Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Latest attempt to remodel this article

Now that it's been a couple of weeks since the article survived its second AfD, I suppose it was inevitable that someone would make a unilateral decision to eviscerate it once again. I reverted ElKevBo's removal of all institutions that do not currently have articles. If people want to make radical changes like that, at a minimum, let's discuss them first.

I note an unacceptable degree of circular reasoning in the arguments of the Wikipedians who are determined to delete this article or remove most of its contents. Note that many of those schools had articles at one time, but the articles were deleted with the rationale (in part) that the schools are on this list. Further note that just a few weeks ago, many schools (including schools with well-sourced articles) were removed from this list because the list did not separately cite sources indicating that the schools are unaccredited. Shortly thereafter, we saw proposals to delete the article, for reasons that included the fact that it list only a small fraction of unaccredited institutions. If I did not assume good faith, I might have to conclude that some of the editors who continually propose deletion of articles about unaccredited institutions are themselves affiliated with diploma mills.

EkKevbo, I remind you of the comments that Prodego made to you at User talk:ElKevbo#List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning:

This list (we must remember this is a list, not a true article) contains information that while not conventionally obtained, still has its value. We do have articles on many of these institutions, and as a central source to find them all, this list is useful. ...The discussion indicates a want for this resource.

As Bill Huffman discovered and reported recently, this list has real value within Wikipedia, as well as in the real world. Let's work together to build it and improve the article base regarding unaccredited institutions, not work against each other by dismantling one another's work on a regular basis. --orlady 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BRV, my friend. I don't take offense when my work is reverted by upstanding and well-meaning editors such as yourself who consistently work with other editors and explain your rationale.

I'm sorry if you perceive there to be circular or faulty reasoning at work in relation to this article. I trust that I am not one of those who is suspected of employing such reasoning. !Voting to delete an article because an institution is listed here would indeed be faulty reasoning, IMHO, and I hope that editors and administrators have been and are discounting such !votes in XfD discussions.

I am glad that you are continuing to assume good faith. I have no desire to white wash this list. I'd be happy to discuss my own upstanding credentials with you or anyone else via e-mail if that's really a concern. My primary concern here is and has been the state of this list and how easily and quickly it veers towards OR or other infractions.

Finally, the issue at hand: It's standard practice in Wikipedia for lists, particularly those with a high probability of growing very large, to be limited to those items with already-existing Wikipedia articles (which itself a proxy for notability). See, for example, List of social networking websites or the various Lists of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. --ElKevbo 01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with ElKevbo on some other seemingly unrelated articles and I will eagerly vouch for his Wikipedia editting skill, dedication, concern for producing fine articles and improving Wikipedia. He is also a delight to work with. My opinion is that we should allow institutions without Wikipedia articles in the list. The reasons are:

• I fear people not finding an institution on this list could be misinterpretted to mean that it might be accredited. Which could cause real harm.
• The length of this list doesn't carry the same negatives IMHO as the examples of lists given by ElKevbo.
• An institution without an article might flush out academic frauds POVing at Wikipedia at least as well as institutions with articles.
• Orlady wants it that way and she's worked hard on this list and I respect and appreciate that.

Have fun, Bill Huffman 04:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SMILE. I don't have any reason to believe that ElKevbo is trying to protect unaccredited institutions, but want others to recognize that hostility to these articles has had the effect of suppressing sourced information about the diploma mills and substandard academic institutions. I appreciate hearing the reasoning regarding lists in Wikipedia. To the contrary, many of the lists I have encountered here have red entries for items that clearly fit the listing criteria, but are not necessarily "notable" by WP standards. I understand their inclusion in lists as serving the purposes of providing (1) factual encyclopedic information (albeit limited) and (2) placeholders for possible future articles. Examples: List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (huge list), List of reservoirs and dams in the United States, Lighthouses in the United States, and even List of traffic circles in New Jersey. I see this list much the same way, although with the highly unusual requirement that every element on the list must separately cite a source.--orlady 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad commentary on the state of lists that this one is viewed as "unusual" for enforcing the requirement that entries be supported by references. :( --ElKevbo 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Source

Is Dr. Jihad: The crusading life of Islam ‘expert’ Robert Morey (page 1) a source suitable for an encyclopedia to establish that an institution is unaccredited? The editorial is not on accrediation, it is a diatriabe that mentions Bob Morey claims a non-esistent degree from Louisiana Baptist University. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headdream (talk • contribs) 04:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The article is not about accreditation, but it supports the fact stated in the article. The second page of the online version of the article says "Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies." Later it says "When told LBU offers no program in Islamic studies, Morrey corrected himself and said his doctorate is in theology, with an emphasis on Islam. He’s the first and only student to receive such a degree from the school." (emphasis added)--orlady 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: as a source for an encyclopedia, how reliable are such tangential assertions when they are part of a harangue on Robert Morey, and not on accredidation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headdream (talk • contribs) 04:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I just found LBU's own admission that they are not accredited, and added it to the references. I left the other source (see above), but really would rather it be replaced with something more on topic and less questionable (see below). Headdream 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The importance of wikipedia

It looks as though the government of South Korea is using this wikipedia article to decide degrees it will reject.[1]. Either that, or it is a hoax. The .com makes me think it could be a hoax. Headdream 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The link you pointed to says that they are a private job placement company that places English teachers in South Korean schools. They don't claim to be part of the government. Regards, Bill Huffman 06:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, WAUC is probably the most famous non-wonderful accreditation agency there ever was. Maxine Asher is the self proclaimed leading world expert on the lost continent of Atlantis [2] and uses WAUC to accredit her own non-wonderful school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Huffman (talk • contribs) 06:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC). TallMagic 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Texas Supreme Court Ruled Religious Schools Exempt, 28 Other States do also

This was big news on August 31, 2007 and the week following. I see this article is still not up to date on the landmark victory for religious schools to be able to grant religious degrees -- not academic ones -- without secular accrediting. Our school and other Texas seminaries were still listed in this article even though the Texas State website removed us after the Supreme Court's decision that requiring schools who grant only religious degrees to be accredited via a State's higher education accrediting board violates the First Amendment.

The Houston Chronicle reported: Court: Texas law intrudes on religious freedom AP, via the Houston Chronicle, USA Aug. 31, 2007 Kelley Shannon http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5099314.html

AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions today and ruled that state restrictions on what unaccredited religious institutions can call themselves and their education training violate the First Amendment.

The court said banning an institution like the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth from using the term “seminary” in its name violates the Constitution.

Three religious organizations waged the legal fight. Tyndale, one of the schools, was cited in 1998 for violating a law that requires seminaries to be accredited and prevents unaccredited institutions from awarding degrees. It was fined $173,000 by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute represented the schools and argued before the court in 2005 that the state has no business regulating how pastors are trained.

State law requires institutions to meet certain standards if they call themselves a college, university or seminary. The court ruled that the law as it pertains to seminaries intrudes upon religious freedom.

“This decision is a huge victory for all seminaries not only in Texas but nationwide,” said Kelly Shackelford, the institute chief counsel. “Seminaries are going to now be free to be seminaries … The shackles are off.”

The case is not about secular teaching and degrees, but about purely theological education, he said. Shackelford said the ruling means the plaintiffs can try to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in the case.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office represented the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and told the court that the state law aims not to regulate religion but only the quality of post-secondary education in Texas.

The law was written to crack down on degree mills that issue certificates but require little or no coursework.

The Attorney General’s Office had no immediate comment on the ruling. Stephanie Elsea, spokeswoman for the Higher Education Coordinating Board, said the ruling could have “far-reaching'’ implications but that the board would withhold further comment until it has time to review the entire decision.

Under the law, the Tyndale seminary, operated by HEB Ministries Inc., was fined for issuing 34 degrees without the coordinating board’s approval.

Tyndale was founded in the early 1990s to offer biblical education for those entering the ministry in churches and missions. By 1999 it had a small campus and enrollment of 300 to 350 students, with most of those taking correspondence courses, the court opinion states.

The Southern Bible Institute in Dallas and the Hispanic Bible Institute in San Antonio joined in the suit seeking to overturn the fines and the law.

For those of you well versed in legalese, here is the complete TX Supreme Court Decision of Aug 31, 3007, explaining how requiring religious schools to be accredited by the state violates the First Amendment of the US Constituion (aka "the establishment clause")

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2007/aug/030995.pdf

It's time this article removed religious schools UNLESS they are illegally granting secular or academic degrees such as the Bible colleges not removed from Texas' Higher Education website.

Remember that 28 states and now Texas makes 29 states, offer the religious exemption from the accreditig process. This List article's Main Article on Unaccredited Institutions explains that when it rightly says certain religious schools specifically choose NOT to be accredited or to even entertain the concept. Schools such as ours with IRS 501c3 status and Degree Granting Authority (DGA) from our state do not belong in lists that are 98% fraudulent diploma mills -- as we argued with Wikipedia editors on this very page back in June of this year. See above section on Esoteric Theological Seminary.

Here is the Connecticut State website that gives the list of 28 States offering the religious exemption: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm

It is libelous to keep religious schools with legal degree granting authority in their states (DGA) listed with illegal diploma mills on Wikipedia. We work hard and don't deserve the taint just because we are not academically accredited. Of course we are not, we are not an academic institution, but a religious one. We do not grant academic degrees, only religious degrees and those are only granted to OUR OWN ordained ministers of our legally incorporated non-profit church. In our case, we grant less than 20 degrees per year, yet because of a disgruntled former minister, ended up on this Wikipedia list article. Our alumni are not happy with being listed here and organizations like the South Korean one mentioned above in Talk, copying this webpage and preserving it elsewhere on the Internet. It makes sense to include unaccredited religious schools that really aren't religious schools but just hiding behind religion, using the name Seminary or Bible College to be able to grant academic degrees. But only if they are illegally granting academic degrees. No school should on here if it is LEGALLY granting religious degrees and is non-accredited by choice and via religious exemption. KatiaRoma 05:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo I see you immediately did an Undo on my edit, with the remark: I fail to see what impact that decision has on whether or not an institution is accredited; please discuss in Talk) I am discussing it in talk and I am perplexed as to why you insist on singling our small school out and insist on keeping us in this small Wikipedia article when we are unaccredited not only by choice, but also because there is no accrediting agency who will even entertain accrediting us due to our unorthodox theology! It is persecution, I say. Did you even read the TX Supreme Court's decision before immediately performing an Undo? with your remark of "failing to see" how the decision had an impact? Are you a lawyer who can interpret that Supreme Court decision in a matter of minutes? It took me hours to read it over and the Texas Board of Higher Education took days to read it, interpret it, and decide that it does say the First Amendment of the US Constitution is violated by requiring Seminaries and religious schools to submit to the state's accrediting requirements. THAT is the IMPACT the decision has on whether or not an institution is accredited! That decision impacts religious schools as does other common sense factors such as: 1. when an institution is not offering academic degrees in higher education, but rather only offers religious degrees to legally ordained ministers. 2. a school is EXEMPT from the accrediting process due to the religious exemption, 3. a school has legal degree granting authority

If you persist in singling us out, and Tyndale, then why don't you list all of these religious schools who are unaccredited by choice http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=offering+unaccredited+religious+degrees&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Why are none of the above schools on your list? Are you going to make me add each and every one of them just as the slanderous libelous ex-minister of our church added us back in June? He got us on your list and now you won't remove us. Let's see if schools like Cherry Hill Seminary (a pagan seminary) and Interfaith Theological Seminary (similar to our school) appreciate being listed on Wikipedia along with diploma mills. Tyndale and all schools granting religious degrees need to be contacted and told there are Wikipedia editors who INSIST on associating them fraudulent institutions. Just last week a blogger totally unknown to us used your list as "proof" to condemn us as illegal and fraudulent. I am tempted to remove us from your list again, but will instead put the parenthetical clause back that I think Orlady removed months ago, that we are legally granting religious degrees. Tyndale needs to come and add the link to the Supreme Court decision and remove the 2003 link you persist in leaving up of Christianity Today's 2003 article describing the huge fine Texas slapped onto Tyndale. The fine was overthrown, put up the NEW news articles, the 2007 ones as I included above that vindicated Tyndale. Other seminaries on this list, including all the ones from the google search I may end up having to add, will have to come here and add parentheticals that they are unaccredited yes, but BY CHOICE and by religious exemption are actually non-accredited, not unaccredited. If flooded with other religious degree granting schools like ours your list will no longer serve to help students trying to avoid academic degree scams, but will look like a list of religious schools unaccredited because they aren't fundamentalist Christian that happens to have a few fraudulent diploma mills mixed in. There are dozens of schools like ours, dozens. They proclaim themselves unaccredited right on their own websites, so we can reference their unaccredited status to meet Wikipedia standards. I have a bigger list than the quick google search above. If you do not stop singling us out and insisting we stay on your list, I will be forced to add them all. Those numerous unaccredited religiou degree-granting schools along with ours appearing in this Wikipedia list article will dilute the whole purpose of your Wikipedia article. Or do I misunderstand your purpose? Are you here to annoy religious degree granting schools, make us suffer the taint of being lumped in with diploma mills without so much as an explanatory sentence to that effect? Or are you here to warn potential students about "ordering an academic degree" from an unaccredited institution posing as a legit school? If the latter, it doesn't make any sense to leave us and all the other religious schools in. KatiaRoma 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Your" institution is unaccredited. End of story. If you have reliable sources to support adding other institutions to this list then you are welcome to do so.

This is not a list of diploma mills or "bad" schools. It's simply a list of unaccredited institutions. --ElKevbo 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

KatiaRoma, it really is as simple as ElKevbo says, if an institution is unaccredited then it belongs on the list. The list is admittedly incomplete and if you know of a reliable source that identifies other unaccredited institutions then it would be appreciated if you added them to the list as well. TallMagic 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, fine. True, true, we are indeed unaccredited, "end of story" as you say ElKevbo. We "belong" on this list. Then at least allow us the courtesy afforded the Calvary Chapel Bible College's entry in this article which states, "This institution's website states: We are not accredited, nor are we seeking accredidation so as to be free from outside control and remain open to the leading of the Holy Spirit." Our institution's website states almost the exact same thing sans the Holy Spirit part. I will compile that list with reliable citations as you suggest would be appreciated, TallMagic. Will take me a few days, but it's worth it to show that there are so many good schools unaccredited by choice. I think there needs to be two Wikipedia articles for Lists of Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. One for those who are indeed "institutions of higher learning" and one for those like us and other seminaries who are "institutions of religious learning" granting only religious degrees. But y'all disagree so fine, fine, consensus rules, let's just make it fair and include the dozens of other unaccredited Bible colleges and Seminaries. Maine, Texas, Oregon and Michigan's lists already contain a bunch of religious schools that you don't list here. Y'all are slackin' and that's what makes institutions like ours feel singled out. And well, we know for a fact we were singled out because it was one of our former ministers who "reported" us here and then when you editors told him he must have references to prove we were unaccredited he wrote to all three states and got us added to their lists. It's kinda funny in a way and we would not mind a bit if it weren't for all those "illegal" and "diploma mill" words on this same page with our institution's name and 20 year reputation. Alumni will just have to send those who criticize or question their degrees to read this here Talk page and decide for themselves if being on this List with illegal schools taints us as a diploma mill or not. Once we get all the other religious schools on here it will look more like a list of seminaries who choose not to be accredited than unaccredited academic schools anyway, so hopefully the taint will be way diluted. And by adding other schools we can avoid breaking your black and white rule of "either Accredited or Unaccredited no inbetween." Inbetween would be non-accredited by choice, or exempt from the accrediting requirement due to the religious exemption. Speaking of the religious exemption from the licensing and accrediting process in 29 states... At the beginning of this article you state that just because an institution is not on this list does not mean it is okay, does not mean it is accredited. You are trying to avoid proof by absence. So maybe a line should be added that just because an institution IS on this list does not mean they don't qualify for accredidation or are trying to hide the fact they are unaccredited. The point should be made that many schools on this list such as religious degree-granting institutions specifically choose NOT to be accredited, so seeing them on this list should not be used as proof they are substandard or unqualified, just as not seeing a school on this list doesn't prove it is good and safe. KatiaRoma 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A fraud in Wikipedia?

This list is in fact an "non accredited list of unaccredited institutions" of higher education. As I was black listed by talk magic, I justed wanted to add as a precaution stating that the list is not legally binding. The source is mostly an obscure office of the State of Oregon, which have no jurisdiction on the other 49 US states and on the whole world. I insist that this reality should be clearly stated for the image and seriousness of Wikipedia. Also offending words and non documented libelous allegations should be removed. I noticed in the list that the author include one university cited by the State of Oregon but not listed by the Michigan and maine list. It proves really that this list is misleading and biased.

Hoping that "talk magic" and others would prevent me to go to higher level of the institution to complain about it, as I like wikipedia when it is fair..and scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerovital1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Gerovital1's references to "talk magic" was meant to refer to me, TallMagic. Although I really don't understand the reference to being "black listed". Regarding the allegation that this is a Oregon only list, I also don't understand. The article is a list of unaccredited schools. Wikipedia only requires one reliable source that is verifiable to indicate that a school is unaccredited. Gerovital1, if you think that the Oregon ODA has errored in identifying an unaccredited institution then please specify which institution it is and provide a reliable source that is verifiable to contradict the Oregon ODA and then the institution will be removed from the list with all due haste. TallMagic 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Gerovital1, I've asked you this before, please add new topics to new sections at the bottom of the talk page and please sign you comments by putting four tildes at the end of your comment, i.e., (~~~~) Thank you, TallMagic 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be Added: Religious Exemption from Accreditation is a fact in 30 States

This article currently states: "Due to the dynamic nature of many unaccredited institutions, there can never be a complete list of unaccredited institutions. Therefore one cannot draw conclusions regarding the status of an institution based on not finding it in this list." I propose adding the following two sentences with two government website citations/references.

Just as the absence of an institution from this list should not imply anything about its status, so also the presence of an institution on this list should not lead to any conclusions about the status of its accreditation or lack thereof. For example, many religious colleges and seminaries are unaccredited by choice and/or are legally exempt from licensing and accreditation as allowed by thirty of the fifty United States, twenty-eight of which are listed in this state government report.

I will wait for some input from other editors before adding these two sourced sentences. This article also states, "Revisions and sourced additions are welcome." This is my idea for a clarifying short revision, and I have a list of 20 institutions (and growing) of sourced additions that can be added. Most of the schools I am adding are technically not unaccredited but are exempt from accreditation in their various states. Some editors here have decided that exempt from accreditation equals unaccredited. That definition is being "enforced" here even though the State of Oregon's website, whom editors of this article source repeatedly, uses the exact phrase, "Religious Exempt Schools" on said website. As I contemplate adding all these Bible Colleges and Seminaries that confer unaccredited degrees, doing to them what was done to us (cause them to appear on a webpage with fraudulent degree-granters) I am reminded again of the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia List articles should only contain items on them which also have Wikipedia articles of their own. This proves their notability. All the red colored institutions on this list were once removed by you ElKevbo per this policy, but put back by Orlady. It is discussed above in Talk this past June, yet no real consensus was reached, rather the conclusion seems to have been inconclusive. Our religious-only-degrees institution, the University of Esoterica, does not have a Wikipedia article, yet appears on this List article. In June of this year one of our alumni in Germany put up a short factual non-opinionated Wikipedia article on our school. It was quickly attacked by other Wikipedia editors and removed within 24 hours. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't -- and forced to adhere to an unyielding black and white "letter of the law" more kin with fundamentalist fanaticism than the open-minded liberalistic consensus-driven Wikipedia. KatiaRoma 04:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said myriad times on many talk pages related to unaccredited institutions, and is said on many article pages, educational accreditation and government licensing are not the same thing (although they are admittedly equivalent in some jurisdictions, not including the United States). Accordingly, the fact that some unaccredited institutions enjoy religious exemptions from government licensing does not change the fact that the institutions are unaccredited. Saying that some unaccredited institutions have state licenses (or are exempt from licensing) is equivalent to saying that some uninsured drivers have driver's licenses (or are exempt from the requirements to have photos on their licenses) -- the situations are related, but they are not equivalent.--Orlady 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orlady, this is semantics methinks. Mincing words. If I added the word "requirement" into the title of this Talk page sub-section, it would end the confusion and show that I am not conflating accreditation with licensing. Thus we get, "Should be Added: Religious Exemption from Accreditation Requirement is a fact in 30 States". There is no conflation, I understand the difference between educational accreditation and government licensing to grant degrees. In two of the states our school operates from (and in several of the 28 states listed in the Connecticut website report on Exempt schools), we are exempt by law from the requirement to become accredited because we are a registered non-profit church with IRS 501c3 status. The Connecticut report is very clear and detailed, even lists the state statutes for each state offering the exemption. I do not think it is a falsehood to state we and many other schools are exempt from accreditation per the laws in our various states. Look at the history of accreditation in the USA. No school would become accredited, pay the exorbitant fees, deal with constant threat of loss of accreditation, unless the state required them to do so. Religious schools are exempt from that educational accreditation requirement in 30 states. It's a fact. KatiaRoma 07:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not "semantics." These are terms with specific meanings in a legal context, and they do not mean the same thing. (Compare "marriage" and "civil union" -- another example of two terms that have similar meanings but are distinctly different under the law.) You say you understand the difference between educational accreditation and government licensing to grant degrees. Accordingly, I am sure you have noticed that the Connecticut list is of exemptions from the higher education licensing process. Terms such as "accreditation" and "accredited" appear on that page only in a couple of very specific contexts. Specifically, that page says that (1) Connecticut (which does not exempt religious institutions from its process) defines "accreditation" as the authorization by the state board to confer specified degrees; (2) Missouri exempts nonprofit religious schools from its licensing process if (A) they are accredited by a national or regional accrediting association or (B) are owned and operated by a religious organization and offer/grant no programs/degrees/certificates other than those specifically designated as theological, bible, divinity or other religious designation; (3) South Dakota requires accreditation except for religious institutions that offers credits or degrees solely for the purpose of conferring status or authority within that religion; and (4) West Virginia treats pre-accreditation status with a faith-based accreditor as one of several acceptable bases for granting legal authorization to a faith-based school. Based solely on this list (which, I hasten to point out, does not actually provide the full text of each state's requirements), it appears that only two (Missouri and South Dakota) normally require accreditation but exempt religious schools from this requirement. --Orlady 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orlady wrote above, 'Compare "marriage" and "civil union" -- another example of two terms that have similar meanings but are distinctly different under the law.' I am glad you use that analogy because hopefully it will help you see my point that "religious degree" and "academic degree" are two terms with similar meanings but distinctly different under the law. You cannot continue ignoring the "religious exemption" and "freedom of religion" of churches to grant unaccredited degrees. Some are not required to be accredited, some are licensed by their state to grant degrees while being exempt from the accrediting requirement, some are neither required to be licensed nor accredited, others are required to be both. Whatever the case, a distinction and explanation must be made the moment you list religious degree granters along with academic degree granters and discuss their accreditation, lack thereof, or choice not to participate therein. KatiaRoma 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As for religious schools that lack accreditation, please add them, if you can supply reference citations that clearly support the statement that they are unaccredited (the basic qualification for this list) and offer degrees (a criterion that somehow got included in the charter for this article). I have personally listed many unaccredited Bible colleges here (examples of this type include: Calvary Chapel Bible College, Crown College (Tennessee), Hyles-Anderson College, Pensacola Christian College, Pensacola Bible Institute, West Coast Baptist College) as well as schools that had accreditation but lost it due to financial difficulties (examples: Barber-Scotia College, Knoxville College), but I find that it is often difficult to find reliably sourced affirmative statements to the effect that a particular religious school is unaccredited. Also, some unaccredited schools (example: Elim Bible Institute) are not on this list because they do not grant "degrees."

As I understand it, red links are OK on a list like this one because the sourced inclusion of a particular school on the list provides information (even in the absence of a separate article) and helps to identify articles that may need to be created in the future. (Note: As indicated to me most recently in the "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_13 , lack of accreditation equates to lack of notability in the minds of many Wikipedia contributors.) --Orlady 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, KatiaRoma. I note that this article is primarily a list. It is not intended to also be an article. The main article that should be referenced for further explanation of this list is mentioned at the beginning of the list, i.e., Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. I note that in the lead paragraph of that article it makes a statement similar to the statement that you propose adding to the list article. In addition I moved the School accreditation hyperlink to the top of "See Also" section because that has this section School_accreditation#Unaccredited_institutions which also makes mention of information similar to your proposed statement. I hope that this reduces your concern. TallMagic 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Being licensed to operate or not as well as being exempt from a license requirement or being exempt from an accreditation requirement does not mean that an institution doesn't belong on a list that simply means the institution is unaccredited. TallMagic 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The conversation and editting that you mention that included ElKevbo and Orlady is a classical Wikipedia exchange. There are very few hard set rules on Wikipedia. Wikipedians want to make the best Wikipedia that we can which gives us a common goal. Getting to that ideal goal involves many such exchanges. It is admirable that you've researched your position and read past history but one shouldn't read too much into any one such exchange. I sincerely thank you again for your thoughts, your reasoned logical arguments, and encourage you to add to the list if you have the proper sources to support those additions. TallMagic 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response, TallMagic. I do indeed have proper sources to support my additions and have added six schools already tonight. 'Tis painstaking, but it's going along well. Thank you to Orlady for pointing out how to make our reference citations more pleasing to the eye. <laugh> And she reminded me to add the date of publication. Those schools I have added are only the ones in Oregon -- and I am not finished, there are even more Oregon schools to be added. And that's just one state. Oh, I added one New York school tonight. The Florida list has dozens. There are five Bible colleges just in the Central Florida region that I can think of off the top of my head from when I lived there years ago. Not looking forward to that State's list. And then there are the long lists sourced by Texas, Maine, Michigan -- those are the easy states that publish lists of unaccredited Bible colleges, seminaries and degree-granting religious institutions. The other states have lists, too, but they are not as easy to retrieve. I will have to call them and get 'em faxed or emailed, but it is public record, so they will do it. Now that I am into this and got our Registrar to help me, we are realizing there may a hundred religious degree-granting unaccredited schools we can properly source and add to this list! This is going to take days, maybe a week, but hey, it's kinda fun and for a worthy cause to show that there is no stigma in being unaccredited or earning an unaccredited degree.-- KatiaRoma 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ended up adding a total of 23 unaccredited religious degree-granting schools, all sourced / referenced by reliable sources, most of them Oregon state's website. Am calling it quits for now. Maybe more tommorrow. KatiaRoma 09:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I next added 40 more seminaries, religious degree-granting institutions that are unaccredited by choice for a total of 60 schools added to this list. I have a couple dozen or so more to add yet. Been busy the past two weeks and haven't gotten to it yet. Right now the list is roughly 40 percent religious degree granters and 60 percent academic religious degree granters (some of the latter of which are illegally granting degrees or are diploma mills). The religious schools usually are legal in their states, granting legal unaccredited religious degrees. I was thinking if it got to 50 / 50 we should consider splitting the list into one for institutions (Bible colleges, seminaries, religious universities) who remain unaccredited for religious reasons and grant degrees legally, and the current list remain for institutions that grant academic degrees -- even if they "hide" behind a religious name. If they are granting academic degrees illegally using a religious type of name such as Seminary and are thus unaccredited not by choice or due to religous convictions, they should indeed stay on this list. In my opinion, seminaries, Bible colleges, or religious institutions that legally confer ONLY religious degrees and NO academic degrees, such as the institution I direct, should be on this list because they muddy the waters and draw attention away from the list's original intent and purpose which seems to be to warn the unsuspecting consumer of unaccredited schools that might take their money for nothing. Reading the above Talk page (long one!), I see that some editors of this page seemed to think there weren't that many religious schools legally granting post-secondary religious degrees that remain unaccredited by choice or because no accrediting agency exists that will approve them. I think the 60 schools I've added correct that misperception. There are alot of Bible Colleges and alternative Seminaries (like ours) out here legally granting degrees only to our trained ordained ministers, and we don't like being lumped in with diploma mills simply because we are technically "unaccredited" and so too are all diploma mills. If an institution chooses not to be accredited and can legally do so in their state and grants only religious degrees, it is a different animal from the others on this list who grant academic degrees and are unaccredited not because they are religious but because they CANNOT get accreditation, lost their accreditation and in some cases because they are diploma mills or otherwise granting illegal degrees. My belief is that religious degree granters with legal status in their states -- most of which are very un-notable, names are in red because there is no Wikipedia article about them -- should be removed, or put into a separate newly created list accurately explaining them. The waters are too muddied by their presence in this article. --KatiaRoma 06:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your specific proposal to add the two sentences, I don't really have a big problem with it. What do others think? TallMagic 05:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

KatiaRoma, thank you so much for your contributions to Wikipedia. As I mentioned above last October, I don't have a problem adding a sentence or two to try and better characterize what the list is about and include reference to religious exemptions in there. I'm concerned about trying to break the list apart into two lists because it will be extremely difficult finding reliable sources for all those institutions to support your proposed demarcation between the two lists. Thanks again, TallMagic 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I added a statement in the beginning about religious exemptions. If anyone is interested it may be discussed further here. TallMagic 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited that statement, making it into a more emphatic cross-reference to Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. If the list article provides incomplete information about the circumstances surrounding the unaccredited status of certain U.S. schools, it begs for the addition of more information in the same vein, and what's to keep it from growing to include a replica of Unaccredited institutions of higher learning? (FTR, that other article started out as part of this one, but was split into a separate article back in June.)

FWIW, I'm not fully satisfied with the wording of my edited sentence. --Orlady 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your improvement. Good job, TallMagic 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually liked TallMagic's sentence better before you edited it, Orlady. You deleted her reference to religious institutions not having accreditation by choice. I would like to put her sentence back in, but am discussing it here. I did add the word "may" into your (current) sentence, Orlady since you said you weren't quite happy with it. Thought about adding the word "certain" in front of institutions, but don't know. As long as we are deleting clarifying statements about religious exemptions, don't you think we should delete this sentence about the name choices of institutions?: "Several unaccredited universities have names chosen because they are similar to those of accredited institutions or falsely imply that it is a public university." It is an odd sentence that doesn't fit and seems strained. --KatiaRoma (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi KatiaRoma, the reason I liked Orlady's change better than my original was that it was more general and applied to more general circumstances while sufficiently warning the reader, IMHO, about the issue that we were discussing. TallMagic (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased Methods of Deciding Whether a School Belongs on this List or Not

On 20 October 2007 Orlady made the following two edits: (Converted Success Seminary to a hidden comment. Only Ghits on it are "unaccredited lists." No point in merely replicating those lists with entries that have no independent value.) 20 October 2007 Orlady (remove Promis (I'm uncomfortable listing a school on the Oregon list unless there's some other info about it somewhere); consolidated several reference callouts)

By that criteria we can convert University of Esoterica to a hidden comment as well since the only Google hits on it are also the lists of unaccredited schools – Oregon, Maine, Michigan and this very article. The website of the Esoteric Interfaith Church, Inc. comes up in a Google Search for University of Esoterica because they are who created the University of Esoterica, but it isn’t a direct google hit since the phrase University of Esoterica no longer appears on any website but the lists of unaccredited schools. Success Seminary also generates another Google hit with BreyerState.com online degree program where one can “design” their own degree. Success Seminary appears as unaccredited on the Oregon, Maine, Texas and Michigan lists. You say Success Seminary has no independent value based on its Google hits and perhaps the fact that it doesn’t have its own website (Univ of Esoterica doesn’t have its own website either) yet decide University of Esoterica does have independent value and must stay in this list. We were told if a school is unaccredited it “belongs on this list,” “end of story”, yet Success Seminary gets removed/hidden just like that.-KatiaRoma 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, it's been readded. Here's the source. J 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My underlying concern is that there is no particular value to having a list in Wikipedia that merely replicates the Oregon list. (In the past, resemblance to the Oregon list -- with no additional content -- was one of things that has caused people to propose deleting this article. Also, the Oregon list is long and is always growing -- keeping up with it would be a big job, and surely Wikipedia contributors have better things to do than copy a list that is readily available on the web.) Regarding Success Seminary: Searching Google, the only information I could find about Success Seminary is "Operating illegally in Oregon, degrees invalid". That information is repeated on several websites, all apparently based on the ODA listing. The mere appearance of a name on the ODA list does not create information worthy of an encyclopedia; without any other evidence that this place exists, solicits students, or awards degrees, there's little information value in listing it here. If you found something I missed, I'll pay attention, but the State of Maine listing only mirrors the ODA listing. Regarding Promis (actually it may be called PROMIS, for "Professional Management and Interactive Skills"): The Oregon website had the most minimal of listings for this school; just "Promis University of London" and "UK and Belize". I did find a minimalist website for it (http://www.promis-university.com/), listing addresses in London and Koblenz, Germany (not Belize) and I found a promotional page for one faculty member at http://www.xing.com/profile/KlausPeter_Dreykorn. I was left feeling that I don't know enough about this institution to make any statements about it in a Wikipedia article. (Note: The similarly-named Promis Clinic in the UK appears legitimate.) If someone wants to look up its accreditation status, they should have no trouble finding the ODA website. --Orlady 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In summary, it comes down to whether there is enough reliably sourced information to include in an article. --Orlady 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is that I think it would be wonderful if the web editor for each of the states with a list would automatically add new entries to the state list to this Wikipedia list as well. It will never be a complete list but it seems that one verifiable and reliable source is all that is required to allow an institution entry into the list. TallMagic 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I fear that your philosophy is likely to collide with WP:NOT, which says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If the only information we have about a particular institution is that its name appears on the Oregon list (and may or may not be replicated on other state lists), when we include it in this article it seems to me we are creating an indiscriminate collection of information. If all we have is a name and location from the Oregon list, plus a minimal website that uses the same name but lists a different location, I contend that we don't actually have any information suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Orlady 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be a clear cut off. Either the list contains only institutions that have a Wikipedia article about them or the list contains only institutions that have a reliable source for their unaccredited status. In between is a gray area that I think will just cause endless debate. Unless we can come up with a better way to define where in the gray area do we draw the line? TallMagic 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has re-added Promis University of London. They have a website now, so I guess there's some value in having their name on this list. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be sure what evidence we are claiming in order to include an institution to this list... Alexpappas01 01:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Swedish reference

If anyone can read Swedish, this may be informative: http://web2.hsv.se/publikationer/rapporter/2005/0525R.pdf --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning&action=edit# —

More unsourced assertions removed

I expect to add to this list

• American University of Biblical Studies, “partnered with” Trinity Christian Academy, Decatur & Atlanta, Georgia, India.

Neither source confirms that either school is unaccredited.

• University of Natural Health, 1929 Spillway Road, Suite B Brandon, MS 39047, USA. Also called Natural Health College

Certainly appears to be unaccredited, but this is not reliably sourced.

--Orlady (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Atlantic Baptist Bible College, Chester, Virginia.
• Baptist College of America & Seminary, Kokomo, Indiana. Part of Independent Baptist Bible College Movement. Website and catalog state, “We believe in the loyalty to country and government and the separation of church and state.”

These are definitely Bible colleges; nothing suggests that they are accredited, but there is no source for lack of accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady has been selectively removing entries of American institutions from this list. Kindly do not do this. Either remove all unsourced and undocumented entries in one go, or let the list remain. No partial tampering is admissible The Hermes (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Christian College (sourced to Maine's list)

With a generic name and no other info, there's not enough here to make the list entry informative. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Greenleaf University missing from this list?Kalos53 (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Orlady and Selective Removal of Entries

Orlady has been selectively removing entries of American institutions from this list. Kindly do not do this. Either remove all unsourced and undocumented entries in one go, or let the list remain. No partial tampering is admissible The Hermes (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Punjab Technical University

The approval/accreditation status of this school is disputed. Its listing in this article was sourced to the Indian UGC fake universities list. Since it does not currently appear on that list, it should not be listed in the article. Furthermore, http://www.education.nic.in/collegedir/collegedir.asp appears to indicate that it is an approved university in India. Apparently some contributors believe it is unapproved. What is the basis for this? --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PTU, is an accredited University is India. It had applied with UGC to be listed as a Centre of Excellence, which was subsequently rejected. (Source http://ugc.ac.in/). This might have prompted some to believe that PTU is not accredited. Shovon (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That explanation makes sense. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Striken due to conflict

I used <strike> on Kentucky Christian University because the article states it is accredited. I won't remove it from the list because it is sourced, but someone should look at it. And whatever other ones are striken. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. It's been accredited by SACS for the last 24 years [3]. How the hell did it end up on this list? I'm removing it entirely. --Dynaflow babble 04:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it a bit further, there seem to be two entities using the Kentucky Christian University name, one unaccredited one (per the Maine list) in Ashland and an accredited one (which the Maine list misidentifies as "Kentucky Christian College") in Grayson. The wikilink points to the legit school's article. --Dynaflow babble 04:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So the unaccredited one should be on the list too. Does the list need a special section for ambiguously names institutions? Or merely a footnote? 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional entities to add to the list, if sources are found

Westminster International Varsity and Corporation of Executives and Administrators, located in Whetstone, London, England - WIV ffers life experience degrees. WIV website claims that "Varsity" is an informal traditional short name for "University", but fails to point out that use of the word "university" is restricted under UK law. Claims to be "registered as Limited by Shares with Liability in Great Britain" and "recognised and accepted by European Professional Bodies, Training Institutions and Employers Internationally". Also affiliated with European Continental University of Delaware and UK Commission for Consistent Learning (an alleged accreditor), apparently all at the same address. World Information Distributed University and Commonwealth Open University apparently claim accreditation from the UK Commission for Consistent Learning. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

California Graduate Institute

California Graduate Institute has merged with the Chicago school, and now has its accreditation. I've removed it from the article. --Duncan (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

American Pacific University

American Pacific University is no longer in the ODA list of unaccredited institutions. TallMagic (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's not. The DETC website confirms that the school was accredited in January 2009. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed London College for Higher Education from list

I just now removed the following:

• London College for Higher Education.

Refs cited are college's website and LTD registration UK, founded in 2004.

I think it's pretty evident that they aren't accredited, but neither of these sources explicitly says "unaccredited." The accreditation page on their website (click on the link in the website menu) lists several non-accreditation recognitions and says they are "undergoing state accreditation procedure by the Ministry of Education in South America." (Gosh, I must need more education! I never knew that South America was a country!)

I hope that a source can be found for this one. --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Quinn College

I'm adding Paul Quinn College since it lost its accredidation. The article referenced in the Paul Quinn College Wikipedia page should be good enough.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

European University

I have deleted European University from this list, European University is accredited by ACBSP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored European University, at the least until further discussion takes place. The accrediting body, ACBSP, is empowered to accredit individual programs, not institutions as a whole (it is a CHEA Programmatic Accrediting Organization only). Robertissimo (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In August of 1992, ACBSP was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a specialized accreditation agency for business education. That recognition continued through April, 1996, when the Department of Education changed its policies to recognize only those agencies that impacted the distribution of federal funding. To fill the resulting void for a national body to recognize accrediting agencies, the Council for Higher Education (CHEA) was created in 1996. The CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation is: Degree programs in business and business-related fields at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the CHEA Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of the CHEA Committee on Recognition regarding the recommendation and recognized the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, this information from the ACBSP website doesn't make a great deal of sense - it is as "clear as mud" - when it comes to clarifying European University's accreditation status. However, as I've said on my talk page, I will give you the benefit of the doubt but other editors with more expert knowledge in this field may need more information and convincing. Afterwriting (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If ACBSP accredits only the programs, and not the Institutions, why is there a need to visit four (4) European University campuses?

If you check the website ACBSP under accredited list, they have listed four (4) EU campuses.

The programs are the same in all the campuses, there is no need to visit all of them, time consuming and money wasting.

It took 5+ years for this process to be concluded, now it is time to give them credit. In 2010. two more accrediting bodys are making a final decision on this University, so far news are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

ACBSP checks programs and also checks and visits Institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this debate. If you check ACBSP website here: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_025about&stpg=141 You can clearly see the TITLE: Current ACBSP Educational Institution Members It’s about Institutions. Then there are columns: TYPE (what type of degree Institution offers) ACCREDITED (Current status, Yes, No, Candidacy). It cannot be clearer, European University is accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowandflow (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The "debate" is because the European University has only very recently been accredited by the ACBSP and it was / is not entirely clear to everyone whether ACBSP was recognised by CHEA. According to the CHEA website it is but it is still not entirely clear whether the European University is actually accredited as an entity or just some of its courses are accredited. The ACBSP website is particularly poorly designed and includes lots of vague waffle which doesn't help to clarify the situation adequately beyond doubt. It may be clear to you but it certainly isn't so obviously clear to others. ( I took the liberty of removing the HTML line breaks from your comments as it's unecessary and makes the text too complicated ). Afterwriting (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that European University is now accredited -- at least sufficiently accredited that it no longer belongs on this list. The institution only offers business programs, so its business-school programmatic accreditation presumably covers all of its programs. However, I would not go so far as to call it an "accredited university" due to the apparent absence of recognition from government authorities in countries where it operates. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that removing EU from the list is probably the best course. Details about ACBSP accreditation and what it may mean should not be a concern of this list. It should instead be covered in the EU article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for understanding. I have done a lot more research on this University, and I have new findings. I will type here only short as this is not the place, detailed research I will post on European University talk. European University has an actual accreditation that is valid all over Europe Union from 2008. till 2014. Accreditation Link: http://www.nvao.net/assessed-programme/detail/2359 (This is a governmental accrediting body in European Union). Detailed explanation will be posted in European University page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion...?

I would like to echo the call at the top of this page, for discussion of just what this article is supposed to encompass. Specifically, there being a number of different forms of "accreditation" or "recognition," what exactly are we using for this page? And how can we ensure consistency across international borders?

For example, Atlantic University in Virginia Beach is not regionally accredited, but "nationally" accredited (by the Distance Education and Training Council). Granting that this is not as good, at least this does carry some advantages, and the DETC is recognized by the US Dept of Education for certain limited purposes. Should they be on the list or not? What about schools with licensure (permission to do business) from U.S. states? Isn't that a sort of government recognition? (Regional accreditation, remember, is not governmental at all, but comes from private consortia of universities.)

In many countries (e.g. South Africa), there is no such thing as "accreditation," but universities receive some sort of charter. In others (e.g., Congo), there are no meaningful laws governing the recognition of universities and their degrees. How can we compare schools operating under such widely-differing conditions? I don't think we can--it would be more appropriate to separate the entries by country or region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.204.116 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view, trying to separate by region would be a big mistake. Many unaccredited institutions frequently hop around from one jurisdiction to another. Making their placement in such a regional list difficult. DETC is generally accepted as accreditation. What is required for inclusion in the list is a reliable source saying that the place is unaccredited. So for example, if you had a reliable source that claimed that Atlantic University was unaccredited then it could theoretically be placed on the list. However, if there was a more recent reliable source that said Atlantic University was accredited then it would be removed from the list. See wp:V. TallMagic (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with your approach: (a) What if sources can be found saying both? (b) What if sources lie or mislead, as often happens? (c) What if the college is located in a region whose educational system does not have the concept of "accreditation"? Dawud (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not MY approach. It is the Wikipedia approach. I suggest that your theoretical "hitches" in the Wikipedia approach would simply be addressed on a case by case basis. There are over 3 million articles in the English Wikipedia. These type of theoretical "hitches" happen all the time and can be resolved by following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TallMagic (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, lack of "accreditation" can be loosely considered to refer to lack of the approval status that the cognizant governmental authorities recognize as sufficient for the awarding of academic degrees. As TallMagic points out, Wikipedia contributors don't decide what qualifies as "accreditation" -- we rely on other sources to indicate that a school lacks accreditation, but we do need to understand the ground rules on what is deemed to constitute "accreditation".

In the United States the term means "accreditation" from an entity that the US Dept of Education or CHEA recognizes as a higher-education accreditor, including DETC and other "national" accreditors in addition to regional accreditors. (Also, the State of New York is a recognized accreditor, but a state license to operate an educational institution is not considered to be "accreditation.") In many jurisdictions the necessary would be a governmental charter or other government authorization.

There are actually many cases where an institution claims to be accredited, but third party reliable sources say that it lacks accreditation. The third-party source is considered to be more reliable in these matters than the institution's own claims. In these cases, however, we generally investigate. In almost all such cases, the identified accrediting authority turns out not be a legitimately recognized accreditor (see "List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning for some examples of unrecognized accreditors). In rare cases, we may find confirmation that the institution was recently accredited by a recognized accreditor, but is still listed as "unaccredited" by some sources that have not yet updated their information.

There are some institutions of higher education based in places that do not appear to have any governance system for higher education. Some such institutions appear on this list because an authority (such as the State of Oregon Office of Degree Authorization) has published a statement to the effect that the school lacks authority to award degrees. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Accredibase.com

Accredibase.com popped up in the introductory paragraph a few days ago. I moved it to the external references. In e-mail correspondence with them, I received the following: "Dear srich32977, Accredibase is a membership based service for corporations, law enforcement agencies and educational institutions. We do not offer personal memberships at this stage. Hope this helps, Eyal P.S Did you read our new Accredibase Report, exposing academic credential abuse? Free download from www.accredibase.com Eyal Ben Cohen Managing Director Direct line +44 1234 834667 Mobile +44 7904 308287 Email ebc@verifile.co.uk Verifile Limited Bedford i-Lab, Stannard Way Priory Business Park, Bedford MK44 3RZ, United Kingdom Tel. +44 1234 834670 Fax +44 1234 834671 Checking Facts Building Trust www.verifile.co.uk" With the above in mind, I'm going to revise the external links entry to reflect the info provided even though it is unverified. --S. Rich 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove the link of "Berne University" (USA) to the "University of Bern" (Switzerland). If you take a look at the Reference [6], the unaccredited institution is the Berne University Pennsylvania, St. Kitts, Virginia and not the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Edit request from Valdirsoares, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to be able to take the name of the Illinois Theological Seminary from this list, because its presence in this list is prejudicial and damaging to our reputation, as this article make a reference a fraud at its beginning. Although we have chosen not be accredited we are not fraudulent. So please take the name of the "Illinois Theological Seminary" of this list so we don't need to further no action against this horrible discrimination against unaccredited schools.

Valdirsoares (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done:. If the Illinois Theological Seminary is actually an unaccredited institutions of higher learning, then it belongs in this article. I'm really sorry. And, by the way, I don't think this damages your reputation, as the list contains an explanation of why you chose not to be accredited (namely, School states: “ITS is not an accredited school with any accreditation board. ITS very much cherishes...the principle of separation between Church and State.”). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.252.204.245, 14 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Pleasew withdraw the mention of Ecole Supérieure Robert de Sorbon in the liast of inaccredited request. The école suypérieure Robert de Sorbon contrary to what is written is; a registered french Institution of Higher Education with the SIREN Number E478 817 059 since 2004. With publication at the Journal Officiel of the French republic #20040039-1669 It as the right as per Title III Book VII of the Code of education to grant Degreein france. !-- End request -->

Edits, including the school's website, have been added to the entry -- including verification needed tagging. Still, the school does provide "Validation of Acquired Experience" (VAE), and is simply registered with different authorities, not accredited. The links on the school's website, with one exception, did not fulfill any claims of accreditation or registration. This school, in France or not, should remain on the list. Clarification and updating of the skeptical info on the school needs updating (and was tagged). See http://www.sorbon.fr/VAEfr.html for their VAE policy.--S. Rich 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

--S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Stickee (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.16.17.124, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Calvary Baptist Bible College in King, NC should be added to this list. http://www.cbbcs-king.com/

98.16.17.124 (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done College's disclosure on website used a reference. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed, per the result of related move request. These should have been bundled requests. Orlady (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning → List of unaccredited institutions of higher education — Please see the discussion for this and a related move at Talk:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning#Requested move. Thank you. Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Novaseminary (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment why isn't this a bundled nomination? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not bundled simply because this move was proposed a few hours after the first one. IMO, the closing administrator should treat them as a single bundled proposal. --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from 88.39.41.138, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add New Renaissance Florence International Film School in the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. This film school is under Italian Police investigation. Please contact our Italian lawyer, Alberto Chiarini at alberto.chiarini1@tin.it for details. Thank you. 88.39.41.138 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nothing I see from a internet search suggests that they are unaccredited. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ELs

I have removed the following ELs (pasted below exactly as they were in the article) because they are either not directly related to unaccedited institutions (the accreditation databases), they do not provide anything more than the list itself would, they are commercial, they are already cited as refernces, or they violate some other aspect of WP:ELNO, and generally WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If other eds feel that ELs, especially of this volume, should be included here, I propose that they all be submitted to Open Directory Project and a Template:DMOZ link be added to the to-be-created DMOZ directory.>

• Database for Accreditation in the United States (CHEA)
• Database for Accreditation in the United States (USDE)
• Database for Accreditation in the United Kingdom
• Database for Accreditation in Australia
• Database for Accreditation in India
• List of fake universities in India
• Database for Accreditation in Malaysia
• Database for Accreditation in the Netherlands
• Public Alert on Substandard Private Universities in Pakistan
• Database for Accreditation in the Philippines
• Database for Accreditation in Russia
• Database for Accreditation in Sweden
• Nordic National Recognition Information Centres
• List of worldwide accreditation resources
• List of unlawful colleges/universities in Pakistan
• List of non-accredited colleges/universities by State of Michigan
• Fraudulent or Substandard Institutions with a Texas Connection by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
• List of unacceptable/illegal schools by Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization
• List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by Maine Department of Education
• The World Higher Education Database (IAU/UNESCO) List of accredited schools throughout the world -- Link resolves to http://www.iau-aiu.net/
• The World Higher Education Database (IAU/UNESCO) -- Link resolves to http://www.iau-aiu.net/
• Warning on Bogus Claims of Accreditation/ affiliation with UNESCO
• United States Distance Learning Association list of the accreditation status of its members and affiliates
• Accredibase -- a commercial listing for diploma and accreditation verification for corporations, law enforcement, and education institutions

Novaseminary (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thought, but -- please don't encourage people to submit all those links to DMOZ.org. That plan won't work, and I fear it would add to the workload of volunteer editors there. If I thought it would work, I would go over to dmoz right now and add the content. As a very long-time senior-level volunteer in the Open Directory Project, I can testify that some of these URLs are listed there, most others would not qualify for listing there, and it would be difficult to create a category structure there for resources related to determining is an institution is accredited.

A mantra at DMOZ is that a URL should be listed in the single best category -- or possibly 2 categories, but no more than 2 categories except in rare cases. Also, the category structure there isn't necessarily aligned with the organization of Wikipedia articles. Several of the above URLs are listed in DMOZ, in "best" categories, such as http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Education/Colleges_and_Universities/Directories , http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Education/Colleges_and_Universities/Organizations/ , http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Education/Diploma_Mills/ , and http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Education/Colleges_and_Universities/North_America/United_States/ . In some other cases, a parent website, such as http://www.hsv.se/ is listed, and the specific page on the above list would be very unlikely to get listed -- DMOZ is very restrictive about listing "deeplinks" to websites. Additionally, websites that are not in English (such as a couple of these) cannot be listed in the English-language area of DMOZ. Finally, Wayback Machine links are not eligible for listing (at least one of the above links is an archive.org link to a page that is no longer online).

If Wikipedians see links on this list that you'd like to see listed at DMOZ -- and you think they are eligible according to the above criteria -- please don't submit them to DMOZ. Instead, identify them here and I'll list them if they fit there. I'd love to suggest that you apply to become an editor at dmoz, but we can't accept new editors at dmoz at the moment, while some bugs in the software are being worked out. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection, most of these wouldn't qualify for an "unaccredited institution" category on ODP even without the best category and deep linking rules (and some wouldn't qualify for quality reasons alone). Would an EL to the Diploma Mills category be worthwhile and consistent with this, or any, list? What about over at the Diploma mill article? That article's ELs are odd, and could use work, I think. As an aside, I do love how OPD categories that complement WP topics lend themselves to WP ELs thereby keeping non-reference, but high quality links readily available without turning WP into a directory (ex. Baptists). What a great resource! Novaseminary (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ODP doesn't have the resources to evaluate and classify URLs according to the legal status -- or other approval status -- of the entity it belongs to, so you will not see a category for "unaccredited" institutions there. Thus, the diploma mills category lists sites about diploma mills, but it doesn't list websites that belong to individual diploma mills.

I like your idea of connecting the Wikipedia diploma mill article with the DMOZ Diploma mills category, so I created the linkage. It turns out that the Wikipedia article was listed at DMOZ, but the title and description didn't name Wikipedia; I fixed that. But I didn't add any more links to the DMOZ category yet. An EL from this article to DMOZ would not be appropriate, as there is no appropriate category there to be linked to. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Derekhalvorson, 19 October 2010

Re: Providence Christian College 1) Please change "Ontario, California" to "Pasadena, California" [the college moved in July 2010] 2) Please change footnote 129 to read "... Providence is a candidate for accreditation with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges." 3) Please add parenthetical after "Providence Christian College, Pasadena, California": "(Est. 2005, candidate for accreditation with WASC)" Many thanks, J. Derek Halvorson President Providence Christian College Derekhalvorson (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this information? Note that the accreditation information would need to be supported by a source independent of the college, for example, by WASC. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed to pasadena, but I don't have a 3rd party source for the status change. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done by ErikHaugen. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, only the location was edited in the article. We will need a 3rd-party source before the other part of the request can be considered. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a third party source, http://registration.wascsenior.org/institutions/affiliation.aspx?accessID=1060 Zugman (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I removed Providence Christian from the list, since I believe that full candidacy status from a regional accreditor is tantamount to accreditation. (For example, it's recognized for most US gov't purposes.) If I'm misguided, please correct me. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree! I added the third party source to the Providence Christian College article. I hope that I did it correctly. Zugman (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests 12/04/10

Calamus

{{edit semi-protected}}

Re: Please add: Calamus Extention College (UK) (http://www.unicalamus.org/)

This is just another site for Calamus International University (already listed), renamed "Calamus Extension College."

Done. It's clear from the Calamus website that this is part of the same outfit. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vocalist

{{edit semi-protected}}

Re: Please add: Vocalist International Distance Learning Academy (AKA VIDLA) (UK) http://www.unicalamus.org/brochure_contemporary_voice.htm

This is Calamus International University's (already listed) online "music college." The owner has all her phony degrees in music from Calamus International University and works for them (http://www.unicalamus.org/faculty.htm).

Done. It's clear from the Calamus website that this is part of the same entity. I added it to the Calamus entry. --Orlady (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Musicians Institute

{{edit semi-protected}}

Re: Please add Musicians Intitute (AKA Musicians Institute College of Contemporary Music), Hollywood CA. (http://www.mi.edu) This is a private business. Not regionally accredited, but gives degrees.

Not done. It's accredited, according to a database look-up at http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/ --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

NASM can only accredit programs not degrees. This school gives out degrees that are unaccredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. Nobody accredits degrees. NASM accredits the program that awards the degree. The fact that the whole institution does not have separate accreditation from some other accreditation organization is not relevant. This is NOT an institution awarding degrees without recognized accreditation, AFAICT. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Degrees from Musicians Institute are not regionally accredited and not concidered accdredited degrees. There is another college, Berklee College of Music for example, that also awards degrees in music and they are regionally accredited. Again, MI's degrees are not accredited. I do this for a living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.91.74 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a list of institutions that are totally lacking in accreditation. Musicians Institute does not appear to fall in that category. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statement "nobody accredites degrees," is not true. In the United States, one of the regional accredidation bodies, depending on where the college/university is located, accredits the school and their degrees. I do this for a living, why are you not understanding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a body that accredits institutions of higher learning: www.wascweb.org . If accredited, the credits will transfer to other colleges and/or universities. The Musicians Institute is not accredited. It is a for-profit venture located in a building that was formerly an appliance store on Hollywood Blvd. It does a disservice to Wikipedia users to fail to note this. 75.83.237.237 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.224.242 (talk)

Yes, the Western Association is the regional accreditor for California, but it is not the only accreditor. The Musicians Institute is accredited, even if it lacks regional accreditation. Not having regional accreditation is not the same thing as being unaccredited. Being a for-profit school and being in a former appliance store may deter students from enrolling, but these are not indicators of being unaccredited. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

LA Music Academy

{{edit semi-protected}}

Re: Please add Los Angeles Music Academy (AKA Los Angeles Music Academy Music College) (http://www.lamusicacademy.edu/) This is a private business. Not regionally accredited, but gives degrees.

Not done. You didn't supply a source indicating that this entity is not accredited, and it doesn't appear to be true. They may not be regionally accredited, but regional accreditation is not the only form of valid accreditation, and their website claims accreditation from National Association of Schools of Music, which is a recognized accreditor for music schools. --Orlady (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

NASM can only accredit programs not degrees. This school gives out degrees that are unaccredited. Many regionally accredited music schools avoid NASM accredidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. Nobody accredits degrees. NASM accredits the program that awards the degree. The fact that the whole institution does not have separate accreditation from some other accreditation organization is not relevant. This is NOT an institution awarding degrees without recognized accreditation, AFAICT. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States, there are regional accreditation bodies that accredits schools and their degrees. WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) is tasked for accrediting schools and colleges in California. LAMA and MI are not accredited. Most accredited college and universities' music programs in the United States don't even bother with NASM. NASM has absoulty no authority to accredit degrees. Your article is very helpful for students checking to see if the school they are considering holds accreditation. Please help them out and list MI and LAMA. In the United States there is no law against unaccredited colleges and universities to exist, but there are laws, and hiring rules, against using unaccredited degrees to gain employment. And the units earned at an unaccredited school does not transfer to an accredited university. May I ask why you are against adding these two schools to your list? Like I mentioned before, this is a great resource for those students and parents checking to see if any, not just some, unaccredited schools are on the list. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unaccredited" means "no accreditation by an authorized/recognized accreditor." It does not mean "maybe it's accredited, but Wikipedia contributors consider that it's just second-class accreditation." See page 17 of http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009_2010_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf for information on the recognized scope of accreditation for the National Association of Schools of Music. Furthermore, please note that Wikipedia is not a consumer-advice guide. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you check out your link, you will see the music programs, not these "colleges" are accredited. These schools match the statement you have at the beginning of the article. Any mom and pop music school can get NASM accreditation, that does not mean their degrees or the school is an accredited college. These schools only teach music, no general education courses required for accredited dagrees. They are basicall, and legally, trade schools. If this is a legitamate article, why favor some over others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NASM's recognized scope of accreditation from CHEA is "Accreditation of institutions and units within institutions offering degree granting and/or non-degree-granting programs in music and music related disciplines." --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC

Exactly "NASM's recognized scope of accreditation from CHEA is 'Accreditation of institutions and units within institutions offering degree granting and/or non-degree-granting programs in music and music related disciplines.'" NASM can't accredit degrees. For the life of my I don't know why you can't or won't get this. A degree granted at MI or LACM holds absoultly no accreditation. Are you in the United States? Maybe this is just a subject you don't fully understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk • contribs) 14 December 2010

As a matter of fact, I am in the United States, I'm pretty sure I understand at least the rudiments of U.S. educational accreditation, and I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees from well-respected institutions that were (and still are) accredited by regional accreditors. The institutions are accredited, not my degrees. As far as I know, no U.S. accreditation agency accredits degrees -- they accredit degree-granting institutions and/or programs that lead to degrees, but they don't accredit the degrees themselves. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I too have a master's degree and it's in education. Part of accreditation is that the degrees are up to standard, and the degrees from an accredited institution are accredited. I am still fascinated that you don’t get this. And by your own standard, MI and LAMC are unaccredited. The degrees from these “mom and pop”, that is privately owned businesses that call themselves “colleges,” which are legal trade schools, are not accredited. You or I can open a school, call it a “college” and print off degrees and, with some exceptions, it is legal, but the degrees are next to worthless. And you should know that “accredited” means regional accreditation. Some professional degrees, to be “legit,” such as for example, psychology, must come from not only a regionally accredited institution, but the program must have American Psychology Association accreditation. Music is not a profession that requires a degree and accreditation from the National Association of Schools of Music is not only not needed, but most regionally accredited schools’ music programs don’t even bother with it. If you were to check out MI’s graduation rate you will find that of the 1500ish students, only about 9 graduate a year with their “bachelor’s” degree. This is an unaccredited school pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.237.237 (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you disagree with the way accreditation is defined -- and the way it works -- in the United States, since accreditation by non-regional accreditors like the DETC and TRACS is considered to be valid, plenty of for-profit schools are accredited (for example, University of Phoenix), and U.S. higher education accreditation is not limited to schools offering 4-year-plus programs. Disagreeing with reality does not justify writing encyclopedia articles that don't reflect reality, which is why your opinions are not a valid basis for Wikipedia to list accredited institutions as "unaccredited". See Higher education accreditation in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cdelafaide, 19 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove the Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon or add the following as The Ecole Superieure Robert de Sorbon a French private institution of higher education which was created in 2004 is authorized to grant degrees as per Article L-731-14 of the French code of Education. It is registered French institution of Higher education under #0862003720 with publication at the Journal Officiel de la République Française#20040039-1669

Cdelafaide (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cdelafaide, this seems to be properly sourced in the article as it is. If you think the sources being used in the article are in error then please provide a source to the contrary. Please see wp:V for what a proper source is. For something like this, a self-published source cannot be used in the article. Zugman (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.27.145.236, 24 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Additional school for listing needing to be added:

• Atlantic Coast College of the Bible and Seminary State licensed but not accredited

96.27.145.236 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC

• I think that one qualifies for the list. It appears to have a religious exemption from the state, but no accreditation. However, I have not yet found a source that includes an affirmative statement that it is unaccredited; I'm reluctant to list it until there's a source that clearly indicates that it is not accredited. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.224.23.248, 1 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Some unaccredited universities in Iraq added to the list like: Rafidain College University, and Arabian-American University.

109.224.23.248 (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sources, please. Nothing gets added to this list without a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from John, 1 January 2011

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove the link of "Berne University" (USA) to the "University of Bern" (Switzerland). If you take a look at the Reference [6], the unaccredited institution is the Berne University Pennsylvania, St. Kitts, Virginia and not the University of Bern, Switzerland.

Fixed. The page Berne University no longer redirects to University of Bern. Thanks for pointing that out. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Appear to belong on this list, but no sources yet

Both of these claim accreditation by "Education Accreditation Council of America (EACOA)" -- eacoa.org (domain registration same as for calsuni.org, described below).

• American University - auni.us // Domain registered in August 2010 to "zahid yazdanie" of Irvine, California (email is yazdanie at att-dot-net). Offers life experience degrees. Also has an online test to determine what degree you qualify for; I was tempted to see if I could get an online PhD.
• California South University - www.calsuni.org // Domain registered in September 2009 to same e-mail address as other one, but with mail address in Rawalpindi, India. Similar offers to the other school. Anon who tried to add this school to a Wikipedia list gave its location as Irvine, California. --Orlady (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tallygraft, 30 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Tallygraft (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Valor Christian College http://www.valorcollege.com/Pages/23-frequently-asked-questions

Just found out this college is not credited. People should know this. Thanks

Then how come the page says, "Valor Christian College is professionally accredited through the Association of Independent Colleges and Seminaries?" Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the "Association of Independent Christian Colleges and Seminaries" - which isn't mentioned in Google Books, and whose website says "Because of the AICCS Board of Directors' convictions in support of religious freedom, Christian liberty, and the separation of church and state, AICCS has never applied for affiliation with any federal government agency. AICCS, therefore, is not recognized by the United States Department of Education. Credits earned at any AICCS-accredited institution are accepted by all other AICCS schools, but these credits are not automatically transferable to other colleges or seminaries."

Doesn't look accredited to me. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Morris Brown College

MORRIS BROWN COLLEGE ATLANTA, GA IS IN CANDACY FOR ACCREDITATION THROUGH TRANSITIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS(TRACS)AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST IMMEDIATELY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.3.240 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, at the moment it is unaccredited and there is no guarantee it will become accredited. Once we have reliable evidence that it is properly accredited it can be removed, but as you've been told elsewhere, not until that happens. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if it is reliably verified that they are formally accepted as a "candidate" for accreditation, then they can be removed from the list, as candidacy status is legally meaningful. I have found sources indicating that MBC has reapplied to SACS (not Transnational), but nothing indicates they are a "candidate" yet. --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add some

{{edit semi-protected}} Ouachita Hills College - unaccreditted college, which also serves as a tutorial center for Griggs University, not changing the fact that it is still unaccreditted. Weimar College - straight up unaccreditted school. 24.180.120.72 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a request from a banned editor Bello Wello using an IP as a sock.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)