Talk:Educational accreditation

message: I realize this is off-topic, but we have a discussion going on in Talk:University of the Cumberlands regarding school accreditation and accreditation agencies that may be of interest to visitors to this talk page.
Posted to: Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:School accreditation
~Kylu (u|t)  04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UotC accreditation conversation 

message: The religious accreditation section needs to be either removed or changed - The United States Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education recognizes only regional and national accreditation, listing religious accrediting agencies (such as the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools) as national accrediting agencies. --Tim4christ17 07:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to change it. Religious accreditation is national and there are only a few regional accreditators. Regional is recognized as more solid in terms of transferring credits and having degrees recognized. Many private Christian schools have both regional and national. It would be someone's bias, which would want to change the wording. CaliEd 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what Tim4christ17 is trying to get across is that religious accreditors are a subset of national accreditors as opposed to a third category.  It's the difference between having a list of three different ranks, 1, 2, 3, versus having a list of two ranks of which the latter has two subranks: 1, 2a, 2b.  --Coolcaesar 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Coolcaesar here.  It seems uneven to single out a subset of national accreditation bodies simply because they are religious.  You could conceivably make the same or an even greater subset for medical science accrediting bodies. The implied bias here may be that religious accreditors and/or religious education are somewhow not equivalently recognized...and this is not the case according to the US Gov't.  I say get rid of the subset.--danzieg 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I edited the article with the idea that there are two accrediting categories, plus unaccredited institutions, including "Diploma Mills". THis seems like a more fair breakdown to me..--danzieg 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry.  I though I was signed in while editing (still learning).  The above-mentioned edit was done under an IP address 216.141.143.222 and not my name.  I appologize for the obfuscation.--Danzieg 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Accreditation v. Religious Accreditation 

message: Just caught this.  On 20 July 2006 someone with IP address 67.176.24.203 deleted an entire passage of mine for no reason.  See diff:   I was too busy to catch the vandalism but fortunately I did catch it this week and I put back my text.  Everyone please be on the lookout for this vandal and be prepared to revert as needed.  --Coolcaesar 07:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a possible vandal, heads up everyone 

message: Source:  (section 15-20.4-15.)
15-20.4-15. Unlawful to issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees -
Penalty.
1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly issue or manufacture a false academic
degree. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a class C felony.
2. a. It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly use or claim to have a false
academic degree:
(1) To obtain employment;
(2) To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment;
(3) To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or
(4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation.
b. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
3. As used in this section, "false academic degree" means a document such as a
degree or certification of completion of a degree, coursework, or degree credit,
including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a
course of instruction or coursework that results in the attainment of a rank or level of
associate or higher which is issued by a person that is not a duly authorized
institution of higher learning.
4. As used in this section, "duly authorized institution of higher learning" means 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 this chapter;
c. Operates in this state and is exempt from this chapter under section
15-20.4-02;
d. Does not operate in this state and is:
(1) Licensed by the appropriate state agency; and
(2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized
by the United States secretary of education; or
e. Has been found by the state board for career and technical education to meet
standards of academic quality comparable to those of an institution located in
Page No. 6 the United States that has accreditation recognized by the United States
secretary of education to offer degrees of the type and level claimed. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North Dakota does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: New Jersey basically has the same law as North Dakota. New Jersey Statutes & Regulations 
Regarding Academic Degrees 
:A person shall not append to his name any letters in the same form designated by the Commission on Higher Education as entitled to the protection accorded to an academic degree unless the person has received from a duly authorized institution of higher education the degree or certificate for which the letters are registered. For the purposes of this section, a duly authorized institution of higher education means an in-State institution licensed by the Commission on Higher Education or an out-of-State institution licensed by the appropriate state agency and regionally accredited or seeking accreditation by the appropriate accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Education or the United States Department of Education. 
It is sections: L.1986,c.87,s.3; amended 1994,c.48,s.36. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jersey does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: Washington State: "State senators unanimously amended and approved a bill that would make giving or using a fake or otherwise unaccredited degree a class C felony, a crime of fraud that could warrant five years in prison and a $10,000 fine." 
Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees. (top of page three)
False academic credential" means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree.
:"Board" of course refers to the Washington Board of education. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees, unless it is approved by Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. 
:583-050-0014 
Unaccredited Degrees 
(1) Users of unaccredited degrees may use the degrees in the following ways.
(a) Unaccredited degrees that have achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can be used without a disclaimer.
(b) Unaccredited degrees that have not achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can only be used with a disclaimer.
(c) Degrees issued by degree mills are invalid for use, with or without a disclaimer.
(2) Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030.
(a) A reasonable possibility of approval can be demonstrated by submitting to ODA the appropriate review fee and sufficient evidence that the unaccredited institution could meet ODA academic standards under OAR 583-030 for authorization to operate in Oregon if it chose to make such an application.
(b) ODA may, upon its own motion, evaluate an unaccredited institution and determine whether it has a reasonable chance to meet Oregon authorization standards without a degree user making such a request.
(c) If a request for evaluation under this section is not made to ODA within 30 days of notification that an unaccredited degree is being used contrary to Oregon law, the degree user's right to such a review is waived and ODA may pursue appropriate enforcement action. Degree users may, within the first 30 days, request up to 30 additional days for the purpose of gathering material necessary to apply for an evaluation.
(3) A claimant of a non-U.S. degree issued by a degree supplier not accredited by a U.S. accreditor may submit to the Office information proving that the supplier issuing the degree has the following characteristics.
(a) The supplier is operating legally as a degree-granting institution in its host country.
(b) The host country has a postsecondary approval system equivalent to U.S. accreditation in that it applies qualitative measures by a neutral external party recognized in that role by the government.
(c) The supplier has been approved through the demonstrable application of appropriate standards by the host country's accreditor equivalent.
(d) All degrees issued by the supplier are legally valid for use and professional licensure within the host country.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 348.609
Stats. Implemented: ORS 348.603, 348.609, 348.992 & SB 1039 (2005 OL, Ch. 546)
Hist.: ODA 2-1998, f. & cert. ef. 8-12-98; ODA 1-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-27-01; ODA 3-2003, f. 10-29-03, cert. ef. 11-1-03; ODA 4-2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-14-04; ODA 3-2005, f. 9-27-05, cert. ef. 9-30-05; Renumbered from 583-050-0031, ODA 4-2005, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-05
:Thus, if you have an unaccredited degree it must be approved by the ODA. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees

message: Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program."
SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 12. (a) It is an incurable deceptive act for an individual, while soliciting or performing a consumer transaction, to claim, either orally or in writing, to possess a doctorate degree or use a title, a word, letters, an insignia, or an abbreviation associated with a doctorate degree, unless the individual:
(1) has been awarded a doctorate degree from an institution that is:
(A) accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation;
(B) a religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious character of the educational program; or
(C) operated and supported by a governmental agency
:SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates

message: I just removed the section about diploma mills from the Religious accreditation section of the page - as it refered to unaccredited schools and that section was about accredited schools.  It should be further noted that religious accredition is just as "legit" as national accredition, since religious accrediting agencies are national accrediting agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim4christ17 (talk • contribs) 
:Religious accreditation is legitimate, this version states the case neutrally enough, if people think there is a particular issue with unaccredited religious schools then we should discuss how it can e included. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to note that some states require accreditation and have exemption for religious schools, and that exemption is sometimes used by diploma mills. Tim4christ17 removed that cited fact. CaliEd 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize that - why don't you move that fact somewhere else in the article - that section is for national accrediting agencies, and what you're talking about would be with schools that are not accredited. --Tim4christ17 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why move it? It is under a section for US accreditation, and a subsection discussing religious accreditation. Where do you want to move it? CaliEd 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's under a section for U.S. Accredition, a subsection dealing with national accredation of religious bodies  (NOT national religious accreditation - as the accrediting process/level of legitimacy is identical).  Since your concerns are about state religious accreditation, it should be moved.  Further, since it is a legal issue, it might be appropriate to put it under Legal Issues, where there is already a mention of diploma mills. --Tim4christ17 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we need a section on Diploma Mills, but why is a discussion of "Diploma Mills" happening under the "National Accreditation" (and the "Religious accreditation") category?  The implication here is that there is a connection.  Diploma Mills are almost exclusively the domain of unaccredited or unrecognized (by the US Dept. of ED or CHEA) colleges and accrediting agencies.  None of the citations say otherwise. By US Gov't standards and oversight, recognized national accrediting agencies are legit, and the schools that submit to their accreditation processes are working hard at complying with accreditation standards.  It is blatantly unfair to put them into bed with diploma mills. Let's create a "diploma mill" category as before Danzieg 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all unaccredited schools using religious exemption are diploma mills. CaliEd 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is correct.  But there are religious diploma mills.  I believe there are legitimate unaccredited universities in all fields (you have to start somewhere), on the other hand all diploma mills I have come across are unaccredited. Just zis Guy you know? 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't quite agree with your implication that the only legitimate unaccreditated institutions are those that are just starting out.  There are a handful of legitimate institutions that choose, typically for philosophical reasons, to simply not pursue accreditation.  Whether or not that is a good choice or they have good reasons for making that choice is certainly a matter of serious debate.  But they do exist and I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the quality of their education simply because they choose not to seek accreditation.  I agree that it's a huge signal that the institution may warrant serious investigation - but it's still just a signal to conduct investigation and it may not be the ultimate conclusion (although for many students it will be and understandable so).  --ElKevbo 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As noted by the U.S. Department of Education, failure to obtain accreditation does not mean that a school is necessarily a bad school.  DOE notes that it is possible for a school to otherwise provide a good education even though they don't have (or seek) accreditation by third parties.  DOE is right to point out that people should do investigation of schools and particularly those that have chosen not to pursue accreditation, but even they admit that it is possible for a good school to choose to remain unaccredited. Vivaldi (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diploma Mills 

message: "In many other countries, higher education institutions must receive the permission of the government to operate, and thus accreditation is performed by the government."
This has been changed before to remove the word 'many'.  Can any of you say for certain that every place outside of the USA requires state accreditation?  Until you can don't remove it.  Citing the laws of a few countries is not the whole world.  Is it required in Somalia?  What about the 200 or so other countries?  --Kalmia 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize

message: My recent edit just changed the wording that JzG chose.  His wording suggested that religious-related accreditation bodies actually succeed in their goal to always accredit religious institutions without compromising doctrinal statements of those institutions.  Since there exist a number of schools that specifically cite doctrinal reasons as primary reasons for refusing to undergo the certification process, it seems like a number of people disagree with the assumption that JzG seems to imply is a universal truth.  My compromise edit just changes the wording to say that these religious accreditation bodies "seek" to provide accreditation without interfering with doctrine.  Certainly most people would suggest that they are able to do so, but a significant number have argued that any accredition at all is against their religious doctrine.  I also fixed a minor typo. Vivaldi (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vivaldi, your point is made quite clearly in the case of San Diego Christian College which is an accredited school. You'll see at the link these words lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity. It is possible that the San Diego Christian College, which is currently accredited, will no longer be so after March of 2007. Clearly this would be a choice the school has to make. Does it wish to remain affiliated with the supporting church and therefore lose its accreditation, or will it choose autonomy and remain accredited.Bagginator 06:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The full quote is "The Commission found the College to be operating in substantial noncompliance with Standards 1 and 3 with respect to leadership and governance, financial planning, and lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity." Arbusto 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Vivaldi. It should be mentioned that some religious schools claim not to want accreditation for restrictions. It needs to also be mentioned that diploma mills also claim not to want accreditation fearing restrictions as well. All parties of unaccredited schools should get equal say. Arbusto 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious accreditation 

message: I'm working on designing an internal accreditation process for a group of related organizations.  It would be helpful for reference purposes if the article had a description of how a typical accreditation process works.  Is it confidential?  What kinds of sources are used?  What modalities (self-reporting, independently measured metrics, physical inspection, financial audit, etc.) are used? -- Beland 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this done? 

message: I would like to suggest that the name of this article be changed to be more globally inclusive as 'school accreditation' does not make sense to me in a UK/European context. I suggest something along the lines of Higher education accreditation or Higher learning accreditation (clunky to me but in keeping with the other linked articles) as this would be more globally inclusive encompassing all forms of higher education/types of higher education systems. Madmedea 13:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors to the school accreditation article have been pretty persistent about focusing on higher education. However, the accreditation of lower schools is addressed to varying degrees in Regional accreditation and the articles about the specific regional accreditors in the U.S.--orlady 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the accreditation of lower schools is mentioned in --orlady 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change?

message: There is the issue of transfer of credits from nationally accredited schools to regionally accredited schools.  Regionals, in many cases, will not accept the credits because the feel the nationals are vocational schools and the credits do not satisfy there more academically inclined environment.  I put in a section about this in For-profit school.  I wonder if it would be more appropriate here?
Mysteryquest 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned here.  Indeed, I put it in this article several years ago and it was in the article for at least two years until someone else took it out (probably someone working for one of those nationally accredited schools).  I have been too busy working on Lawyer and working as a lawyer to deal with this issue.  If you dig through the article history, you should be able to find the original edit and the citation I later provided to support my assertion about the credit transfer problem.  --Coolcaesar 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do all regionaly accredited schools allow all other regionaly accredited schools regardless of what regional acreddedation school credits transfer then?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Credit transfer is up to the institution that is evaluating the credits. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Also from a pragmatic point of view it is frequently open to negotiation. TallMagic (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: So what is unique about the regional v national accredidation209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of Credit Issues?

message: I've seen people like John Gray's wiki carry specific references to his degree being from a non-accredited institution. 
And I've seen legitimate institutions bashed because in historical context they were non-accredited.   
Who accredited Harvard? When?  Yale? University of Indiana?  It's clear that many Universities and Colleges in the USA were not formed when accrediting bodies were around.   And when non-traditional schools evolved there were differing forms of accreditation around.  Some would argue that if a State grants a University or College with the ability to grant legal degrees that this is a from of accreditation.  What happens when one state says the degree is legal but another say it isn't?  What happens when North Central won't accredit but states do, and major companies recognize the degree as valid?   It seems to me to be grossly unfair to people who earned legal degrees in a significant state in the USA, but was not accredited by an organization that many years later is deemed to be important.   It's not likely they will be granting retroactive accreditations...  In summary the subject (And apparent attacks) need to be put into historical context.   74.138.83.249 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Put Accreditation in Historical Context 

message: The  template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Unaccredited; please contribute to the debate. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Can anyone tell me why has this been removed? As it is a agency which peforms the same role as other agencies in the distance learning sector.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulha (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find it helpful if you could point to the diff that you're referring to. TallMagic (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps  ? If that's it then Orlady's edit comment seems clear to me. If you disagree with the edit comment then explain what is the relevance of a statement in an article that has zero context, has zero verifiability associated with it, and zero referencability but, instead just throws out a seemingly meaningless suggestion to join an unknown organization? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open & Distance Learning Quality Council 

message: The following was added to the article.
Critics argue that the accreditation process is flawed in that agencies base their judgements on a few, easily-measured, characteristics of schools, such as the number of books in the library, the student-teacher ratio, or the school's overall expenditure, instead of measuring the abilities of their graduates.  Thus, school libraries that save costs by replacing some traditional books with online sources or CD-ROMs will be penalized.  The student-teacher ratio can be misleading in several ways.  Faculty members who spend most or all of their time doing research instead of teaching will improve the school's ratio, although they do not directly contribute to the students' education.  Schools that hire practicing professionals on a part-time basis to teach narrowly-focused courses will be penalized, although such professionals may be very knowedgeable and up-to-date in their specialities.  A relatively small budget might indicate that a school is concentrating on the essentials of education at the expense of frills; for example, by having an unremarkable but functional campus.  Agencies might also abuse their position by imposing irrelevant or debatable requirements, like affirmative action.Economic Facts and Fallacies / Thomas Sowell, (2008) Pages 96-102 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, December 4-6 2006 Meeting, Page 211Scholarly Restraints? ABA Accreditation and Legal Education / Cardozo Law Review, July 1998, p.2127
:references from above
My opinion is that the above proposed section gave undue weight to a small minority view, hence my reverting of its addition. A while back a similar discussion took place on this talk page. Please see above discussion,Talk:Educational_accreditation#Criticism_of_accreditation_processes. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Accreditation Process 

message: Kansas Online University is  a member of many official and semiofficial organizations like USDLA -United States Distance Learning Association.
Kansas Online University has the honor of being a Member of USDLA Beside Great international universities like American Intercontinental University. 
Overview of Accreditation
The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accreditation in the United States involves non-governmental entities as well as governmental agencies.
Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency
While National Accreditation is common for traditional U.S. institutions of higher learning, utilizing standard teaching methods, we note that every country has its own standards and independent accrediting organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansasou (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 October 2008
:Kansasou, welcome to Wikipedia. The above comment that you added makes little sense to me. I'm sorry but I can't find any reference to KOU in the article. You haven't stated what change, if any, you're proposing to the article. Please clarify. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KansasOU(Kansas Online University) 

message: The Article says: "The U.S. is a federal republic, and the federal government possesses only specific limited powers, with all others reserved to the states (pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Therefore, the authority of the U.S. Department of Education does not extend to authorizing schools to operate, to enroll students, or to award degrees." This is incorrect. Congress has almost unlimited authority to regulate matters within the states on the basis of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the Supreme Court has interpreted very liberally. You might recall Wickard v. Filburn, which allowed Congress to regulate wheat grown at home for private consumption, and Gonzales v. Raich, which allows Congress to regulate Marijuana grown at home for private consumption. There is no reason why Congress could not (through the Department of Education) regulate schools everywhere, just like it regulates employment, health services, and the design and layout of traffic lights, everywhere. I am proposing that the reference to the Tenth Amendment be deleted. As a practical matter the Tenth Amendment is largely irrelevant today. Rahul (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy either way on this one. What I do think is notable though is that today the states are primarily responsible for the regulation/authorization of schools to operate. TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid reference to Tenth Amendment 

message: In my opinion, this section seems to have gone off on a tangent. It is becoming an advertisement/justification for unaccredited religious oriented degrees. This needs to be refocused on "Educational accreditation", IMHO. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and just made some edits an effort to put this back in perspective. Probably more could be done to shorten and cleanup, though. Novaseminary (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious exempt section 

message: Text repeatedly added and removed from this article has become a new article, Religious-exempt degrees. I have nominated it for deletion. Editors can weigh-in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious-exempt degrees. Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like a topic that can and perhaps should be addressed in this article.  Why do you object to it?  Is it the topic or merely the proposed text?  --ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the text itself, and the POV pushing. There is already some mention of religious accreditors in this article. This article is about accreditation, not schools that are not accredited. Instead, non-POV text related to this topic could be incorporated into what is already in the U.S. section of Unaccredited institutions of higher learning since the text deals with the topic of unaccredited schools. Novaseminary (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Religious-exempt degrees]] 

message: Orlady has now also unredirected Regional accreditation from its redirect to Higher education accreditation in the United States where the relevant text was incorporated. All but one blurb in the list related to higher education, not pre-tertiary, and most of the article was sourced to non-RSs. I suggest that Regional accreditation be re-redirect to Higher education accreditation in the United States. I am placing the discussion here because it is related to the broader issue of how to properly cover these improtant subjects. Novaseminary (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: [EC] - See my comments above. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: *Fair enough, but right now the Regional accreditation article hardly mentions anything other than higher ed. That article should be expanded and Higher education accreditation#Regional accreditation should be written in such a way as to avoid duplication and content forking. Novaseminary (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am withdrawing my merge proposal, but the Regional accreditation article is terrible. I am withdrawing the porposal not because that article is ready for stand-alone status, but because the subject meets WP:N independent of other types of accreditation. And to show that Orlady was incorrect and speaking way out of school when s/he questioned my good faith with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of [[Regional accreditation]] into [[Higher education accreditation in the United States]] 

message: The fact that the CA State Bar has a list of unaccredited schools does not support an assertion that there are hundreds of legitimate unaccredited schools. The CA State Bar distinguishes these schools from those accredited/approved by the ABA and State Bar accredited schools. The accreditation only goes so far as to allow students in ABA & State Bar accredited schools to forgo the First Year Law Students Bar Examination ("Baby Bar"). A certain number of these unaccredited law schools have accreditation from non-State Bar entities. (I believe examples are the on-line schools.)  – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaccredited CA law schools 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Educational accreditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924155446/http://www.middlestates.org/History.html to http://www.middlestates.org/History.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907071332/http://www.advanc-ed.org/what-accreditation to http://www.advanc-ed.org/what-accreditation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615135829/http://chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf to http://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905095531/http://www.advanc-ed.org/where-we-are to http://www.advanc-ed.org/where-we-are
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120718040608/http://www.acsi.org/Programs/ACSIGlobal/tabid/584/Default.aspx to http://www.acsi.org/Programs/ACSIGlobal/tabid/584/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified