Talk:California Coast University

message: I'm not the one trying to puff up PWU, and in fact can't tell you anything about it.  You, however, have repeatedly spun this article.  It wasn't a "complaint" that resulted in the name change, it was the loss of a lawsuit.  I've corrected the article.  I've also edited the section on the accreditation to perhaps make CCU look a little better than the way you had it, while explaining the GAO determination in the first place.
I don't have anything in particular against CCU.  I have a lot against hiding the truth, or being misleading.  Critic-at-Arms 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter

message: CCU has gained ground in the past 34 years and maintains a steady course in spite of its detractors. Unfortunately, education is a snooty field for many who seek validation. One of the biggest criticisms of this school is that its tuition is low. This taunts the big bucks, elitist approach to education. Other criticisms are that this school is not well known. For those who need brand names for their educational validity and if national accreditation won't do, then they should go somewhere else.  Much criticism revolves around the distance approach. If independent study is not for you, then go where you can sit and listen to a lecture. But to cry out against the school as a diploma mill speaks volumes against the detractors. In spite of these criticisms, the loudest wailing still cannot drown out the trumpets of approval from the U.S. Department of Education, the DETC, and CHEA, all leading accreditation authorities in higher education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.34.112.176 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraged

message: I just edited this page to remove some of the unbalanced and biased descriptions.  What is needed on this page is a history of CCU that presents both sides with credible sources and unbiased language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davewagner (talk • contribs) 
:I can confirm from my own research that the page as of August 1, 2007 is factually correct, and neutrally presented. I can also confirm this University is not a "diploma mill". The courses of study are done as any other correspondence course, (I took Ornithology from Cornell via correspondence, and that school could never be called a diploma mill). The university uses textbooks from Pearson/Prentice Hill, as many other universities, and sends study guides, which have questions at the end of each chapter, and "Unit" examinations (4 per course). After those are completed, the student then must complete 3 essays (by choosing 3 questions to answer from a set of questions, usually 4-6 options to choose from per the person I spoke to in my research). The essay guidelines are clear and strict, with specific rules the student must follow to get credit. Finally, the student must complete a proctored examination. The final examination must be taken in the presence of a neutral, third party (proctor) who can verify the identity of the test-taker. 
:Prior credit is given for classes taken from other accredited schools, but you do not get a degree from "life experience" as is the case with diploma mills. Even if you are only 4 credits shy of a degree, you are still required to complete their course of study, there are no "freebies" given out. For each degree, you can only transfer partial credit: Associates: 30 units, Bachelor's: 93 units, Masters 6 units. Thus, another discredit to the claim this school is a diploma mill. You are indeed paying for an education, you must read textbooks that are nationally used, and you must complete a series of exams, and essays. This is not a "pay for degre" in any way, shape, or form. 
:All that is lacking is, I agree, history of the university. I hope this clears things up for people who are not familiar with the school, and may jump to the wrong conclusions. If needed, I can cite many well-known companies who have hired graduates from the school. Thanks for reading, Ariel♥Gold 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: I've never taken any class at CCU but CCU is DETC accredited. So, it's unclear to me why there's discussion about CCU being a diploma mill? It may be true that RA is held in higher regard by many, especially within academia but DETC accreditation in my mind (I assume to most people as well.) means that CCU is not a diploma mill. The main purpose of my note here is to ask if anyone objects to the removal of the  tag in the article? Thanks, TallMagic 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of the <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> tag

message: California Coast University has been removed from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's list of questionable and/or substandard institutions-- positive news, to be sure. But the school should have been removed from this negative list back in early 2005, when it attained recognized accreditation. (Even state agencies can make mistakes).  Obi777 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obi777, I'm pleased to hear your report but I'm confused by the fact that CCU is still on the following list. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/NoTX.cfm Perhaps you're referring to a different list? I would also like to mention that I sent a request to the Texas CB a few days ago asking them to remove CCU from the list I referenced above but I've not yet heard back from them. TallMagic 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that reference to the Texas list has been added back into the article. This is totally correct even though I suspect that CCU should not be on the Texas list because of its DETC accreditation. I say it is correct because as indicated in WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Without this rule editting Wikipedia would be total WikiChaos. Regarding Texas, if it's not a mistake then perhaps it's a condemnation of DETC by Texas or a statement about CCU specifically being unaccredited for so long or something? TallMagic 23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Obi777, In your edit comment you mention the following list, http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/FraudTX.cfm Please note that CCU has never been on that list. That list is for institutions that are based in Texas. TallMagic 18:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello TallMagic, I had already realized that error. Please note that I returned the THECB reference to CCU'S wikipedia page on 10/14/07.
Obi777  13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very interesting situation. --TallMagic 17:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutly true. TallMagic 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just For The Record

message: Looks like some people don't like the fact that CCU has been placed on the fraudulent or substandard list by the state of Texas as noted by recent changes.  As we have discussed previously the fact is that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board as made this determination as noted by their statement on their webpage.  Some may feel that this is illegal or unjust but until the THECB determines otherwise the use of CCU degrees in the state of Texas is illegal.  This information is verifiable and accurate as of today. ***Please note: THECB officially recognizes DETC, and CCU is no longer on any Texas list***' --71.145.131.157 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: Some people have a penchant for reporting controversies which seem to discredit this nationally accredited school. The field of distance education is full of controversy. The situation is gradually improving but distance education is not as universally accepted as traditional "brick and mortar" education. There will be issues in this field that are larger than CCU. These should not be reported as if they only applied to CCU. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.14.89 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. While I agree with what I assume is your position, that Texas should recognize DETC accredited degrees, I disagree that the issue is a "tabloid" issue or unfair to report. I believe that regional accreditation degrees are more accepted than DETC degrees and therefore have more utility. IMHO, the Texas THECB issue mentioned in the article is just another example of this very important issue. TallMagic 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, save your debate for another forum. This is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.33.32 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why once again? I was addressing the topic that you started. If you would like to continue discussing the topic that you started then fine. TallMagic 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Reporting

message: Degrees awarded before the accreditation date are considered unaccredited. Unaccredited degrees may not be acceptable to some employers or other institutions. In some jurisdictions the use of unaccredited degree titles may be restricted or illegal, for example in the State of Texas. Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
===references===
There seems to be an ongoing disagreement over the above text in the accreditation section. When there's a disagreement such as this it should be discussed on the talk page. So, here's where I propose discussing it.
Here's my opinion:
I don't have a problem with the above text. The initial proposed text was too long and I felt applied undue weight to the previously unaccredited status. The above text is okay IMHO, though because CCU was unaccredited for many years and unaccredited degrees will still have some restrictions as the Texas THECB indicates. TallMagic 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  degrees awarded prior to 2005 

message: There seems to be an ongoing disagreement over the above text in the accreditation section. When there's a disagreement such as this it should be discussed on the talk page. So, here's where I propose discussing it.
Here's my opinion:
I don't have a problem with the above text. The initial proposed text was too long and I felt applied undue weight to the previously unaccredited status. The above text is okay IMHO, though because CCU was unaccredited for many years and unaccredited degrees will still have some restrictions as the Texas THECB indicates. TallMagic 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: I believe that CCU discontinued offering doctorate degrees as part of their DETC accreditation. Saying that CA allows CCU to offer doctorates doesn't make sense to me. CA academic license approval no longer applies and is irrelevant after official DETC accreditation was achieved. CA law that applies to academic institutions is different for accredited and unaccredited institutions.  Therefore, it seems to me to be nothing more than a misleading sentence. That is why I have deleted that phrase twice from the article. If you disagree then please explain your rationale here. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCU Doesn't Offer Doctorates 

message: To TallMagic and others:
DETC-accredited and out-of-state schools operating in California have long been required to go through the California state-approval process. Only in-state regionally accredited schools, religious-exempt schools and perhaps schools with certain professional accreditations are not required to be state-approved. It should also be noted that the California state-approval process is currently in flux, as the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (the official regulatory body) was sunsetted in July 2007. State authorities apparently have until next year to form a new oversight body. In the meantime, such schools operating in California have signed an official agreement with the State to conform to the current standards.--Obi777 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Clarification 

message: I added the fact that various news sources/groups/agencies once dubbed CCU a diploma mill. This part of its 35 year history and needs mentioned, along with famous graduates. BBiiis08 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me. I was thinking if it might add to the article to make mention that in the USA Regional accreditation is the gold standard and DETC is more like the silver standard? If we were going to add something like that I could probably find some general statement to that effect. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that the 2004 GAO report (cited by so many) involving California Coast University did NOT describe it as a diploma mill, but as an unaccredited school. The title of this GAO report is "Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools". It is baffling to me that this distinction is not made by more people, including many so-called journalists who seem to have not actually read the report, but merely cite other erroneous "news" articles and reports. Obi777 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider it much more significant that the GAO report didn't accuse CCU of any wrong doing. Of course that is already mentioned in the article. There's not even a mention of what occured in the CCU investigation. Personally I'm sure that they did investigate CCU and didn't report on it simply because they didn't find any wrong doing. The issue regarding the 35 year history is that the information would be relevant to the article. Personally though, I'm not really inclined to try to expand on that history.  TallMagic (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've restored the properly sourced information that you removed. Thank you for adding the paragraph that improves the article. Please note that CCU's history is relevant to the article. Nothing has been proven false as far as I know. If you do have some kind of proof, I'd be interested in seeing it. The Wikipedia policy that you should review is verifiability. Just because you have an issue with a reference you cannot delete it from a Wikipedia article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi Exit167, the article is about California Coast University. CCU is about 36 years old. It did not just begin its existance when it received DETC accreditation. The whole history of CCU ideally should be covered in the article. Please review the wp:V policy. The first sentence of this very important policy is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Note that the bolding is not my addition but, is actually part of the policy text. From the pragmatic point of view, if it were allowed to bicker over the truthfulness of reliable sources then nothing could ever get done. Unless contradictory reliable sources can be produced then the information is what it is. The policy is that it must be verifiable which it is. Arguing over the truth in this case is a subjective rabbit hole that is best not entered. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I just reread the article and no where in the article is CCU referred to as a diploma mill or a degree mill. Even though according to Wikipedia policy that probably could be allowed and even reasonably argued that it would improve the article. For example, it could be mentioned that prior to achieving accreditation, CCU was sometimes referred to as a degree mill. Removing references because they do refer to CCU in those terms is plain wrong. There is no reasonable justification for it in Wikipedia policy. It is against Wikipedia policy. Please don't do it anymore. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you for improving the article. TallMagic (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I restored the good references that you had removed. If you care to add additional references then that would be great. TallMagic (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Called a diploma mill/now accredited 

message: I have added the GAO reference with only the facts (not spin) in 
tact (as I have done in the past, only to find the reference removed).
At one point I did temporarily remove the GAO reference with the intention of "cleaning it up".  (And many of my edits are minor).
It seems that someone tends to favor glowing descriptions of Pacific 
Western University while slinging mud on CCU, which has received DETC 
accreditation. (Someone likes to refer to PWU as accredited, which it is NOT). Someone likes to add "Magic Mill" and simple bio links with one's own negative spin, in addition to the accurate links.  This annoys me 
since I do have a connection to CCU.  But I will endeavor to be as fair as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacw6 (talk • contribs) 
Just to Clarify, as of 7/24/08, THECB officially recognizes DETC, and CCU is no longer on any kind of "Texas" list.
Just wanted to clarify. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.252.207 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dmacw6, I moved your comment from the top of the page to the bottom. It is customary to start new threads on the bottom of the page. I hope that you don't mind? Regarding your message, it's unclear to me exactly what you are referring to since I don't see any very recent edits in the article. Zugman (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Does anyone know how to upload the logo to the info box? Can anyone help with this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.12.201 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images. However, a logo will have an implicit copyright, so make sure to read about how to handle non-free content. tedder (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the information Tedder, the instructions to upload images are very complicated for me since I'm not an expert here. Hopefully someone from the University would be able to work on that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.12.201 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: University Official Logo

message: The Federal government saw fit to mention CCU in two separate reports published by the General Accounting Office:
* GAO-04-771T, dated 11 May, 2004, and entitled, "Diploma Mills: Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools, Some at Government Expense"
* GAO-04-1096T, dated 23 September, 2004, and entitled, "Diploma Mills: Diploma Mills Are Easily Created and Some Have Issued Bogus Degrees to Federal Employees at Government Expense"
It's true that the information presented in each is the same, but they're two distinct reports. That the government saw fit to present information about CCU in two separate reports on diploma mills is relevant, and the repeated and ongoing effort that has been made to delete one or the other should not be continued. If that does continue, recourse to administrative intervention may be necessary. I have (again) reverted the most recent attempt to expunge this information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussed in two Federal Reports 

message: Hi, all. This article has often seen attempts to expunge negative information. Yesterday a Verizon IP from Westminster, CA, next door to Santa Ana, where the school is located, twice deleted well-sourced information that doesn't reflect well on the school. Other established users reverted that. Today, a new account, in its first edit, repeated that deletion, which I've just now reverted. I'd ask that editors who have this article watchlisted keep a close eye out for any similar attempts. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing attempts to delete negative information 

message: State approval was the original way colleges and universities were legitimized. Most of the world still operates that way including famous universities in developed countries. Non profit accrediting agencies have become the norm in USA, but not overseas. Starting in the 1920's smaller states began the movement to unload their responsibility for regulating higher education. Larger state governments like California were able to continue the state approval process in addition to acceptance of non profit regional accreditation and specialized accreditation of professions. Foreign students may find more value in state approval than in regional accreditation. In USA the colleges joined together and accredited them selves. 
Accreditation is private, non profit, and voluntary but has become expected in USA and mandatory in some situations. State approval is mandatory in foreign countries. 
CCU has always had state approval of it's academic programs which is the highest of three categories in California college approval system. Doctor John Bear gave a favorable description of CCU in his book although John Bear was associated with a competing distance learning institution at the time. 
CCU has a history of being criticized in public, but winning court cases about academic legitimacy. With DETC accreditation CCU has improved it's situation, but also raised the cost of tuition for students at a time when other colleges are being accused of price fixing with the aid of accrediting agencies.
Astrojed (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accrediting Agencies and State Approval 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on California Coast University. 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/20130411165206/http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=178 to http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=178
*Added  tag to https://requests.stanford.edu/requests/new?ckey=464506¤t_loc=STACKS&home_lib=SAL3&home_loc=STACKS
*Added archive https://archive.is/20131008164903/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=60597 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=60597
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224074706/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=88678 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=88678
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224074721/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=44353 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=1&newsID=44353
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) 06:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on California Coast University. 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/20120223164127/http://www.chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?accredID=45%3BDistance%20Education%20and%20Training%20Council to http://www.chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?accredID=45%3BDistance%20Education%20and%20Training%20Council
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021143614/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002484649_pennington10m.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002484649_pennington10m.html
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) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified