Search News


Browse Archives

News

Taking Aim at Diploma Mills

January 29, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- It's not easy to find fans of diploma mills -- advocates for institutions that award bogus degrees for no work don't tend to make their feelings known in polite company. But in the United States and abroad, the phony diploma industry has remained remarkably resilient, fed by often weak regulatory oversight, a ready market of workers looking for easily attained credentials needed for career advancement -- and, not unimportantly, unclear definitions of what a degree mill is that can make it difficult to crack down on them even when they are prosecuted.

While they portrayed it as far from a panacea, a U.S. Congressman and several supporters unveiled legislation Thursday that aims to make at least some progress on all of those fronts. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.) and Michael Castle (R-Del.), would (1) cement in federal law definitions of "diploma mills" and "accreditation mills" (the unauthorized agencies from which the phony institutions claim to derive their authority to operate), (2) bar federal agencies from using degrees from diploma mills to provide jobs or promotions that depend on candidates' educational credentials, and (3) give the Federal Trade Commission more authority to define and crack down on deceptive practices by dubious institutions.

"We have an obligation to see to it that people have confidence in our institutions, particularly our institutions of higher education, and in the credentials they provide," Bishop said Thursday at an international forum sponsored by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which has undertaken a series of efforts to rein in unauthorized colleges and degrees. "I don't presume that our bill will solve all the problems," but it's a start, said the New York representative, a longtime administrator at Southampton College, now part of Long Island University.

Defining the exact scope of the diploma mill "industry" and the extent of the havoc it wreaks is difficult precisely because of the underground nature of many of the institutions, which one audience member at Thursday's meeting described as "chameleon-like" and another compared to the "Shmoo," the L'il Abner characters that "multiplied at such an incredible rate." George Gollin, a physics professor who has developed a growing side interest in unaccredited degree-granting institutions and advised Bishop, estimated that such entities award as many as 200,000 credentials a year and that the federal government spends roughly $300 million a year on raises alone for employees who got jobs or promotions using fraudulent degrees or certificates.

Scrutiny, regulation and even law enforcement involving diploma mills has increased in recent years, with states such as Mississippi and Wyoming toughening their laws, the Government Accountability Office documenting the prevalence of diploma mill credentials among federal workers, and the federal government (with Gollin's help) successfully prosecuting the owners of several now-shuttered diploma mills for fraud.

But even some of those efforts have been made more difficult by a lack of tools. Defense lawyers in the aforementioned federal prosecution, involving St. Regis University, argued that their clients could not be prosecuted because there was no legal definition of a diploma mill, Gollin said Thursday.

The fact that the proposed legislation would inject into federal law a clear-cut definition of a diploma mill is one of several reasons that the bill would be "an excellent step" toward reining in diploma mills, Gollin said.

The measure would define as a diploma mill any entity that (1) is not accredited by an agency that is recognized by the U.S. Education Department or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation or authorized to grant postsecondary degrees by a state government (business licensure is not sufficient) and (2) offers degrees or other credentials for a fee but requires "little or no education or course work" to gain that credential. So while some people consider all unaccredited institutions to be diploma mills, and some states recognize only those degrees awarded by accredited colleges, the proposed law would make clear that institutions that choose not to seek regional or national accreditation but earn a state's approval to grant degrees will not be considered a diploma mill if they require work by students to earn degrees.

Oddly, the legislation would define differently those degrees that can be legitimately used to qualify for a federal job or promotion. "[O]nly a degree from a degree-granting institution that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary of Education ... shall be acceptable" for such purposes, the legislation reads. So it would appear, as the bill is written now, that the federal government would not recognize as legitimate degrees awarded by unaccredited institutions that are authorized by a state to award degrees -- even though the measure would not define those institutions as diploma mills.

The bill would also direct the Federal Trade Commission to establish regulations that would define as "unfair and deceptive act(s) or practice(s)" a fairly wide array of activities:

  • Issuance of a degree or other credential by an entity that is not recognized as legitimate by the U.S. education secretary, "if such degree, diploma, certificate or similar document misrepresents, directly or indirectly, the subject matter, substance, or content of the course of study or any other material fact concerning the course of study" for which the credential was awarded.
  • The issuing of an "academic, professional, or occupational degree" by an institution not accredited by the education secretary or CHEA "unless the entity offering or conferring" the degree "clearly and conspicuously discloses, in all advertising and promotional materials that contain a reference to such a degree, that the awarding of the degree has not been so authorized or that the entity offering or conferring the degree has not been so approved or recognized."
  • Any advertising or promotional claims that an educational entity is accredited unless it is accredited by a federally or CHEA-recognized agency, or any claim of approved status by an unaccredited entity that "misrepresents, directly or indirectly, the nature, extent, or credibility of such approval."
  • The issuing of accreditation to a degree-granting institution by any entity "that is not recognized for accreditation purposes" by the education secretary or CHEA.

International educators who were briefed by Bishop on the proposed legislation at the CHEA meeting Thursday praised the Congressman and his colleagues for attacking the diploma mill issue, even as they noted various ways in which this U.S. legislation would do little to help the issues they are wrestling with on their home turf.

"The leadership of the U.S. will do wonders worldwide," said David Woodhouse, president of the Australian Universities Quality Agency.

Carolyn Campbell, head of international affairs at Britain's Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, said that even potentially strong and aggressive national laws like the one Bishop is proposing will do little to stop the many diploma mills that operate online. "Who's policing the Internet?" she said. "How can we engage the Internet service providers [and entities that deal with Internet names and addresses] to take interest in this, to cut off the oxygen, and survival, to these providers?"

Bishop acknowledged the limitations of the legislation, but said he hoped that by stepping up law enforcement, and potentially cutting off demand among at least federal employees for such credentials, the bill could potentially have an effect beyond the United States.

And that momentum could be greater if the federal legislation were to be mimicked in various American states, further restricting demand for promotion-aiding fake degrees among the hundreds of thousands of state employees, supporters of the bill said.

So given how hard it is to find people who support diploma mills, the federal legislation should face no hurdles -- right? Bishop was asked.

"I can't imagine any reasonable person taking issue with this bill," the New York representative said. But he pointed out that language similar to this measure's was attached in 2008 to the Higher Education Opportunity Act legislation, but was stripped from the bill in negotiations with the Senate, for reasons he did not understand, Bishop said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Taking Aim at Diploma Mills

  • Taking Aim at Diploma Mills
  • Posted by Anthony Pina , Dean at Sullivan University on January 29, 2010 at 8:30am EST
  • Having recently written two journal articles on the negative effects of diploma mills on higher education and distance learning, it is nice to not be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. I applaud the efforts of Congressmen Bishop and Castle--this is a good first step. Defining diploma mills is a necessity; however, the definition itself is problematic, not just for the reasons that Dr. Gollin correctly states, but a huge problem is that there is not definition for "little or no education or course work". Some diploma mills justify their existence based on a claim that they do, in fact, require the students to do "work". Since there is no agreement between institutions (or even between departments of a single institution) as to what constitutes minimum acceptable student work or learner skills/competency, I fear that diploma mills will simply require token pieces of "work" to get around the "little or no education or course work" definition. I can hear it now: "Sure, that grade school paper that you wrote on swallows at the San Juan Capistrano Mission can be used as your dissertation for your PhD in history!"

  • the fear of labels
  • Posted by Gary Bachman on January 29, 2010 at 11:00am EST
  • Frustrated encountering a number of tenured and tenure track faculty in reputable accredited universities who held PhDs from what appeared to me as “diploma mills,” I undertook a particular piece of research.

    I learned that the issue of labeling any particular institution as a “diploma mill,” is one that most jurisdictions seek to avoid. I could not identify a single state that maintains a public listing of institutions described as “diploma or degree mills.” I imagine this is largely a matter of having the time, personnel, and funds to confirm and potentially defend themselves in litigation against the many hundreds of unaccredited universities and unrecognized accreditation offices and organizations that have sprung up around the world.

    In place of such a list most states’ departments of education include advisories by which consumers are encouraged to identify for themselves diploma and degree mills

    At least four states have however passed legislation that identifies and prohibits the use of degrees from specific identified colleges and universities. At least one additional state has legislation prohibiting the use of degrees from universities unrecognized by US or international accrediting bodies.

    The four states; Michigan, Maine, Oregon, Texas, have specifically noted clear concerns beyond the basic issue of “accreditation.”
    • Oregon has by far done the most often cited work to identify and respond to the issue of substandard academic credentials. Their Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) maintains and posts on-line, a list of “non-legitimate degree suppliers.” “This list is posted, “for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools.”
    • Texas maintains a list of “Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas.”
    • Michigan specifically notes degrees from institutions that “will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational requirements indicated on job specifications.”
    • Maine maintains a web page entitled "Degree Mills and Accreditation Mills" that includes a link to its own list of “non-accredited universities.” (This list is acknowledged as a relying heavily upon the Oregon and Michigan lists.) Maine has further passed legislation that prohibits the use of what it describes as “false academic degrees”;
    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.

    • Nevada has also passed legislation that also prohibits the use of degrees from universities unaccredited by recognized accreditation bodies.
    • At least 6 states and one territory have posted online cautions through their state departments of education about “diploma mills,” but refrain from identifying specific “unaccredited” programs. Rather they link consumers to either the state of Oregons’ Office of Degree Authorization list of “non-legitimate degree suppliers,” or the US DoE which has links to the Oregon site.

    Alabama, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and the United States Virgin Islands are examples of jurisdictions that have taken this course. I presume that those jurisdictions linking to the Oregon list are to some measure relying upon it in their own review process.

    On a parallel track, the United States Office of Personnel Management established in 2005 “criteria for assuring the educational qualifications of federal employees.” Specifically the federal government may accept degrees from “foreign institutions that offer courses of study comparable to institutions accredited by organizations recognized by DoE.”
    I contacted the OPM in Washington, D.C. and was referred to a Senior International Affairs Specialist at the DoE. The specialist initially directed me to the list they rely on which is from the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. He described the list as the primary resource for identifying unqualified educational programs. He then explained that due to matters of “international relations” the US Government does not directly evaluate the qualifications of foreign universities. In addition to the Oregon list they rely upon private and international accreditation bodies or refer applicants to commercial “educational credential evaluators” for final determinations.
    The US Department of Education maintains a list of foreign and domestic accrediting agencies.

    The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, in collaboration with the World Education Services annually publishes a CD of world-wide accredited degree-granting institutions. IUGS is unrecognized there as well.

    And inspite of all this, reputable universities continue to hire faculty with questionable credentials and when confronted often defend such decisions.

  • Like a Bad Penny that keeps coming back ....
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on January 29, 2010 at 11:00am EST
  • Like a bad penny, this flawed legislative proposal keeps coming back.

    We have seen this all before, when the the so-called Diploma Mill Prevention Act was unveiled with much fanfare, but was wisely never included in the reauthorized HEA.

    Nearly all provisions of the reauthorized Higher Education Act that focused on problems associated with so-called 'diploma mills' were stripped from the final version of the bill. The original content was carried by House Resolution 773, the “Diploma Integrity Protection Act of 2007″ submitted by Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN 04) to the 110th Congress, and HR 6008 before that in 2006.

    Most, if not all, of the problems with 'diploma mills' stem from the fact that there are no minimum standards for colleges and universities in the US. There are no minimum standards, and the gatekeeping mechanisms for higher education in this country are like a picket fence gate with a broken hinge that is stuck in the open position.

    'Diploma mill' measures fundamentally misunderstand the history and nature of accreditation processes in the US. It is not the US Department of Education, but the regional, national and specialized accreditors that accredit postsecondary institutions. None of these proposals challenge this government-sponsored monopoly, but rather only strengthen it.

    Once again the accreditors have gotten the US Congress to carry water for them, this time by strengthening their government protected monopoly -- rather than reform the 100 year old system of higher ed self-regulation that is now in place.

    As for listing currently accredited institutions, this will prove to be a major headache for the Department of Education. Accreditors varying in their assessments of institutions, especially when it comes to branch campuses. Such confusion will only grow once this bill is implemented.

    Even more important are the underlying problems with the Diploma Mill construct -- diploma mills are what the accrediting guilds say they are. Ongoing quality problems with dual enrollment, on-line classes, and underqualifed TAs and adjuncts, and out-of-field teaching, make it clear that even accredited institutions can sometimes fall below the level of diploma mills.

  • Posted by Greg on January 29, 2010 at 12:15pm EST
  • I agree with Dean, this will either be a very short list, one written in sand, or longer than what was expected based on who defines what. Better to let sleeping dogs lie. To me the real sad issue here is the fact that the Gov't, public schools, and other companies tie higher degrees to job advancement and raises. This smacks of nothing more than education for education sake, with no relevancy, and an elitist approach to advancement. Whatever happened to merit? Who really has time, energy and discretionary money to go to school? So in reality those that have the time, money, energy and certified access get a frivilous advanced degree and are rewarded for it. While those without time, energy and certified access skip to the chase and simply purchase a frivilous degree and get rewarded for it. Either way the rich get rewarded with a higher salary and the rest plod along.

    Greg

  • Many states restrict degrees
  • Posted by Alan Contreras , Administrator at Oregon Office of Degree Authorization on January 29, 2010 at 12:45pm EST
  • As of 2009, a number of states now prohibit or restrict the use of unaccredited degrees. These are Washington, Oregon, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Missouri, Maine, New Jersey and Virginia. Many other states require accredited degrees for public employment.

    Although accreditation is the commonest screening method for degrees, there are nuances in accreditation related to what kind of accreditation a school has. No employer is required to accept any degree if they don't think it meets their needs.

    For an overview of the legal basis for degree-granting authority, see my recent paper published by SHEEO, at their web site - http://www.sheeo.org/

  • definition of "mill"
  • Posted by George Gollin , Professor of Physics at niversity of Illinois on January 29, 2010 at 12:45pm EST
  • Glen McGhee wrote

    "Most, if not all, of the problems with 'diploma mills' stem from the fact that there are no minimum standards for colleges and universities in the US."

    I disagree. Consider the St. Regis group, which operated in violation of federal laws covering mail/wire fraud and bribery of foreign officials. I do not think a declared set of academic standards for colleges and universities would have deterred them from selling degrees.

    Anthony Pina expressed his concern for the imprecision of the phrase "little or no education or course work."

    This is a slippery-slope issue that comes up in all sorts of situations. I do not think it is possible to finding a natural dividing line between "not as much as one might like, but still enough to satisfy a sensible requirement" and "not enough to be acceptable." But the two ends of the spectrum are clear: St. Regis did no evaluations and required no work. That's on the unacceptable side of the divide. From Lt. Cdr. Gelzer's senate testimony in 2004, Kennedy-Western requested of her an amount of work that (if credit for experience had not been issued) would have necessitated approximately 40 clock hours of effort too obtain a master's degree. Gelzer could have taken a week's vacation and worked from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday of one week. By Friday evening she would have finished the K-W requirements for a masters. That too is on the unacceptable side of the divide.

    What about a school that teaches 1/4 as much to a bachelor's degree student as my university? I'd say that's a really lousy school, and undeserving of state licensure or accreditation. But I'd want a court of law to decide on which side of the divide to place the school.

    I do not think the absence of a clear dividing line is a substantive problem, just one that could require a court's case-by-case interpretation.

  • Determining Legitimacy in a Complex Market
  • Posted by Robert W Tucker , President at InterEd, Inc. on January 29, 2010 at 2:15pm EST
  • George Golling wrote:

    What about a school that teaches 1/4 as much to a bachelor's degree student as my university? I'd say that's a really lousy school, and undeserving of state licensure or accreditation. But I'd want a court of law to decide on which side of the divide to place the school.

    I have no quarrel with the sentiment. Additionally, as a physicist, I assume George is speaking of outcomes when he says, "teaches 1/4 as much."

    Given that, we must understand the frivolity of the basis and impossibility of the any empirical instantiation of such a question. I am reasonably safe from contradiction in asserting that neither George's school nor the hypothetical institution in his comparison measures learning outcomes, proficiencies, or impact with the scientific validity, precision, and scope necessary to pass an introductory course in behavioral measurement sciences. Since 1985 we have been getting ready to get ready to measure our products. In fact, all we have accomplished since then is defensive posturing and temporizing.

    To be certain, there are difficult issues to be addressed with respect to the idea of legitimacy among institutions of higher education, and the stakeholders that attach themselves to these ideas (federal funding, loans, employment, state licensing, etc.). An effective resolution of these issues is made much more difficult by failing to realize that today's higher education consists of a myriad of niche markets, each defined by different inputs, institutional resources, learner goals, pedagogical processes and venues, workplace requirements, and more. All of this said, we must look to something other than outcomes for achieving a comfortable, albeit, temporary resolution. Yes, we have no outcomes . . . today or tomorrow.

    Robert W Tucker

    President

    InterEd, Inc.

    www.InterEd.com

  • Posted by Steve Foerster on January 29, 2010 at 2:30pm EST
  • The problem isn't that the feds aren't doing enough, the problem is that HR departments, in both the public and private sectors, aren't doing their jobs:

    http://tinyurl.com/yd7e7jk

    This bill wouldn't address that, and it's bad in other ways, like those that people are listing here. Bad job, guys.

  • Good sentiment, but destined, I fear, for failure
  • Posted by Chaplain Bob on January 29, 2010 at 6:00pm EST
  • I like that something's been proposed, but I fear it's ultimately destined for failure. I fear this partly because of the very questions about it already being raised in these comments; but also because, ultimately, any legislation which relies for its effectiveness upon the interpretation of the courts is destined to fail.

    I read Dr. Gollin's comments about letting the court decide; and I appreciate the notion, but as any lawyer will explain, that's simply not how our legal system works. Judges don't WANT to decide. They need concrete legal language upon which to rely in making rulings... no ambiguity. Republicans keep complaining about "activist" judges to make (case) law from the bench, but that happens so much less often than such as the FOX NEWS CHANNEL would have everyone believe that it's almost a non-issue. Judges are LOATHE to decide such things as Dr. Gollin suggests should be their purview.

    In fact, it is ambiguity, itself, which can serve to make a law facially unconstitutional; and any civil rights lawyer will tell you that any law which is unconstitutional on its face can actually be lawfully ignored by those to whom it is intended to apply, or whom it is supposed to regulate.

    My frustration is that the SENTIMENT of this new proposed law is noble and appropriate; but this is the second time it's been tried in recent memory, and I fear that if it fails again, future attempts will be taken even LESS seriously.

    Part of the problem in the US is that the use of the word "accreditor" or "accreditation," when it comes to education, is not regulated. I have always argued that word "accredit," and all of its conjugations, should be protected in law, much like the word "lawyer" or the phrase "attorney at law." If anyone claims to be a lawyer or an attorney at law, but actually isn't, they are quickly fitted for a pair of handcuffs...

    ...because those terms are protected in law from use by those who aren't qualified. Even diploma/degree mills understand that the days when potential students won't care about accreditation are over; and so they simply create their own fake accreditors -- build fancy web sites for them and everything -- and then claim accreditation by them. Potential students who don't understand accreditation get easily fooled. For them, there's magic in that word, and if they see that a given school is accredited, and are caught-up in that magic, they often don't bother to look-up the school on the US Department of Education (USDE) or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) web sites.

    I've heard that the FTC has had the power to regulate the use of all forms of the word "accredit" for a long time, but simply doesn't do it. If it would, I believe (or at least strongly suspect) that a a huge hole would be punched in the diploma mill problem.

    And even if it turns out that the FTC doesn't have that power after all, if legislation were created which simply restricts the use of the word "accredit" (and all its derivations), when used in connection with education, to only those agencies approved to accredit by USDE and/or CHEA, much of the diploma mill problem would probably disappear.

    Moreover (and this is an important aspect of it), there would be no ambiguity in such legislation (as there would appear to be in the legislation which Rep Bishop just proposed). Because of the "magic" for the consume contained in the word "accredit," there is all the reason in the world to regulate its use apropos education; and there is no ambiguity in restricting its use to only those accrediting agencies which are USDE- and/or CHEA-approved. Such restriction would also be reasonable and appropriate since pretty much everyone in the world (except, of course, diploma mill operators) recognizes only the USDE and/or CHEA as capable of deciding who is and isn't a bona fide accreditor in the US.

    If the new legislation were modified so that all it did was clearly define who is and who isn't an accreditor in the US, would also set forth HARSH penalties for those who claim to be one, but aren't, much of the problem, I believe, would be remediated. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think.

  • Some Important Definitions in this Debate
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee at FHEAP on January 29, 2010 at 11:15pm EST
  • We are indebted to Alan Contreras for his outstanding www.sheeo.org paper on the legal basis of degree-granting authority in the US; it is exciting to see such excellent work and it should be a 'must read' for all those engaged in this debate.

    Most of the time, the legal authority to grant academic degrees rests with the states, Contreras shows, and that authorization must take concrete form.

    "It is important to note at the outset that the legal authority to issue degrees is not the same thing as the qualitative oversight of college programs, a much broader and more complex issue. It is also worth noting that a college having the legal authority to issue degrees is no guarantee that its degree programs are good or even adequate."

    But neither is accreditation a guarantee that a school's courses and degree programs are of good educational quality.

    Degrees that are granted by schools without state authorization are considered invalid (i.e., fraudulent), which the proposed legislation seems to confuse with not having proper accreditation. These separate issues should not be confused. The validity of a degree depends on the adequacy of the state authorization for a school to award degrees, and those schools that award degrees but are lacking in the authority to do so are engaging in fraud because awarding valid degrees implies (or can be said to imply) state authorization.

    (The state authorization of schools is one-leg of the Triad of Gatekeeping provisons of the Higher Education Act. The other legs include accreditation and the US Dept of Ed, and all three legs of the triad are supposed to work together for Title IV purposes.)

    Although a degree is considered "valid if it is properly granted (that is, not fraudulently or mistakenly granted) by an entity that has the legal authority to do so," recent examples come to mind where properly authorized schools have awarded degrees either fraudulently or mistakenly, but without those degrees then being recalled or declared invalid. So, with added emphasis, I would add that if a school is duly authorized to grant degrees by the state, this is no guarantee that those degrees are 'valid' in the common sense of the term -- although it is most likely that they are.
    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/12/newbirth

    Regarding Florida, the state some time ago delegated what Contreras calls "qualitative oversight" of public schools to accreditors; and for-profit schools applying for a license with the Commission for Independent Education (CIE) also have an option that relies heavily on accreditation, "License by Means of Accreditation," [FAC 6E-2.002(3)]. Depending upon actual practices, this reliance may, as Contreras suggests, may open the door to viewing them "as a state actor for legal purposes ... and rendering the accreditor subject to public meetings and records requirements."

    I want respond to previous comments by pointing out that 'credential inflation' (see @wiki) is doing far more harm to the value of college degrees than 'degree mills,' which Contreras sensibly differentiates from 'diploma mills' -- see Contreras Note 5.

    Contreras' main point, which goes to the heart of the proposed legislation, is that "there is no such thing in the U.S. as a legitimate degree-granter that does not have governmental degree-granting authorization. Accreditation by itself cannot confer degree-granting authority" although CHEA seems to think that it should.

  • Employers are missing practical tools to fight diploma mills
  • Posted by Eyal Ben Cohen , Managing Director at Accredibase on February 3, 2010 at 9:45am EST
  • I would like to raise a slightly different perspective to the issue of diploma and accreditation mills.

    Too often people accuse governments and legislators of not doing enough and when they do something, they are accused of violating civil rights, interfering with the free market and wanting to develop a nanny state.

    As someone who runs a pre-employment screening company we deal with diploma mills every day. We see the reactions of candidates that have tried to use them and we are asked to advise our clients, the employers, who need to make a recruitment decision but are hesitating to decide what is right or wrong.

    Therefore I will support any change in legislation that will make it harder for diploma mills to operate and clearer for the average consumer to understand, but is it enough?

    The article quotes Professor Gollin as saying the US federal government spends roughly $300 million a year on raises alone for employees who got jobs or promotions using fraudulent degrees. Those in the government responsible for this, in my opinion, do not have the tools or the knowledge, or both, so they accept these fraudulent degrees on a face value.

    It is often easy enough to tell when an institution is offering a fraudulent degree but I also agree that the definitions at times can be challenging. However no employer has the time or budget to challenge institutions through the courts. Though I would love to see more government resources on such an activity. In fact, I would argue that most employers do not even have the basic knowledge to help them understand how accreditation works. It is often an overlooked part of any basic education check.

    It is also not exactly an issue for the USA alone. Diploma mills are operating, or at least claiming to operate, in almost every country. Our research has so far identified diploma mills in 121 countries! With greater than ever movement of workers around the globe, many people applying for employment in the US will not claim to have a US degree. Therefore it is much harder for the average employer to check these overseas degrees, understand the accreditation status in far afield countries and come to a satisfying decision that will not raise a discrimination claim by the candidate (As Alan pointed out, employers are not required to accept any degree, but employees may use the rejection to then claim discrimination on a sex, religion etc. basis).

    I believe it is important to continue fighting this sort of fraud in any way we can. Legislation changes will no doubt help but they are not going to put an end to this story. Fraudsters will always find new ways to conduct their business. They will find a new hole and exploit it.

    The best defence is therefore to provide more tools and education for the employers and the screening companies acting on their behalf to fight this fraud. Some states, like Oregon, publish lists of unaccredited institutions. There are also lists of accredited and recognised institutions published by organisations like CHEA and UNESCO.

    However these tools are not used as often as they should and they do not tell the full story. That is why we decided to develop such a tool to add to the arsenal of employers and screening companies - a list of unaccredited institutions from around the world with detailed evidence on each of them which explains why they were listed.

    All these tools are only any good if they are used in practice.

    An employer might decide not to check and verify the accreditation status of an institution, whether from the USA or abroad, just because they are unaware of how to go about it. This does nothing to crack down on these bogus education providers and discourage the use of their ‘degrees’.

    Therefore the authorities should also invest in educating the marketplace on how and when to use them. The media should encourage this by writing more articles like this one and bring more people to participate in the debate. Lack of awareness as well as the notion of “it is not affecting my business” are what help these fraudsters to flourish.

    Eyal Ben Cohen

    Accredibase

    www.accredibase.com

    ebc@accredibase.com

  • Flip it.
  • Posted by Bob on February 3, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • Perhaps instead of "accrediting agencies" we need "Discrediting Agencies".

    There are a wide variety of ways for one to be taught and become educated which we do not want to constrain for fear of stifling creativity.

    Maybe we should just identify what is not up to snuff. Perhaps that will help us get to an acceptable definition of "snuff".