Talk:Warnborough College/Archive 4

Yatscombe Hall

The article indicates that Yatscombe Hall was repossessed in June 1996, but there was no previous discussion of this building, nor an indication as to what it was. (I say "was" because it was destroyed by fire in 2003.) It appears to me that Yatscombe was one of the several buildings that Warnborough occupied on an 11-acre site in Oxford. (For example, see 'Village for elderly' planned for Boars Hill.) Presumably, the whole campus was repossessed, but I can't see the reference cited (which is an October 1996 article in The Times). What does it say? --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all it says: "Forced to move into a church hall in June when 19th-century Yatscombe Hall was repossessed, the college closed entirely two months later." No mention of other buildings. TimidGuy (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Considering that we don't have any context for that information (that is, whether Yatscombe was their only building at that point, whether other property was also repossessed, etc.), I think it best to delete the reference to Yatscombe Hall and property repossession entirely. (I've done that.) --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the Yatscombe Hall, Boars Hill section. This section really does depict the ensuing scenarios and evolutions of the Warnborough. Remember it is from Yatscombe Hall where the Warnborough remove to London and thence to Canterbury / Ireland. It is integral.Degreemill (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-accredited courses in lead

On the one hand, I like this wording and feel like it's a good choice. On the other, I wonder if it's completely accurate, since I believe they offer certifications, which are in a sense accredited. But I say that we leave it like this for now. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The current language is very similar to the language used for most other unaccredited schools around the world. (Compare Warren National University, Vision International University, Rushmore University, and Golden State Baptist College, to name just a few.) I removed your statement that it has applied for accreditation from the lead, because I think we have reliably sourced information for this only for Ireland (and this type of detail is typically not included in the leads for other unaccredited institutions). Also, I revised the first sentence to replace the location "a number of" with "several" and to acknowledge that the various "Warnboroughs" are related institutions. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Looks good. Nice writing. We should consider adding again the information about applying for accreditation and simply stipulating Warnborough College ireland.TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. wonderful works guys!.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Important note to consider, the Irish newspaper states that Warnborough will not be holding a Graduation Ceremony within All Hallows, Ireland in August 2008. My point about 'trading off' has been proven totally there. I fully expect they will hold the graduation ceremony in Canterbury Cathedrals' Chapter House, UK. Assuming do they hold a ceremony in UK and issue degrees in UK to students then they utterly breach UK laws. They have now run out of places to hide the issue of degrees and the Warnborough are probably about to shoot themselves in the foot once again. Watch this space.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To plagarise the lovely book 'House of Cards' you may think I had something to do with the Ireland debacle by emailing the Irish Independent, All Hallows and the Irish Ministry of Education.. but I couldn't possibly comment.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Degreemill. I wonder whether it's illegal, as you say. Quoting from a newspaper article about Warnborough that appeared the Australian: "They are allowed to operate by the authorities as long as they do not pretend to be accredited British institutions or spark consumer legal actions." In fact, if they want to eventually be accredited, they must first offer degrees. That's the way it works, as I understand. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timidguy, I understand what you mean, but in UK/Ireland accreditation is different to being a Chartered Institution and thereby being authorised by the Royal Charter (UK) to issue degrees. They can have as many course that maybe the study equivalant to a degree as they wish, they can apply to any relevant bodies to obtain accreditation of those courses, but they cannot legally issue a degree in the Warnborough name without holding a Royal Charter in UK or a similar charter elsewhere. The issuing a piece of paper porporting to be a 'degree' under the Warnborough title is the illegal act because they are not Chartered to issue degrees. See somewhere in this discussion about Education Acts (UK).

The usual procedure in their case would to apply for accreditation of a course with a recognised and degree issuing authority and market the said course under the aegis of that degree issuing authority. For example, they could run a Business Studies course and have the resultant degree issued by the University of Kent. They would be able, I presume, to have the Warnborough title included as the course provider on the diploma. Alternatively to become Chartered and therefore be authorised to issue a degree diploma, they would need to apply to the UK Privy Council.

I agree with you that you have to have a degree course to see if it works, but procedures laid out by law have to be followed or else life gets pretty bad. So why do they continually put themselves through all this when if they followed the legitimate route they would in all probability have been be a prestigeous global educational institution.Degreemill (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timidguy, this page on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation actually states the situation regarding UK and degree issuing better my rants, you need to scroll down to the UK section, I notice that this Wikipedia page is already in the main article. Plus I cannot see any mention of their short courses, all of which are perfectly legal to sell. I think for balance the existence of these course needs to be shown.Degreemill (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. Yes, the short courses should probably be added and could be sourced to their web site. We can't say anything about illegality unless we have a source saying they're doing something illegal. TimidGuy (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) The Wikipedia article you cite seems to say the same thing as the article in the Australian -- it's only illegal if an institution misrepresents their offering as a U.K. degree or uses "University" in its name. Maybe we should be cautious about discussing this here on the Talk page. We need to stick to sources. TimidGuy (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources saying that they're doing something illegal,I reckon that won't be long in coming, maybe sooner maybe later. Meantime you are as ever quite right.Degreemill (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced material

I went ahead and deleted unsourced material added by an anonymous editor, per WP:NOR. It's important that everything in Wikipedia be sourced, especially regarding a controversial topic. I do have a couple newspaper stories from the 1970s that have a small amount of detail that I"ll add as I have time. TimidGuy (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this deleted unsourced content, especially as my initial input was all unsourced, what was the content?Degreemill (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warnborough_College&diff=195827673&oldid=195122516 for details. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleted material is very interesting indeed perhaps the anonymous editor could supply sourcesDegreemill (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who added the deleted information. The information is, as you can probably guess, from personal experience when I spent a semester at what was then called "Warnborough House College" in the Spring of 1974. I tried to stick to the facts as I recall them, rather than add any opinions. But, I see that would qualify as "original research" not permited in Wikipedia. I have some thoughts as how to dig up source material, but given the dates involved, I don't think that any of it would be online. There are certainly newspaper articles from the time period, on microfilm, as well as Oxfordshire Real Estate records. Assuming someone had the time and inclination to look them up, how would one go about referencing it here?

At least as to the name, if you Google "Warnborough House College" you will see several references to people who cite it on their resumes, as well as a listing showing that name in correspondence between Warnborough House College and Terry Sanford, former President of Duke University See: http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/rbmscl/uapressanford/inv/ The correspondence itself, however is not available online. As to Daryl T-M, his involvement is well documented in the various Warnborough Web sites, as well as past versions in Archive.org, so I would think that could go back in.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining, "216 etc." Print publications are welcome as sources in Wikipedia, so if you find something in print and can cite title, author, date, publisher, and page number(s) (the usual details for a bibliographic citation), the information can be added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Daryl Tempest-Mogg, I've run across his name on some websites, but with insufficient detail or context to be useful in an article. With your knowledge of the situation, maybe you can pull together sources that tell the story. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • There is an article from the London Telegraph, October 25, 1996, reproduced in a newsgroup post See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education.distance/browse_thread/thread/a0790fa40f85c118/a78416d36c9bb446?hl=en&lnk=st&q=warnborough#a78416d36c9bb446

It confirms several of the facts in my post: That the college was originally founded in 1973 on Warnborough Road; that it moved to Boars Hill later (in 1976 - which I did not know), that the sole directors were Brendan, Daryl and Ethel Tempest-Mogg; that Brendan T-M was a former Hertford College student. It also contains additional details on the 1995-1996 lawsuits and bankrupcy.

Does that help as source material?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff, I hope that this can be built upon and included within the main article. Excellent workDegreemill (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to cite a newsgroup, since they're not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. Certainly the article itself could be cited, with accurate bibliographical information, but one should probably look at the original to make sure it's accurately reproduced. The focus of the article seems to be the events in 1995, which is already covered here. We have to be cautious about giving that undue weight. Some details may be useful. TimidGuy (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia definitely can't cite the newsgroup. However, if someone can track down the London Telegraph of October 25, 1996, to verify the article, some of the information in that article could be useful in the Wikipedia article. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a search for the article in the Telegraph for that date in 1996, the problem is that it is not archived. I guess this is due to the date being kind of early internet days.Degreemill (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see this content remain within the discussion area, obviously it cannot go into the main article unless an acceptable source other than the newsgroup can be found. However, we are all working with this research for this Warnborough article, so lets not delete but try to tease out further nuggets from such information.Degreemill (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Here's another article, from Cherwell, Michaelmas 1996, Vol 4 (October 31, 1996) Cherwell is the Oxford University Student Newspaper. It's mostly about the 1995-96 lawsuits. See: http://web.archive.org/web/19970211160251/cherwell.ospl.co.uk/archive/Michaelmas1996/Issue4/news/header5.html The current web site "Cherwell 24" only archives the print paper back through 2003, but www.Archive.org has back issues to 1996. Clearly, sourcing the early 70's material is going to require going to a real live library as it all predated the Interwebs.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216 etc., good work on the links, I think you are right, 1996 is effectively the start of the 'interweb' and I guess where we hit the wall.Degreemill (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw do not have the Telegraph back that far, but they do have The Times back fairly far...which turned up something from 1987 that is interesting. See my latest add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.197.218 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment added above, I think sources that support statements for inclusion into a main article have to be easily available to interested readers and not induce a payment to get that information from information provider service companties. Also 216 etc, perhaps you would be also advantageous to register with Wikipedia and obtain a nickname for adding comments. Updated to correct my Englsh....Degreemill (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I understand the concern, but checking the Wikipedia Verifyability Rules, a mainstream newspaper like The Times is an acceptable source. The fact that back issues before the mid-1990's aren't generally available online for free, and that resort must be made to microfilm records or a subscription service shouldn't disqualify the source. Millions of Wiki readers have access to the subscription services, and anyone within driving distance of a large enough library can check the microfilm records. There is a lot of information thats not online that's perfectly verifiable the old fashioned way. See also Wikipedia "Ignore all Rules" Rule. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now checked the Telegraph on microfilm. The newsgroup post cited above accurately quotes the original article, so I have added some of that information in a couple spots. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216, good workDegreemill (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

216, I agree that if it's available via a library, it can go in.

I have a copy of the Times article from 1987. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. There is simply zero information to back up the allegation. An unsupported statement like that doesn't merit inclusion, especially given the extreme claim. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • My own view is that the Times article qualifies as a reliable source to verify (i) that there was an investigative report on BBC-4 and (ii) what the report alleged. As I understand it, a story by Waite on BBC 4 is comparable a story by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. The fact that the report was made is in and itself newsworthy, even if one disagreed with the conclusions or felt they were controversial. The main point is that Warnborough was bathed in controversy long before 1995. I'm still hopeful of verifying more information from the 1970's when it first started up. In the meantime, if TPTB decide to delete the entry, I won't get worked up over it. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we should delete it for now, since there's no way to hear the original and to see what the evidence was. I have a few articles from 1974 -- I'll look to see if there's something that can be included. TimidGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Timidguy is correct, the internet relies on its quality of being 'instant', also Wikipedia main reference articles need 'easy to access' references for supporting that chunk of information in a specific section. However the information that 216 etc., added was, for myself, quite jaw dropping and certainly filled in gaps to my working knowledge of the Warnborough University/College. I ask that a new section in the discussion section be created to portray 216s' editorials, this is because the section 'deleted unsourced material' is not apt bearing in mind the expansion of information following sight of 216s' editing. Additionally making a new section would allow any additional information to be added under the correct discusssion heading leading to consideration for inclusion into the main article. I don't want to start fiddling with the discussion page because I am scared of destroying some important work by accident. ThanksDegreemill (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another BBC report was formerly cited in Warnborough University, with text as follows: On November 26, 2000 the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] aired a news report on [[degree mills]] and "degrees for cash" in the United Kingdom. The report summarized the history of Warnborough, which was initially established in the 1970s as '''Warnborough College Oxford''' but was closed down after a United States government lawsuit. It was later reopened as Warnborough University under an Irish charter, and was operating under that name in 2000. However, a Warnborough official told a reporter that the school did not then have a physical presence in Ireland.<ref name="BBC">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events2000/r5report/education26nov.ram BBC audio file], November 26, 2000; the discussion of Warnborough begins at about 10 minutes into the broadcast</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • That makes for an interesting situation. The Nov 26 2000 BBC report was available online, but isn't any longer. Even the archive.org file appears to have disappeared. The 1987 BCC report was never available online. Transcripts are apparently not available for either. The first report were sufficiently noteworthy that it gets summarized in The Times, and about the same time the second one comes out there is an article to similar effect in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a respected educational journal. But, any reference to two news reports by a respected news source, making essentially the same allegations about the same group of people offering bogus graduate degrees without accreditation that that the Irish press is now making, one 21 years ago, and the other 8 years ago gets deleted. Should the references to the 60 Minutes Audi reports on sudden acceleration be deleted? They're not online, and it doesn't appear that you can get a transcript, even from Lexis/Nexis. And, those reports, unlike the BBC reports here, were demonstrably false. Let me suggest a solution: What if we add a sentence saying that the current reports that Warnborough is awarding decrees that have been alleged to be worthless because Warnborough lacks accreditation for high fees to unsuspecting foreign students misled about Warnborough's connection (or lack thereof) to famous universities echo allegations made in 2000 about the current Irish-based Warnborough University/College and in 1987 about the former Warnborough College in Oxford, citing the Times and the Chronicle and explaining about the now deleted 2000 BBC Report in the footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your suggestion may violate the policy of no original research. The 2000 BBC report didn't accuse Warnborough of selling degrees. It mostly repeated information that's already in the article about the 1995 events. In fact, in it's sensationalized style, the reporter went on site and tried to buy a degree but they wouldn't sell one. The report also had factual errors, for example saying that the U.S. government shut down Warnborough in 1995. TimidGuy (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maine

We really need to be careful here. That was simply a list of unaccredited schools. Unlike the other instances, it didn't say that the degrees aren't accepted. Please understand that two aren't the same. One of my degrees was from an institution that wasn't accredited but it was accepted by the graduate school that I applied to. Also please understand that accreditation isn't like licensure. One can legitimately offer unaccredited degrees. In the U.S. the only way to gain accreditation is to first offer degrees. Then after you have a track record, you can apply for accreditation. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the USA the system for degree issuing seems different to UK,(The Irish authorities have made their opinion on the Warnborough quite clear)I want to clarify the degree issuing situation in UK as it is obviously totally different to your example in the USA and the Warnborough are now based solely in the United Kingdom.

This link clearly clarifies the situation in UK, this is the Education Reform Act 1996 and read sections 214 and 215, these clearly relate to the Warnborough if they were to issue a degree in UK. https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880040_en_20#pt4-pb4-l1g213

Also quite interesting is this link regarding USA Degree Mills, it also states how toothless the UK authorities are in acting against institutions who bread the Education Reform Act 1996 and issue degrees in UK.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=207868&sectioncode=26

Degreemill (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Read the second citation in the footnote, which is the Maine Statute. A degree from an unaccredited school (including Warnborough) is a "false academic degree". It is illegal in Maine to use a "false academic degree" to obtain employment, to obtain a promotion or higher compensation, to obtain admission to an institution of higher education, or to use in a business, trade, profession or occupation.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some text to the Maine "ref" to clarify the situation. The law does restrict the use of unaccredited degrees, and the state does list Warnborough as an unaccredited institution. Some would say that adding 2+2 to get 4 in this situation (in order to say that Warnborough degrees are restricted) is original research; I don't see it that way, but I think it might be appropriate to modify the wording of the article to (1) identify Maine as a place where unaccredited degrees are illegal to use and (2) state that Maine lists Warnborough as not accredited. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I think that is appropriate. I don't view it as original research, as the Maine Dept of Education put all the information together on its website on unaccredited institutions and diploma mills, with the clear intent that everyone understand that it is illegal to use any degrees from anyone on the list in Maine. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think even Orlady's suggestion may be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Please be cautious. I don't see where it says unaccredited degrees are illegal to use. We can't assume that an unaccredited degree is a false academic degree. For example, the Oregon listing includes a number of unaccredited schools whose degrees are accepted in Oregon. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Maine statute defines "False academic degree" to mean "a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, course work or academic credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or course work that results in the issuance of an associate or more advanced degree by an institution that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning."[1] It defines "Duly authorized institution of higher learning" to mean "an institution that: A. Has accreditation recognized by the United States Secretary of Education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; B. Has an authorization to operate under the laws of this State; or C. Does not operate in this State and is: (1) Licensed by the appropriate agency of another state; and (2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States Secretary of Education."[2] The statute further provides: "A person may not use a false academic degree: A. To obtain employment; B. To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment; C. To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or D. In connection with any business, trade, profession or occupation. A person who violates this subsection commits a Class D crime."[3] --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think in the USA the use of an unaccredited degree is rather at the owners risk, and perhaps it is acceptable for an Institution to offer an unaccredited degree, but I bet that the Institution has to clearly state that it is an unaccredited degree to all their students. However if or when the Warnborough issue a degree and that degree is issued in UK or Ireland under the Warnborough title, then they act illegally. The UK law is clear and concise.Degreemill (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Maine statute is quite clear about prohibiting use of degrees from unaccredited institutions. Look at the definition of "false academic degree". The Oregon website explains the very limited instances in which degrees from certain listed unaccredited colleges can be used Also, the Oregon website http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx lists a number of states, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Maine and New Jersey, in which the use of degrees from unaccredited institutions is broadly prohibited or limited, and other states, including Michigan and Indiana, where the use of such degrees is more narrowly limited. I don't think that there can be any question about use of Warnborough's degrees being proscribed in Oregon, Michigan or Maine, where it is specifically scheduled on the State Government Web Sites. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Item C2 in the Maine statute says and I quote 'An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States Secretary of Education.' Does this mean that if (a big if) the Warnborough are being truthful about their HETAC (Ireland) Accreditation Application then their unaccredited degrees are valid and allowable?Degreemill (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The short answer is no. The US Secretary of Education's list of recognized accrediting bodies is limited to accrediting bodies in the US. The way the statute is written, if a school had a currently-active application to one of those accrediting bodies in the US, it would be a "duly authorized institution..." But, having a pending application to a foreign accrediting body recognized by the foreign equivalent of the US SoE does not fall within the definition. As an aside, the Independent article suggests that there may not be an "active" application to HETAC, in that there are some preliminary evaluations that HETAC needs to undertake before it begins to consider any of Warnborough Ireland's programmes, but I don't pretend to understand the internal workings of HETAC. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

216 etc., thanks for clarifying that point, the HETAC application seems to be at the early stages as HETAC are forming a committee regarding the Quality Assurance systems of the Warnborough. See here http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20for%20awards%20of%20professional%20bodies.pdf Section 2 applies.Degreemill (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the research. I still think we may be skirting the proscription against original research. We aren't really supposed to do this sort of legal work ourselves and then draw a conclusion. Would anyone mind if I got the opinion of an experienced Admin? TimidGuy (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and invited Dreadstar, an Admin who's looked in on this discussion in the past.[4] Will be interesting to get feedback from an outside party. Don't know if he's around these days, though. TimidGuy (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea and I will await his deliberations eagerly.Degreemill (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For this article, IMO, the primary issue should be whether the detail about Maine's laws belongs in this article. I think not -- the article is about Warnborough, not Maine. Information about the legal treatment of unaccredited degrees in different jurisdictions properly belongs in linked articles such as Educational accreditation and Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. HOWEVER, this article needs to include a general statement to the effect that it is illegal to use unaccredited degrees in some jurisdictions. UNFORTUNATELY, statements such as the one I just described get expunged from Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions (for being weasel-worded and/or unsourced, not to mention being perceived as defamatory by defenders of specific institutions) unless they specify the names of the jurisdictions and provide sources. That leads to including these mini-essays on the legality of unaccredited degrees in articles such as this one. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeping certification

Degreemill has said that Warnborough's short courses are excellent. I see here [5] that they offer certified bookkeeping courses. Seems like we could add this. TimidGuy (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, their short courses are pretty good and good value too, the courses derive from the ACS people http://www.acsedu.co.uk/Courses/Default.aspx ACS also act as affiliates for the Warnborough degree courses and the Warnbrough Pre-Med course http://www.acsedu.co.uk/Info/About-Us/Affiliates.aspx The Warnborough Pre-Med would need its own section..Degreemill (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could draft some text for the short courses and ACS affiliation? And Pre-Med? TimidGuy (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure can, I will do this later and I promise not to make it into a 'mini essay'.Degreemill (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Important update. see here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/ and direct quote..' BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONS) IN BUSINESS Warnborough College will offer tuition support for the University of London BSc (Hons) degree in Business for external students from April 2008. Full-time classes will be held in Canterbury, Kent. Details coming soon.' This is excellent news, this means that perhaps someone from the Warnborough has read this discussion page and has taken note and acted properly becasue thier tutoring faculty would be able to run this with ease and maybe produce impressive results for students.Degreemill (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

However the Warnborough are not listed on the University of London web site as a Learning Centre/Partner http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/onlinesearch/institutions/index.jspDegreemill (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The short courses cover a wide range of learnable skills, the list appears here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/ The course derive from ACS Distance Education http://www.acsedu.co.uk/ In essence these courses are inexpensive and I think for the knowledge contained, of value to any person wishing to learn a new skill for a hobby or upgrade their career skills.

Warnborough Pre-Med, the best link for this is here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/courses/premeddl.aspx I am not sure as to the accreditation of this course nor am I sure which Caribbean University a student who completes this course can gain access to. I recall they were working with the Saba University as noted here http://www.studyinbritain.com/programs.aspx?id=1150 Digression.. Saba do check out as legitimate as per http://www.saba.edu/home_charter.php but no mention of the Warnborough. Whether the Warnborough Pre-Med has any beneficial relevance as taught as a 'home study' is a mote point, perhaps it contains a load of theory and prehaps one can practise on ones self.Degreemill (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IARC sentences

I've twice pointed out that it doesn't make sense to say that IARC isn't a recognized accrediting association because it makes no such claim. So why insert that yet again without addressing this point? You could say that about any organization, for example Harvard: Harvard University is not a recognized accrediting association. It's true. But Harvard doesn't claim to be. Same with IARC. The wording is misleading and stigmatizes the association with IARC. It's not a stigma, it's commendable. I thought that my version worked well, not stigmatizing yet quoting the site so that it's clear that it's not an accrediting body. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The article isn't about what IARC claims, its about what Warnborough claims. It's true that IARC doesn't claim to be a recognized accrediting association. It's also true that Warnborough's lists its recognition by and membership in IARC (like its ISO certification) under "accredition", and Warnborough's website claims that IARC membership is not merely equivalent to, but better than accreditation. One can attempt to be "neutral" by delining to opine as to whether Warnborough is being deliberately misleading about its lack of accreditation. But to point out that, like ISO certification, IARC recognition is not accreditation because IARC is not, and does not claim to be a recognized accrediting association is factual, neutral and complete. I think that your objection, therefore, is misplaced.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "decline to opine." I made exactly the same point in a thread above. And if you look at the revision that I worked on (if you know how to follow the edit history), it was dealing with exactly this. But then Orlady inserted her/his own earlier version. If you read the discussion above, you'll see my suggested solution. Which was to note that Warnborough makes the claim and then simply quote the IARC web site. That way one is dealing with the situation yet doesn't unfairly stigmatize IARC. TimidGuy (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The International Accreditation & Recognition Council (IARC) are interesting but maybe they deserve their own article, however where the Warnborough are concerned they clearly state that the IARC have accredited they institution. See here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/advice/faq.aspx and I quote

Q. How does recognition of the school compare with other colleges?

A. We are internationally recognised by the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC), and in many respects we are more widely recognised, due to the fact that we have been established and trained students for so long. In addition to IARC accreditation, Warnborough also has UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service) certification for ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 2700:2005 as well as Investor in People status.

The Warnborough are using them as a statement of accreditation, which after looking at the IARC web site they, as members, are prefectly entitled to do. As to it being a misleading statement, well, people can look at the Warnboroughs' history for that answer in the main article.17:09, 14 March 2008Degreemill (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like we're agreed, then, that it's misleading to say that IARC isn't a recognized accrediting body since it doesn't claim to be. As there's been no objection, I'll rewrite those sentences according my suggestion above.TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Transfer credit agreements

I was looking at the Dept of Education judgment and feel like we may have taken this information on transfer credit agreements out of context. As I understand it, the specific context was the eligibility of Warnborough's students to receive U.S. financial aid. There are a number of ways that this eligibility can be granted. One is if the school is accredited, which Warnborough wasn't. An optional way is if the institution has transfer credit agreements in place, in a sense piggybacking on accreditation of other schools. Warnborough didn't have current transfer agreements in place. But this doesn't mean that Warnborough's credits couldn't be transferred. I don't think transfer agreements are common, and I don't think transfer credit is contingent on having such agreements in place. It sounds to me like this is a specific mechanism for acquiring eligibility, but is not typically the basis for credit transfer. In my own experience, one of the universities I attended wasn't accredited at the time, but students were able to transfer credits. And the university didn't have transfer agreements with those schools. In fact it would seem difficult logistically to secure such agreements with every institution of higher education around the country. If no one objects, I will clarify this and move it to an appropriate location in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your comment, I think that many colleges that offer less than a full degree program have "transfer credit agreements" with one or more specific schools. They are usually called "articulation agreements." Typically the agreements specify which classes are eligible for transfer. For example, I recently added a list of articulation agreements to Roane State Community College, a fully accredited 2-year college that encourages its students to transfer to a 4-year college. An example of unaccredited school that apparently has articulation arrangements with accredited schools that accept its credits is Elim Bible Institute. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady is correct. It would be common in the US to have an agreement between a community college and one or more 4-year institutions for transfer of credits from a particular course of study to a corresponding bachelor's degree program. That it the kind of agreement that the DOE was looking for from Warnborough in order to be eligible for participation in Title IV. It wasn't that all of Warnborough's credits werent't freely transferrable everywhere, rather that Warnborough didn't have any then-current agreement with even one elibible US college for transfer of any of its credits. DOE found that the evidence Warnborough presented was "totally unpersuasive": the agreements which it presented were out of date or even unsigned; some of the colleges it claimed to have agreements with disclaimed any current arrangement with Warnborough; and probably most embarrassing, it presented a student who testified that his Warnborough credits were accepted by NYU, but a check of his transcript showed that in fact they were not accepted by NYU. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Here's my response to Orlady, which I believe also addresses the above comments:

Thanks, Orlady. My point was that they are generally not necessary. That is, most colleges and universities don't have them and that they aren't necessary in order to transfer credits. This lack of current articulation agreements is relevant to the 1996 decision on eligibility. But I don't think it should be used to suggest that Warnborough credits can't be transferred unless there is such an agreement. We've taken this information out of its proper context. My guess is that the reason the schools you cite have these articulation agreements is the very reason that Warnborough should have had them -- to be eligible for financial aid. TimidGuy (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another reason to have them. Students want to know when then enroll at a non-degree granting institution that their credits are going to be transferrable to somewhere that has degree-granting authority. If you can't promise that, students need to know it upfront. It was a remarkable (and uncharacteristic) bit of candor for Warnborough to start warning prospective students in 1997 that they were responsible for obtaining prior approval from their colleges for transfer of Warnborough credits - and it is not suprising that, in light of that candor, the attempt to re-start study abroad programs for US students in London, Oxford and Sydney (to say nothing of the delightfully over-ambitious "Warnborough at Sea") were unsuccessful and soon abandoned.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: written before 216-etc. posted] With due respect, TimidGuy, I believe your guess regarding my examples is wrong:

• Roane State students are fully eligible for U.S. financial aid because the school is fully accredited. Roane State's articulation agreements ensure that students will get full credit when they transfer (if they took the classes specified in the relevant agreement).
• Elim students are not eligible for U.S. financial aid because their religious school is unaccredited and lacks state approval. Elim's arrangements with other schools allow its students to use their 3 years at Elim toward a degree.

As I see it, if Warnborough had had an articulation agreement with just one U.S. institution, the court might have been more kindly disposed toward Warnborough.

--Orlady (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. These are good points. But my point is that in order to use this information in the context it's used here, I would think we would need to show that it's not possible to transfer credit in the absence of such agreements. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way out of this. The bit about Warnborough credits being accepted by 200+ US colleges appears to be a relic of the original Wikipedia article submitted by its IT Coordinator in March '07. It was something that Warnborough used to tout in its online and written materials to bolster its bona fides, but no longer does. Other than the stuff about the iffy Carribean med schools, I see no suggestion in any of the current materials that that any of its credits would be accepted for transfer elsewhere. Maybe the discussion of transfer of credits under the "accreditation" topic (i.e. the three sentences beginning with "According to past Warnborough web sites..." through "...and for transfer of credits.³⁰" should simply be deleted. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 216 etc., do you think you could expand the 'Warnborough at Sea'. I haven't stopped laughing at this. Knowing those people as I do, I think it is hilarious.Degreemill (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to "Warnborough at Sea" I can't imagine why this didn't fly....or float, not to mix our metaphors too much. http://web.archive.org/web/19970611225353/www.warnborough.edu/spirit.htm216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 216. Good suggestion. I've deleted those sentences. TimidGuy (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216 etc., thanks for the link, I think it is really hilarious. Wasn't there a book and film about the 'Admiral Cretin'. At least with boat they wouldn't have had any problems with accreditation. Any sight of a problem and 'weigh anchor' and away. Thanks for the best laugh I have had for a while.Degreemill (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian Diploma Mill Connection

I started a couple of paragraphs, complete with citation, that got lost. Here's the short version. When the State of Washington sues Warnborough, Warnborough tells the Seattle Times that it is going to move its admissions office to Hawaii, and that it is also going to set up a new corporation there and get authority for that corporation to issue degrees. In October 1995, a new corporation is filed in Hawaii. That corporation is involuntarily dissolved three years later for failure to file any annual reports. The address that Warnborough lists in Hawaii as its office is a maildrop/phone service used by a number of notorious diploma mills, mostly now defunct.

Another nice bit: The DC corporation that Warnborough formed in 1983 (and which apparently held degree granting authority from 1988-91) was named "Warnborough College, The American College in Oxford" The DC online records don't tell you when that company was resolved.

Don't know if any of this can go in a Wiki article, but it's interesting.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough's Wikipedia Rebuttal Page

Isn't this cute? Warnborough has a whole, hidden page dedicated to rebutting all the nasty true stuff in the Wikipedia article! http://www.warnborough.edu/wikipedia.html 216.157.197.218 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this web page http://www.warnborough.edu/wikipedia.html has not been updated for a while as it still mentions their premises at All Hallows. This page does show very accurately the deluded thinking processes behind the Warnborough people. I reckon someone could gain a decent PhD on these guys. Perhaps the Warnborough rebuttal page should be in the main article as any editing from the Warnborough IP address was been blocked a while back.Degreemill (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

At least one person already has. BD T-M's 1980 EdD thesis at GWU was entitled "A case study of warnborough college : the american college in oxford. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/25257702 (note - you know its a serious thesis by the colon in the title) I recall reading some years ago a "review" of the thesis a few years ago by an academic who had ordered a microfiche copy from GWU. He savaged it as unjointed ramblings that consisted of criticising Warnborough's other admistrators and waxing rhapsodic about his mother (no, I'm not kidding!) with no research value whatsoever and certainly unworthy of a doctoral thesis. The person reviewing it concluded that it could not possibly have passed the thesis review process, and speculated that BD T-M's EdD is a ABD. The review is buried somewhere on the web. If I can find it again, I'll post a link. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Review" of Brendan Tempest-Mogg's EdD thesis is here.http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?t=19718216.157.197.218 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowww. Better than any comedy movie. A true classicDegreemill (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

216 and Degreemill, please attend to the guideline regarding the use of Talk pages. You're not supposed to use this page to trash the subject. You shouldn't be speculating about violations of the law. You shouldn't be posting comments from Internet forums. Here are some of the relevant points:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

It would probably be appropriate to delete some of your comments. Note in particular that Talk pages should adhere to the same guidelines as the articles themselves, which disallow referencing forum postings, And in particular, the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons clearly disallows poorly sourced criticism. This policy also applies to the Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the apparent lack of context and the tendency to banter, but there are two - or maybe three - serious points here. First, as evidenced by the long discussion above regarding the relationship between Warnborough College IE and Warnborough College UK, I am pondering whether the main article should have an addition regarding the complicated corporate history of Warnborough. News reports previously cited have noted "Oxford International Eduational Enterprises, Ltd", the Washington DC corporation, the Hawaii corporation, an unidentified Canadian corporation, and the current Irish and UK corporations. I have been able to confirm information on many of these from primary sources, which solves the undue weight issue that is frequently raised. That the Hawaiian corporation was operating out of the same maildrop as used by a number of diploma mills subsequently sued and shut down by the state raises a red flag.

I'm considering adding a sentence on the "Warnborough at Sea" proposal in connection with the reincarnation of Warnborough in London. But, since it obviously got nowhere, it may not be worthy of mention. Thoughts?

There is a serious point about the EdD dissertation, but adding it to the article would require confirmation of the forum posting by reading it. According to the posting, Warnborough's president was writing in 1980 at George Washington University that obtaining accreditation had to be a priority. Three years later, Warnborough incorporates in DC, and five years after that, obtains degree-granting authority which is then lost for reasons unknown in 1991. Nearly 30 years have passed since Warnborough's president argued that obtaining accreditation has to be a priority, 12 years have passed since Warnborough was reconstitued as an Irish corporation, and only now it is taking preliminary steps to obtain accreditation in Ireland, arguing to the Irish press that its a lengthy process?

There is also a serious point to the Wikepedia Rebuttal. I would like to propose adding a new section: controversies relating to Warnborough, which would include the two BBC reports, the lawsuits by the State of Washington, students, and the stripping of Title IV eligibility, the fake lecturer in China, etc... balanced by Warnborough's responses, including the hidden page that used to be linked on its main page. Thoughts?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this sounds like a violation of WP:OR. Also, the BBC reports aren't available. The article already talks at length about the 1995 situation, and any more would likely violate WP:UNDUE. You may want to read through WP:NPOV. We can't simply make this an article about the controversies. It has to be balanced. Also, note that primary sources aren't generally used as sources in Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. Also, I again advise you regarding speculation. It's not up to us to raise red flags. The Wikipedia rebuttal was written in response to an old version of the Warnborough University article in Wikipedia. Most of the issues in the Wikipedia rebuttal have been addressed, which is likely why it's no longer linked on their site. Frankly it's starting to feel like you're an aggressive WP:Single purpose account. I suggest you spend a bit more time in Wikipedia and familiarize yourself with the policies and broaden your experience here. The current article is now relatively balanced, and the major controversies are clearly represented. I've searched Lexis/Nexis and am familiar with most of the reportage. Anything beyond what's in the article is going likely be bordering original research, which is disallowed. TimidGuy (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, no offense intended. You've done some great research and some good work, especially for a new editor. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)