Talk:Vision International University

Joshua Reichard, Director of Institutional Advancement for Vision International University writing:

I made the following changes to this entry, originally created by CaliEd; some of the information is either innacurrate or confused.

1) Vision International University achieved temporary approval from the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) on June 30, 2006. The statement regarding temporary approval can be found at VIU Authorization Page. Religious Exemption is no longer applicable.

2) Vision International University does not make any claim to being accredited by a CHEA-approved agency in the United States. We are very explicity about not being accredited in the United States.

3) Vision International University does not hold Australian accreditation. The accreditation is held by Vision International College in New South Wales, Australia, an affiliated but independently governed institution VIC Accreditation Page, out of which Vision International University was established. The Vision International Education Network consists of four distinct institutions.

4) I expanded the description of the programs to reflect the details on the website.

For those interested in the accreditation goals of Vision International University, we are pursuing accreditation with the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), an effort which we have been working toward for several years.

I hope this is helpful and clear to Wiki readers. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me directly at jreichard@vision.edu.

Sincerely,

--Jreichard 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the disclosure. Would be great if more administrators of the various unaccredited institutions of higher learning would take the same approach. -- Bob K | Talk 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting and updating the information. CaliEd 04:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, the unaccredited disclaimer is repeated three times; is it necessary in all three places? The institution is deliberately clear on its accreditation status. Also, do you have a citation to support the {{}} tag that says that "use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions"? I know that there are laws limiting religious exempt degrees (and legitimate religious exempt institutions will specifically disclaimed the laws state by state), but I am not familiar with laws that limit state-approved degrees. Can you cite or clarify? Thanks. --Jreichard 04:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the current status now? I have just been informed that VIU has been officially state approved as of 30 June 2006. Does this mean it isn't considered a religious-exempt institution anymore? -- Bob K | Talk 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BobK, that is correct. The University achieved state-approval on June 30, 2006. CaliEd has been inserting the "unaccredited tag" as described above into the articles of several unaccredited institutions, though I am not sure if this applies to religious exemption only. My understanding that this is the case. I have asked him to cite his source for adding this tag or at least to explain it here, but he has not responded; tomorrow will be one week. I certainly understand that some state restrict using non-accredited degrees on applications for state employment and in some states a non-accredited degree is not acceptable for any state-regulated licensure (this is not the case in CA). Should we wait for CaliEd to cite his source or do you think it is acceptable to remove the tag? Thanks for your concern and participation. --Jreichard 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I Removed superfluous "unaccredited tag" from the end of the "Academics" section. I really don't think we needed two "unaccredited tags" in a row. I also edited the Accreditation section by moving the state-approval bit to the beginning. I then replaced the "unaccredited tag" with slightly modified static text to improve clarity and accuracy. The "illegal" statement was also removed as I could find no references to support this assertion with regards to state-approved institutions not falling under religious exemption. CaliEd: If I'm incorrect, can you clarify this or provide a reference? Drichardson 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education is NOT accreditation

Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education states clearly it "approves" not accredits schools in California.[1] More importantly, they are unaccredited see database of accredited schools (CHEA [2]) (USDE[3])

Please don't modify a template that ALL unaccredited schools have. Just because the state of California "approves" a school doesn't mean that "education" is acceptable in Oregon.[4] CaliEd 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, I will chime in here. You are absolutely correct. State Approval is not equalivalent to accreditation in any way. The University makes that explicity clear on its website, in literature, and in the article. I think the question that the users have is that your statement regarding "illegality" does not seem to be documented. Can you provide a citation for that reference? I kindly asked for the citation a month ago. I think it is only fair that if you are inserting tags into unaccredited schools, we properly document the insertion. I am in full agreement with you; too many schools thoroughly abuse "religious exemption" and it only ends up hurting the student in the long run. But to my knowledge, a degree is "illegal" only when it is a) religious exemption from a state with such laws and b) is used to gain secular or government employment in Oregon. If Oregon is the only state with such laws and it applies only to religious exempt degrees, then we need to be more specific with the tag. Let's discuss the issue further and make sure we adequately cite our sources. The tag is very loaded and should have citations built in. The magnitude of what is stated demands them. Let's reason together. Thanks in advance.--Jreichard 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. From the US Department of Education: "In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency."http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/accreditation.html] CaliEd 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think the users were looking for. I think it may be appropriate to modify the tag to read as:

... is an institution operating in the United States that is not accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some states unless approved by the state licensing agency.

This accomplishes two things: 1) It better clarifies the US-centricity of the statement and 2) It reads just as the USDE disclaimer reads. We can move this discussion to the Unaccredited talk page if you'd like. Please let me know your thoughts.--Jreichard 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I will ask for a link. Does the state licensing agnecy mean it is not illegal in other states? 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."[5] CaliEd 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement I referenced is directly from the USDE link that you provided to me at [6]. The article you are citing does not cite the legislation itself. The terms "fake or otherwise unaccredited" are the reporter's words, not the words of the legislation. A degree can be unaccredited but and still be a genuine degree (not "fake"). Let's keep working. How do you feel about my proposed changes to the tag above? Thanks. --Jreichard 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[7] (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 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just spoke with Karen Oelschlager, a Degree Authorization representative at the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (360.753.7869). She told me that while she could not render legal advice (of course), the intent of the Washington legislature was not exclude degrees approved by other states, but simply to prevent diploma mills from operating within the state of Washington without state authorization or accreditation. The law is not intended to make Washington an island by excluding the approval of other states; it simply omits mentioning other states because it was irrelevant to its original purpose. It is a matter of how the law is approached and interpreted, certainly. Your thoughts please. --Jreichard 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would feel better if we had a source that clearly states that. However, Oregon completely forbids unaccredited degrees and so does North Dakota.

Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, see (www.state.nd.us/cte/post-secondary/programs/priv-post-inst/real-degree.pdf) and New Jersey, see (www.njtrainingsystems.org/) to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana, see (www.in.gov/cope/directory/) to use an unaccredited doctorate. See those states’ laws for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud.[8]

Your thoughts? CaliEd 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you; this is why I am advocating that we rephrase the template as stated above. I think that fraud should be dealt with harshly and illegitimate degrees should be prosecuted. However, I disagree that if a degree is not yet accredited that it is automatically illegitimate. How then will any new school operate? A new school cannot achieve accreditation instantaneously. Accreditation requires a history of operation, graduates, etc. To classify as degree as "fake" because it is unaccredited is not a valid designation unless the school is operating illegally (not authorized or approved by a particular state authority). Many fine unaccredited schools are on the pathway to accreditation. The citations above are not battling degrees that are approved by other state degree authorization boards; they are battling illegitimate diploma mills with no state authorization or approval that are issuing illegal, worthless degrees, an effort which I wholeheartedly, unquestionably support.--Jreichard 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem? A government source states unaccredited degrees are not acceptable in Oregon, North Dakota, New Jersey, and unaccredited doctorates are illegal in Indiana. Canidate institutions for accreditation are listed in the CHEA and USDE accreditation database. CaliEd 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A school must operate for several years under State Approval/Authorization before it can seek accreditation or even achieve Candidacy. This does not make a school "fake" or illegitimate. However, other states not have to honor a degree from any other state. In California, a State-Approved degree qualifies for state licensure by the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners and for the Bar Exam. California State Approved degrees from unaccredited by State Approved institutions simply cannot be equated to "fake". That is why I am proposing the revised language above.--Jreichard 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

None of your links above are valid. North Dakota is a dead link, New Jersey is a training provider website with no reference to degrees, and Indiana lists the index of approved institutions with no specific details that you mention. Please adequately cite the sources.--Jreichard 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, please read this reference on the Oregon page [9]. This clearly illustrates my point:

May a degree issued by a state-approved but unaccredited school in another state be used in the private sector in Oregon?

Yes, provided that the user discloses on all resumes, letterhead, business cards or web sites that the degree is unaccredited and unapproved by ODA.

Please comment.--Jreichard 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• So you are doubting the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization?
• Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees.[10]
• North Dakota does not accepted unaccredited degrees. [11] (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.

I'll fine more links later. But the ND link to the law shows that unaccredited schools are not accepted. The template stays. CaliEd 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, I am not doubting the Oregon Office, I am quoting them. Please re-read the page [12]. The question is asked "May a degree issued by a state-approved but unaccredited school in another state be used in the private sector in Oregon?" and the answer is provided "Yes, provided that the user discloses on all resumes, letterhead, business cards or web sites that the degree is unaccredited and unapproved by ODA.". The answer is "YES" from the Oregon DOA. Do you understand the difference between accreditation and state authorization/approval? Do you understand the necessity for both? Let's keep talking. --Jreichard 23:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you admit that unaccredited degrees, the kind that Vision has, are not accepted in North Dakota? Note: the full law is quoted above. CaliEd 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to call the North Dakota office tomorrow to verify. I am not denying that they may be unacceptable in some states (the USDE website confirms this). That is perfectly logical; all states maintain individual rights and no state must recognize a degree from another state apart from federally (CHEA) recognized accreditaton. However, I think you are misunderstanding the intent of the laws. They are designed to protect the consumer from institutions with no state approval, no authorization, and no legality.

So if you don't deny it then why remove the one sentence which lets it be known? (As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.) As such this article should reflect the limited use of Vision's "degrees." CaliEd 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is how an institution achieves accreditation: it must first gain authorization from the state in which it operates to grant degrees, then achieve accreditation from a regional or national agency. Accrediting agencies do not provide degree-granting authority to an institution, individual states do. States do not accredit institutions, accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA do. Do you see why they must go hand-in-hand and why a school may be state-approved without having achieved accreditation? I am simply making the argument that you cannot equate (in a broad-brush manner) an institution with a diploma mill if it has at least achieved approval from its state licensing authority. --Jreichard 23:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, the degrees are not acceptable in all parts of the country. If this changes so will the article. I just did a whois check, and the vision webpage has been up since 08-Mar-2001. It is now August 2006, and in the last five years Vision has not gotten accreditation and only last month was approved by the California agecny. CaliEd 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, you are correct. However, Vision started in 1974 in Australia and came to the United States as VIU in 1990. We have existed for a long time. You are now questioning the integrity of the institution, which is an unfair attack. However, I'm not certain that you are aware of the complexity and cost of accreditation. It is an extremely expensive process. We have spent the last decade preparing for accreditation. Unless you have a significant amount of funds behind you, you cannot simply produce an institution that is ready for accreditation overnight. It takes faculty, staff, facilities, and most of all, development of the institution's mission, policies, and procedures, etc., which take time to develop. That is precisely what we have been doing. We anticipate filing an application for DETC accreditation in the fall.--Jreichard 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Look if you are going offer excuses you will get response like... maybe if the founders of the school cannot ensure academic quality through an independent standard like accreditation they should not open a school. It seems simple: wait to open and educate until you can ensure that your university meets the standards of the average school. CaliEd 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CaliEd, this is not standard practice. Standard practice is as follows: A school organizes and seeks State Approval, Licensure, or Exemption in the state in which they will operate. Then they will begin the process of working toward accreditation, which may take decades. They never happen simultaneously. Why the insults? Why the hostility? I think we have been more than an open book with you and I have been very fair and reasonable. I have never altered a single edit that you have made to the article. Rather, I have requested that we simply discuss it in this forum. Let's be civil. --Jreichard 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vision International 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060923102510/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)