need sources to show that each school offers degrees AND is unaccredited. Without that, this list is worthless. Alansohn 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of the schools on this list are the subjects of articles that include the details of their accreditation situations, with sources. Some of the red-linked schools also were the subjects of individual articles at one time (contained sourced information), but the articles were deleted (generally due to assertions that the schools were nonnotable) without adding the reference citations to this list. Non-admins cannot see the deleted articles, so non-admins cannot restore the lost information.--orlady 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins can very easily restore the information -- by looking it up. Until it's looked up, we still have an unsourced list that's not even near compliant with WP:POLICY. --Dynaflow babble 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I can imagine many far more worthwhile ways to spend my time than attempting to recreate the contents of the 42 deleted articles listed on this talk page. If this "list" lacks sources, it's because of a successful ongoing campaign by individual Wikipedians to substitute this unsourced list for the articles where sourced information was formerly provided.--orlady 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for Wikipedia, the WP:ATT policy requires sources, no matter what. Regardless of the circumstances for why they may not be available elsewhere -- the articles were deleted, they can't be retrieved easily, the dog ate them -- the sources must be provided here or the items must be removed. Many of the individuals who were most active behind this list are the ones who have been most active in deleting the underlying articles, claiming a lack of sources. Given the potentially defamatory interpretation of a school's presence in this article, and especially in light of the blatant WP:NPOV violation that existed before material was removed, explicit sourcing is critical here, no excuses. Alansohn 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The page is an OR cesspool. Every school on this list needs a valid source. JJay 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of how easy this is. An anon IP just tried to remove American University of London, one of the redlinked institutions, from the list. It had not previously been cited, at least in this article. I found AUoL on both Maine and Oregon's lists of unaccredited educational institutions, whose compilers have already satisfied criteria #1-3 for us, due to the various legal hoops they as state departments need to jump through. I added "<ref>[http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/a-am.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx]</ref>" to the end of the entry for AUoL. Bam, done. It took me a couple of minutes. --Dynaflow babble 15:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

group by country?

Could we group this list per country? I feel it would be beneficial as Wikipedians and readers can then zoom in on their own countries. John Vandenberg 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would seem to be a no-brainer. Grouping by country would also allow to distinguish between similarly-named institutions. We should also list other distinguishing characteristics (city, programs offered) that might better identify schools, especially where articles have been deleted or don't exist. Alansohn 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, the problem with breaking them down by country is whether we break down by origin, or region the institution has campus in. e.g. should Greenwich University be listed in Australia, or both Australia and United States of America, due to claims of a Hawaii campus (unsourced). John Vandenberg 04:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Norfolk and Greenwich lost the battle and Greenwich had to leave Norfolk. Anyway, another issue with breaking the list down by country is that unaccredited institutions aren't always clear about their location. This could be solved by having an unknown category. Regards, Bill Huffman 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit War over Esoteric Theological Seminary & University of Esoterica

Our twenty-year old alternative spirituality organization is the victim of a stalker named *****, an ex-military anti-government survivalist author who also poses as *******. You can see him at work posing as "********" on the edit history pages of the Diploma Mill article and the List of Unaccredited Institutions article (and on other Wikipedia article histories, see below).

One editor mentioned a document from the State of Michigan as a reference for listing our school Esoteric Theological Seminary and University of Esoterica (separately) in this list of unaccredited schools. ********* is the one who wrote to Michigan (and Oregon and Maine) and got us put on their list in the first place! But we grant only *religious* degrees as allowed by state law in 28 states, including our state as listed here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm ******* aka ******** or one of his other sock puppets, listed us twice in this very short list of unaccredited institutions. We are in the E's as Esoteric Theological Seminary and again under the U's as University of Esoterica. We are one institution with one website, http://northernway.org , yet are listed separately, thus twice. We grant fewer than 18 degrees per year, all of them religious degrees with clear religious modifiers in their titles as outlined by our state statute for unaccredited RELIGIOUS degrees.

Maybe the List of Unaccredited Institutions article should mention that some schools on this list are unaccredited, or as some term it, non-accredited, and using the religious exemption offered by 28 states for religious schools. The reader my wish to see http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm from the state of Connecticut which lists all the state statutes allowing unaccredited / non-accredited religious schools to legally grant degrees as long as they are RELIGIOUS only, not academic degrees. I don't think our tiny religious degree granting institution should be included in this article's list just because we are unaccredited, when hundreds of Bible Colleges, Seminaries and other unaccredited religious schools are not listed. Listing us, a tiny school that got on the bad side of an Internet stalker, opens up a floodgate then of the hundreds of religious exempt institutions also on Oregon, Maine and Michigan's lists (which the article cites).

The man bad-mouthing us, ****** / ******** , actually got a diploma, a Th.D. degree from another unaccredited religious-only degree granting institution called the Interfaith Seminary located http://www.i-f-s.org/ They proudly (like us) proclaim right on their website's homepage they are unaccredited, and have no intention of ever pursuing accredidation, which requires submission to government entanglements, gov't oversight, the paying of large fees. When ******* first added us to these Wikipedia pages, we added his online alma mater, the Interfaith Seminary, to the list of unaccredited institutions article. But he removed that entry and put us right back in. This is truly an edit war, and quite pathetic. I apologize for you being dragged into it. This guy has dragged the Better Business Bureau in too, not to mention badmouthing us all over the internet. We have "won" every round with the Better Business Bureau and gotten some of his libelous webpages removed. But not the Geocities page, they just don't seem to be paying attention, even though his modus operendi is libel -- he mischaracterizes state laws about diploma mills to apply to schools such as ours that fall under the religious exemption.

We had a page telling our side of the story but have since removed it per agreement with the individual in question.

Sincerely,

Rev. Katia Romanoff—Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiaRoma (talk • contribs) 15:27, June 17, 2007

I think that an addition to the list and the accompanying article outlining the situation wherein religious institutions award religious degrees without accreditation would be most welcome. I think the "unaccredited by choice but still a good institution and not fraudulent" angle is not covered well or at all in our current articles. The difficulty has been, in my experience, the lack of sources supporting an assertion that we know to be true: some institutions choose not to pursue accreditation yet are "good" institutions that make their choice for what they believe to be sound reasons and with no intention or history of deception or fraud. In other words, there is a third category of institutions between "accredited" and "diploma mill" into which a handful of institutions fall. If you can provide some additional sources to support this general position without focusing too heavily on your one institution, I'd be happy to help incorporate the material where appropriate.

However, I do maintain that your institution should remain on this particular list as it does appear to be unaccredited. The correct approach is what I have outlined above: ensure that "unaccredited" is not equated with "diploma mill." --ElKevbo 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• We've laid out a clear standard: To be listed, 1) a school has to grant degrees 2) AND not be accredited AND 3) have reliable sources for both 1 AND 2. Diploma mills belong elsewhere. Alansohn 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of institutions that are not accredited. "Unaccredited" is not the same thing as "operating illegally." Many religion-based colleges and universities proudly proclaim their lack of accreditation. They belong on this list, along with diploma mills, apparently legitimate schools that have been unable to get accreditation or have lost their accreditation, and schools that have not sought accreditation for reasons other than religious faith. It's pretty clear that the "Esoterica" school or schools is/are unaccredited (the state of Michigan lists both "University of Esoterica - Frederick, Maryland" and "University of Esoterica and the Esoteric Theological Seminary – Granbury, Texas" as unaccredited), so they belong on the list.

BTW, I disagree with Alansohn's theory that diploma mills do not belong on this list. You are setting a very high bar if you insist that Wikipedia editors must be able to determine whether an unaccredited entity that claims to be an educational institution and claims to grant degrees is actually an educational institution that has granted degrees. Anyway, diploma mills issue "degrees", too.--orlady 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why not limit the confusion by putting them in separate sections? --JJay 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Differenting between unaccredited and diploma mills is impossible on Wikipedia for the following reasons.

• No original research is allowed.
• There is no globally accepted definition of diploma mill.
• The evaluation of whether or not something's a diploma mill is subjective.
• You would just be begging for lawsuits from everyone.

Have fun, Bill Huffman 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The man who originally kept posting our University of Esoterica here, the same one who wrote to Michigan, Oregon and Maine to get us put on their list so as to have something "official" to cite, has finally come to an agreement with us. Whew, it was quite a battle. Thank you guys for your comments and helpful attitude. ElKevbo I think you are right, if we are going to include religious schools who exempt from the requirement of accredidation -- it is not that they lack accrediting as the article states, but they are exempt from it and many if not most are unaccredited by choice. It is only fair to add a line saying something like, Some of the schools on this list are religious institutions with 501c3 tax-exempt status from the IRS, and incorporated non-profits that do not grant post-secondary academic degrees, rather only religious degrees as allowed by their state statutes. The Connecticut study done in Jan 2007 listing the state statutes for religious degree-granting exemption from accredidation could then be cited as reference, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm along with a similar list of religious exemption states on Oregon's website, http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/religious_exempt.aspx .

Another line of content might read, Religious institutions that grant only religious degrees, never academic ones, are exempt from accredidation requirements in 28 states. A few of such institutions appear in the list below. This does not imply they are a diploma mill, nor that their religious-only degrees are issued illegally since they are in keeping with all appropriate state laws. Unaccredited in the case of a religious school operating in compliance with its state laws, does not mean illegal or fraudulent, just exempt. As Bill said, evaluating a diploma mill is subjective, and as ElKevbo said, there are institutions between accredited and diploma mill. You mentioned it being a handful, ElKevbo, but if you look at the Oregon link above you'll see a dozen just in their state. 28 states have an average of say, a dozen religious exempt degree-granting institutions, that comes to a rather hefty number. We have written to Michigan, Oregon and Maine, and have asked our former critic who "reported" us to them to do so as part of our agreement to resolve our dispute with him. We hope they will correct their mistake of putting us on the list based on information quoted from an email sent by our detractor, an email stating that we were not authorized in Texas. They took that to mean we were automatically unaccredited, but rather we are religiously exempt. Still, technically that means unaccredited, so these guys might want to leave us on their list. Alas, that's the confusion of it all. The waters are further muddied (or diluted?!) in your list of borderline fraudulent schools who issue academic degrees by the presence of schools who are not fraudulent, not even close, and issue only religious degrees. Our presence on the list, like a nice house in a bad neighborhood, may actually bring up the real estate value of the other schools, make someone who reads this list think, oh, some of these schools are perfectly legal, I don't understand why they are warning me, the unaccredited school I'm interested could be one of the legal ones, so I'm off to send some money to a diploma mill. Or something like that. Hah. Now let's see if my brandnew Wikipedia skills will manage to sign this post! Four tildes, right? Here goes. KatiaRoma 04:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the following from the article:

(legally grants exclusively religious degrees as per the religious exemption offered in 28 states<ref>Connecticut Office of Legislative Research, [http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm List of 28 States Exemptions for Religious Colleges]</ref><ref name="Oregon religious">Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, [http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/religious_exempt.aspx List of States with Religious Exemptions in the United States-Dec 2006]</ref>)

The cited sources indicate only that some states do not require licensing for purely religious institutions operating in those states. I could not find any indication other than KatiaRoma's assertions here to support the notion that Esoterica's degrees are covered by these exemptions. Even if they are, there is no particular reason to mention this for Esoterica, but not any other religious school.--orlady 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying religious exemption IS necessary

Not necessary you say, ElKevbo?, and casually do a revert moments after I added a one-liner and two state websites as reference... Here's why we think it IS necessary to add that short descriptive line after our school's name. A man with an axe to grind against our legitimate religious degree-granting institution lied to the States of Michigan, Oregon and Maine by email telling them we were illegally operating from Texas when we are not. They, gov't bureaucrats or clerks added us to their lists without demanding he prove his statements. Just when are governments always right? Haven't they been known to make mistakes? (My husband said, "And oh, the government's always right!") The same man added us to this Wikipedia article that lists unaccredited institutions but has diploma mills right in the midst of the list. Our twenty-year-old religious school has granted degrees to among other professionals with verified degrees, attorneys and CPA's, many of which checked the state code before applying to our programs. Our religious-only school is listed now next to the University of Berkley(!) and schools with one-liners after their names saying things like, "associated with fake medical school", "operating illegally" and "degree mill". And you say it is NOT NECESSARY for us to add a small truthful one-liner after our name, reading, "Grants only religious degrees, operates legally as per the religious exemption offered in 28 states." Accompanying said one-liner I cited TWO references, one to the Oregon state website and one to the Connecticut state website, both listing states that offer the religious exemption from accredidation for religious schools. It is okay to add one-liners after school names calling them fake, not authorized, operating illegally, yet not okay to add a one-liner stating our school IS operating legally? Uh guys, that's a doublestandard, a bias toward the negative. That allows and promotes the insinuation of fraud and degree mill upon schools who are merely unaccredited. By not allowing mention of our legality, you are clearly implying taint upon our good name by forcing us to remain in a list which includes numerous ILLEGAL and disreputable institutions. We think it is indeed necessary to add that clarification and for goodnessake, I cited two state websites for reference. It was hard work getting it just right, by the way. Don't giggle, but this is my first time as a Wikipedia editor. I'm gettin' the hang of it. And there you went and did a revert so flippantly. Harumph. KatiaRoma 05:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the institution accredited? If not, and we can locate reliable sources, it belongs on this list. No additional "but we don't need accreditation!" is necessary with respect to particular institutions. There's nothing inherently wrong with not being accredited so the disclaimers are unnecessary. If the institution doesn't want to be listed as unaccredited then, well, it should gain accreditation or discontinue awarding degrees. Please don't confuse this list with a list of diploma mills (although there would necessarily be significant overlap). --ElKevbo 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, with all due respect you are missing the pertinent point here. The institution is not unaccredited, it is EXEMPT from accredidation. Big difference -- and one this article is avoiding. You have not located reliable sources saying the University of Esoteric is unaccredited. Innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the editor who puts an institution on this list, not one who removes it with good reason. The two sources you cite which supposedly "prove" the University of Esoterica is unaccredited are state lists of unaccredited ACADEMIC degree granting institutions. We inaccurately appeared on their lists when someone gave them false evidence that we were granting academic degrees from the state of Texas. We have informed those states, none of which we operate in, that we are not unaccredited, but are exempt from accredidation as per the statutes of the state where we operate from. It is taking the state gov't clerks/bureaucrats time to remove us from their online published lists, despite our frequent emails to them(!), but we are on them inaccurately due to an act of libel. Hardly a "reliable source".

You say, "is the institution accredited? If not...it belongs on this list." But yet the article states at the very beginning this is a list of institutions that are not just unaccredited, but unaccredited by a recognized accrediting agency, AND are also institutions that grant post-secondary degrees. We grant only religious degrees, and very very few of them at that. You say if we don't seek accredidation we should cease granting degrees to our ordained ministers just because we don't want to be on this Wikipedia article's list? We are not fundamentalist Christians, by the way, but esoteric interfaith, multi-faith, alternative ministers from various traditions - think DaVinci Code gnostic alternative spirituality, not Wicca or neo-pagan. The Christian accrediting agencies will not accredit us because we don't follow their party line. The University of Esoterica http://northernway.org chooses to remain unaccredited rather than compromise our religious beliefs and cow-towing to the "church authorities." Academic accrediting institutions won't accredit us because we don't grant academic degrees! We grant only religious degrees and are exempt from accredidation. If we sought accredidation, and we don't, there is not yet in existence an accrediting agency that would accredit us. Yet you condescendingly advise, "then, well, it should gain accredidation". I submit the University of Esoterica does not belong on this list, a list that you claim should not be confused with a list of diploma mills, but a list that nevertheless lists diploma mills. Rationalizing it with the word overlap is not sufficient. We belong on a list of institutions that are unaccredited by choice, or exempt from accredidation. We do NOT belong on a list containing diploma mills or unaccredited academic institutions UNLESS a clarifying phrase is added next to our school's name, just as other schools have phrases after their names, stating we are legal. Is there some ban on the words operating legally when you have the words operating illegally? Again, double standard. Bias. Deliberate insinuation. I am going to remove our school's name until you can prove we are unaccredited as opposed to exempt from accredidation. The article's motivation and unbiased encyclopedic nature would not be suspect if there were any other religious schools on the list like us -- we alone are unique, none of our dozens of comrades are here. No other schools operating legally and exempt from accredidation are listed here. Ergo we do not belong on this list. Furthermore, the article does not state this list also contains schools that grant post-secondary non-academic religious degrees, nor does it state this list contains schools unaccredited by choice, nor does it state this list contains schools exempt from accredidation under the religious exemption offered in 21 states in 2005 (per Oregon's list) and 28 states in 2007 (per Connecticut's list). The University of Esoterica is on this list in error, based on unreliable, unverified sources. Please write to Michigan and Oregon if you insist on citing them to force us to remain on this list, and ask them if we are granting academic unaccredited degrees. They cannot verify such a thing because we are not doing that, we are exempt from accrediation, as I have stated numerous times and you have failed to address. You say, "No additional "but we don't need accredidation!" is necessary, mischaracterizing my argument, putting words in my mouth, and even insinuating I am being shrill by adding hyperbole with that exclamation mark. I have never stated nor implied, "but we don't need accredidation!", whilst your "it is not necessary" to advise the Wikipedia reader an institution is operating legally, and "then, well, it should gain accredidation" insinuate a bias toward accredited schools and against unaccredited ones. KatiaRoma 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious institutions are not exempt from accreditation; they are exempt from government licensing requirements in many jurisdictions, and a small fraction of religious institutions refuse to participate in the voluntary accreditation processes that the vast majority of higher-education institutions participate in. I believe the general idea is that the government has no interest in regulating providers of religious instruction. However, a person who receives a degree in a secular field from an unaccredited religious institution may have trouble using that degree due to the institution's lack of accreditation.

This is a list of unaccredited institutions, not a list of illegal institutions (although some of the institutions on the list are not operating legally). Unfortunately, when the truth squad removed from this list all institutions for which this article did not cite a source, a large number of the casualties were institutions that have articles and that clearly acknowledge their lack of accreditation, such as Knoxville College, Barber-Scotia College, and Pensacola Christian College.--orlady 13:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

KatiaRoma, the University Esoterica is referenced as unaccredited by the states of Michigan and Oregon. It is being disruptive to try and fight the inclusion of your school on the list as long as the school is on the Oregon or Michigan list. I suggest that you have three choices in getting your school taken off the list here on Wikipedia. One, get accreditation for your school (perhaps TRACS accreditation?). Two, get both Michigan and Oregon to remove your school from their list. Three, get Wikipedia to delete this whole article. I really can't imagine that your current attempts at edit warring will ever be successful. All it will do is bring more attention to more editors that apparently someone with a conflict of interest is trying to corrupt WP:NPOV policy. Another choice might be to write a Wikipedia article about your school but I caution you that once an article is created there will be other editors (like me) that will make sure that the WP:NPOV policy is strictly followed. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and listing of our options. Unfortunately TRACS http://tracs.org absolutely will not consider accrediting us because as they state on their website, they are for strictly Christian schools, maintaining true Christian standards. There are no accrediting agencies for gnostic, esoteric or alternative Christian schools like ours. We have written to Oregon and Michigan, but they are taking their time removing us from their lists. I agree with Dynaflow and others that this list can never be exhaustive, is not really encyclopedic, the definition of diploma mill is subjective, the term unaccredited has become pejorative, creates an artificial orthodoxy among editors, etc. The article needs clarifying or deleting. It is irresponsible and biased to ignore the religious exemption granted by more than half the United States, and growing. Up to 28 states in January from 21 in December. This article overstresses the diploma mill angle of "unaccredited", violating WP:NPOV policy when it does not even address the issue of schools included in it as being unaccredited by choice. It violates WP:NPOV when it fails to distinguish between post-secondary academic and religious degree granting, and in short is a confusing mess. It is less a warning to a reader seeking information about a "school" about to con him, and more of an indictment list for any schools unfortunate enough to be listed here. The negative taint of being associated with these horrid schools we all want folks to not be deceived by, amounts to defamation. And not being allowed to add modifiers that this school operates legally, when other editors add modifiers saying a school is operating illegally or in one new case a school is approved by the state it resides in, also violates WP:NPOV. Even schools like our University of Esoterica on this page by error -- due to an act of libel and outright misrepresentation to the State agencies for the purpose of defamation by internet -- are "not allowed" to be removed from the list. You say my efforts will never be successful, and you are probably right. But I wonder why. Because of fear of edit warring accusations. That seems to me authoritative and artificial orthodoxy. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Yet I have provided evidence sourced from two state agencies, Connecticut and Oregon. It's as though editors demand our school supply evidence and discovery showing we are operating legally and exempt from accredidation. That's backwards. It should be the person adding us to this list that is required to research whether we belong here. We also do not wish to pursue accredidation, ironically cannot pursue it because there is no agency that can provide it due to the uniqueness of our religious beliefs. Don't wanna write an article about our school either. Whew, no way. One of our alumni, a German psychologist who received a religious degree from us, did just that for de.wikipedia and it was attacked and deleted by other editors immediately. I told him not to worry about it, we don't need to be in Wikipedia, we are a small school with only a handful of ministers graduating per year, don't need to run with the big boys. KatiaRoma 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. This is an article with a list of unaccreditted schools, not a list of diploma mills. This list includes schools that are legally exempt from accreditation requirements due to a religious exemption, as long as the school is unaccreditted. Schools on this list are not being defamed as long as they are unaccredited. This list includes great schools that are not accredited. Although I personally don't know of any schools that might fall into that category since Bob Jones University became accredited. I'm sorry that the German article was attacked. Kind regards, Bill Huffman 23:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge missing

After the edit war, we see again that truth is the first casualty. Namely, the list of diploma mill criteria has been removed — as it was necessary — but the material in it has not been merged to the correct target article Diploma mill. --Vuo 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then be WP:BOLD and merge it. It's all in the revision history. --Dynaflow babble 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for another trial by fire?

I've been taking another look at the original rationales that defeated this list's first AfD in late 2005. Wikipedia's standards are always evolving, and this list's survival seems to have been the product of a different era in Wikipedia's history. An example of what was said in the article's defense: "Watching for links here turning blue is actually a useful way to monitor the creation of new articles on diploma mills, provided they are in the list to begin with; if the creator is particularly clumsy, he will also try to remove the name from the list." And this one: "Very interesting page."

Wikipedia is not a dashboard, and using "interesting" as a criterion for inclusion is more in line with Encyclopedia Dramatica's standards than with Wikipedia's.

There are a few major problems I have noticed with this article:

1. It is not exhaustive and in all likelihood can never be, and a "List of some unaccredited institutions of higher education" will never be truly encyclopedic.
2. As has been pointed out, this list seems to drift very close to being original research. This perception is occurring primarily because the list is original research, synthesizing a new nugget of knowledge -- which disqualifies it from inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:OR, one of the three core content tenets.
3. With the myriad jurisdictions around the world with their own standards for accreditation, creating this list necessitates taking one point of view, whether it be from the US state lists of unaccredited institutions, the British government listings or what have you. One jurisdiction or set of jurisdictions' standards will hve to be taken as canonical. This inherently grates againstWP:NPOV -- which makes it two of the three core content tenets this list runs afoul of. It also traps the list's maintainers in the strict, arbitrary logic they make up amongst themselves (ourselves, rather), and that kind of self-created othodoxy will regularly lead to problems, whether it be labeling the Esalen Institute as an unaccredited college, getting into the fracas above over a religious school, etc.
4. Whether we want to admit it or not, we know that "unaccredited institution" is used primarily as a pejorative term in everyday parlance, and we are labeling all institutions swept up onto this list as such, the diploma mills that fake their accreditation and religious schools which publicly resist accreditation alike. This fact alone makes the list worse than useless to what I suppose was its original intended audience: people trying to figure out if they're being scammed by a rip-off school or by somebody wielding a dodgy credential. What other purpose would this list have, besides being "neat" and a good indicator of red links turning blue?

I want to propose that this article be taken to AfD so that the community can decide on its merits, but I would like everyone else here's input before I start putting up templates. Does anyone have any ideas on how this list can be saved, how it can be made truly encyclopedic and in line with the spirit of Wikipedia's core values (utility is not one of them)? I'm at a loss. --Dynaflow babble 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite difficult to be objective here for the reasons elucidated above. Some of the more well-known and verified diploma mills can be listed as examples in the Diploma mills article. - Bob K 10:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. This list wants to be List of diploma mills, but there's no neutral, accepted definition of "diploma mill". Unfortunately, there's no good universal standard for identifying a "institution of higher learning", either. Or a good definition of "accreditation". — mholland (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know that List of diploma mills redirected to this article. This is certainly quite inaccurate as some of the schools listed here are actively seeking accreditation and in some jurisdictions, official accreditation may not exist for certain disciplines (ie. Christian theology in a Muslim majority country, or Islamic syariah in a non-Muslim majority country) hence resulting in institutions providing such instruction to set up peer bodies to accredit their qualifications. Under the somewhat US-centric criteria applied in this article, these schools would probably be listed as unaccredited in this list and their accreditation bodies being listed as Accreditation mills. - Bob K 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I've nominated both of those redirects for deletion. I should hope my reasons for doing so are obvious to everyone. If not, I'll be happy to explain. --ElKevbo 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Fake Colleges redirects here, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=list+of+unaccredited&go=Go shows the following articles that redirect to this article:

• List of Fake Colleges
• List of Diploma Mills
• List of Alleged Diploma Mills
• Non-accredited Universities (non-accredited as opposed to unaccredited)

Several of our church board members discussed this today in the office. It is astonishing (yes, very ouch ElKevbo) that religious schools fighting to keep autonomy from state and church authorities, eligible for religious exemption in over half of the United States, can be listed on Wikipedia under Fake Colleges and Diploma Mills. I wonder if List of Degree Mills redirects here, too. I also wonder if the other schools on this list who are legitimate and actively seeking accredidation as BobK says above know how their school's name is being mischaracterized. This list is an indictment of any school on it. --KatiaRoma 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, you may vote here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_diploma_mills_.E2.86.92_List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning Bill Huffman 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not vote but add your voice to the discussions. Also add your voice to these discussions, too. --ElKevbo 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the usefulness and appropriateness of this list is dubious. Is there already an "Unaccredited institution of higher learning" category to which we can add those institutions that have Wikipedia articles? I don't know if that answers the central questions or simply displaces them (from a list to a cat) but for some reason that appeals to me more than this list. --ElKevbo 13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning exists, with two included subcategories. Unfortunately, a category list does not easily accommodate institutional name changes (which are particularly frequent among diploma mills, but also are somewhat common among small, struggling, unaccredited schools). Also, over time, many articles for some unaccredited institutions (primarily, but not exclusively, diploma mills and alleged diploma mills) have been deleted with the argument that they are nonnotable (often the deletion nomination supported this by pointing out that they are "unaccredited") and could be listed in this List instead.--orlady 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why your second issue is a problem. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists or a directory.

A major part of the problem is a history of circular reasoning by Wikipedians. Lack of accreditation and the existence of this list have been primary reasons given for deleting articles for unaccredited institutions. Now we are talking about deleting this list because many of the entries lack separate articles.--orlady 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your first issue: Can we list a redirect in a category? Or could we create short articles about the old names (we should be providing evidence that they are indeed linked to the "current" or newer names) and leave them at that? --ElKevbo 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article has little value outside the Wikepedia editor community. If someone wants to look up a school then they should either find an article or nothing. The only value I see for the general community is if someone was as strange as me, I like to read articles about unaccredited institutions. I assume that my interest is so unique that it doesn't really warrant an article. I would vote for deletion should it be brought to a vote. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever the final disposition of this list, schools that lack articles should be removed. That is standard practice for most lists. If a school can't justify an article than there is no purpose in listing it here. --JJay 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. If that is the standard practice for most lists, than by all means, can we please allow us to remove our religious school. We lack an article. We don't belong. KatiaRoma 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that yes to removing all schools without an article but no to removing a specific school simply because it doesn't have an article. I think that it would be better to remove the whole article though. Regards, Bill Huffman 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So be it. It's now at AfD. The link is on the main page. --Dynaflow babble 04:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I argued for deletion. Today I experienced the best argument for the article remaining. Interestingly enough this argument was not ever mentioned at the AfD discussion. So I am once again convinced in the value and collective wisdom of the majority that argued for this article to remain in Wikipedia. Here's a hint at what I'm talking about. [1] Thank you all. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

split or refine criteria

Recently it has been pointed out that unaccredited religious institutions are a very different kettle of fish to the other types of unaccredited higher ed institions. I think there is value in having a list of of this kind (more on that in the following talk section), but I would not want to see this list filled with religious institutions: most people dont put a lot of weight on a religious degree listed on a CV unless it is from a very notable institution, or it is relevant to the employment in which case the employer is probably going to want to read a _lot_ of information about the institution before employing them anyway.

So, are there any objections to excluding religious institutions from this list? Are there any religious institutions on this list that fit into the classic diploma mill mold?

It is inherently difficult to take this route. There are known instances of diploma mills taking advantage of religious exemption to operate, enough to warrant proposals for greater scrutiny and regulation ^[2]. There are also religious institutes that claim legitimacy despite being accredited from dubious jurisdictions; ie. Millenium International University that claims to be licensed by the micronation, Principality of Hutt River, to confer bachelor, master & doctoral degree programs through distance learning. A blanket removal of all religious institutions would also not be accurate and serve to validate such dubious institutions by virtue of their omission. IMHO, this article needs to be re-done from scratch with very clear guidelines set up. That is why I support the AfD. This seems to be best way to go in order to force a reboot of this testy subject matter. - Bob K 09:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BobK makes good points. Additionally, note that (1) the exemptions are often not recognized outside of the jurisdiction where the institution is exempt and (2) the vast majority of religious institutions are accredited. --orlady 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not recognized in other jurisdictions? 28 states offer the religious exemption. A religious degree-granting institution becomes exempt from the accredidation requirement in the state where the school physically resides. Exempt schools don't then go around to all other states and try to get their exemption "recognized" in "other jurisdictions." I think there is a complete misunderstanding of the definition of religious exemption from accredidation, licensure, approval etc. for religious institutions, Bible colleges, seminaries. See this Connecticut report from their Office of Legislative Research done in 2007 that lists the state statutes in all 28 states granting the religious exemption. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm Read carefully the first two paragraphs which mention the exemption applies to accredidation as well as to licensure or approval according to the states' specific laws.

Furthermore, don't underestimate how many religious schools are unaccredited, non-accredited, exempt from it, however you want to term it. Each of the 28 states has an average of a dozen exempt schools. Religious schools are non-accredited either by choice and/or using the exemption or because there is no accrediting agency that will review them (TRACS is a kind of joke among other spiritual schools including Judaic and Muslim institutions who had to create their own accrediting agencies. Then there is the new wave of "metaphysical", esoteric gnostic alternative spirituality schools like our University of Esoterica & Christian Mystery School http://www.northernway.org ). --KatiaRoma 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has voted for deletion or to keep the article. vote here Bill Huffman 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Please contribute to the discussion. --ElKevbo 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving the list

I agree with the sentiment that we should only include entries for institutions that are notable enough to have an article. The resulting question is why have a list when a category would suffice. I think that a list is appropriate because it provides a summary of many articles, and it is easier to watch one list to keep on top of hack jobs and whitewashing. Perhaps some of this could be addressed with a portal or project (suggestions welcome), but I would like to throw around some idea's on how to make this list into a useful summary. Usually, good lists are a table that include additional important details. For starters, here are a few columns I propose we add to this list:

• Year of establishment
• Year of destablishment
• Reason for destablishment
• Year of accreditation (if that has occurred)
• Area's of study
• No. of diploma's issued per year
• Geographical regions were government action prevents the institution from operating

Of course, those details would all need to be sourced appropriately. John Vandenberg 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revisit basis for limiting the list to institutions that grant degrees

The text at the beginning of the article currently says "Institutions that appear on this list are those that grant post-secondary degrees but are listed as unaccredited by a reliable source." I believe that the limitation to schools that grant degrees is intended to bias the list toward schools that operate illegally (i.e., diploma mills). Recently, though, I have come across a couple schools that are unaccredited but do not grant "degrees" -- and that I think belong on any comprehensive list of unaccredited higher education institutions. Trump University is clearly in the higher education business, but apparently has decided it can do this most successfully by remaining outside academia. Elim Bible Institute (article was deleted earlier, but I'm working on a well-sourced, content-rich replacement, after finding that this school has an interesting history) avoids issuing "degrees" by giving out "certificates" and "diplomas," but a lot of people call themselves "graduates" of this school. I think the list article should not be restricted to schools that grant degrees.--orlady 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick, philosphical question: If a school does not have degree programs, why would it matter if their (non-existent) degree programs are accredited by the bodies tasked with accrediting degree programs? We are back to the Esalen Institute discussion, having come full circle without going anywhere. --Dynaflow babble 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that any school that does not award degrees either has a nonexistent program or is (like Esalen) not in the college/university business. Not so. Read Elim Bible Institute and look at its website -- the school clearly functions as a college in every respect except the awarding of degrees. It enrolls young people as students in one-, two-, and three-year programs from which they "graduate" with "certificates" or "diplomas." That technicality allows them to avoid legal problems, but I think it should not prevent them from being treated here as an unaccredited institution of higher learning.--orlady 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)