Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

General discussions concerning institutions and degree programs.

Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 1:58 pm

Gentlemen, thought you would like to know that due to the fact that the California Bar does not accredit online law schools they have a provision to allow these schools to "register" with them. According to WASC provisions for accrediting online schools if an online school meets ALL OTHER WASC ELIGIBLITY CRITERIA, even though they are not eligible for accreditation by the State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners, they may be considered for eligibility status!

In line with the above, CSU openly discussed the fact that their law School was "registered" but not accredited by the California Bar directly with the WASC Eligibility Review Panel at the time they were being considered for Eligibility status, leading to CSU being granted eligibility status allowing them to continue through the WASC process for accreditation.(Sources: WASC, CSU and the California Bar).

To fellow posters, it is very unfortunate that on a Forum such as this, where the goal one would believe is to promote and enhance legitimate, credible online distance degree programs, that there are certain posters who relentlessly attempt to undermine and devalue DETC accredited schools, through attacking the crediblity/legality/ethicality/utilizability of their degree programs, their former unaccredited status or their founder's history!

What we have observed in one thread after another pertaining to CSU is that these inordinate attempts to undermine the image and value of this school is made without ONE IOTA of substantive facts, references or data BUT by opinions, misinformation, inaccurate articles and ad hominem attacks, nothing more, nothing less. NOT ONE of these posters followed up their vehement and strident positions against this school (as well as others such as California Coast University, etc) by conducting and providing solid research to support their positions BUT merely insisting that what they state and assert is fact because they say so!

What this means is that we all have to follow our own paths and what is in our best interests, do our research very carefully and NOT allow anyone but ourselves make the final determination to discriminate facts from fiction and wishful thinking.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby nosborne48 » Tue May 21, 2013 2:49 pm

Here is WASC's policy from their website.



"Law Schools in California
California institutions with law schools, including freestanding law schools, seeking accreditation or candidacy may apply to the Commission if:
1. As applicants for candidacy, the law school has been at least provisionally accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California; or
2. As applicants for accreditation, the law school has been fully accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California; and
3. In both instances, the institution meets the eligibility criteria of the Commission for candidacy or accreditation.
Standards and policies of the Commission will form the bases for the evaluation of all such schools and for Commission decisions. The standards or
criteria of other accrediting or licensing organizations will not be used in lieu of WASC Commission Standards.
The institution should submit with its application all reports received within the preceding five-year period from other accrediting agencies, including the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California."

http://www.wascsenior.org/

If WASC isn't following their own policy, I can't help that.
Una cosa mala nunca muere.
nosborne48
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 am

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby Tark » Tue May 21, 2013 3:25 pm

Why are you accusing Tark of being "WRONG"?

Tark said that Cal Southern's unaccredited law school appeared to conflict with WASC's publicly posted standards (as listed in the previous post), and listed four possible options:

(1) close the law school;
(2) accredit the law school;
(3) separate the law school;
(4) get WASC to change its policy.

If WASC has modified its posted policy to accommodate online law schools, then Option 4 applies, and so Tark's analysis would be proven correct.
Tark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby Rich Douglas » Tue May 21, 2013 3:49 pm

As usual, the OP misses (on purpose, it seems, since he ignores corrections) an important point. In California, there is a clear distinction between unaccredited (by ABA) schools that are accredited by CalBar and those that are merely registered.

CSU's law school is NOT accredited by the State Bar. It is NOT accredited by the ABA. It is a registered school. The school's website takes great pains to avoid referring to the law school as "unaccredited," but it is. You can find this statement under "Approvals" (which is in itself deceiving):

"The Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) of the State Bar of California has authorized registration of the School of Law as an unaccredited correspondence law school, which enables graduates who have complied with the Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California to sit for the California Bar examination." http://www.calsouthern.edu/about-us/app ... strations/

But elsewhere on the site, it implies that its online process is the problem. (Of course, that's technically true since being online prevents its accreditation. But the real problem is a lack of accreditation, which the school acknowledges where it must, but not where it should.)

Not "approved." "Authorized." In California, "Approval" has a distinct academic meaning.

If Tark and Nosborne are correct, that obtaining WASC candidacy must exclude operating an unaccredited law school, then CSU (SCUPS) must let go of the law program. This isn't hard. It isn't even controversial. It certainly isn't disparaging. But let the vitriol begin, because it is what the OP truly seeks. Troll feeding caution should prevail, of course.
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 4:23 pm

[quote="nosborne48"]Here is WASC's policy from their website.



"Law Schools in California
California institutions with law schools, including freestanding law schools, seeking accreditation or candidacy may apply to the Commission if:
1. As applicants for candidacy, the law school has been at least provisionally accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California; or
2. As applicants for accreditation, the law school has been fully accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California; and
3. In both instances, the institution meets the eligibility criteria of the Commission for candidacy or accreditation.
Standards and policies of the Commission will form the bases for the evaluation of all such schools and for Commission decisions. The standards or
criteria of other accrediting or licensing organizations will not be used in lieu of WASC Commission Standards.
The institution should submit with its application all reports received within the preceding five-year period from other accrediting agencies, including the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California."

http://www.wascsenior.org/

If WASC isn't following their own policy, I can't help that.[/quote]


VINNY: As usual Nosborne, you do not do your legwork/homework resulting in expeditious rushes to erroneous conclusions. Did you review WASC's "How to Become Accredited"? I suggest that you do, THOROUGHLY, and you well see the following:

For law schools in California, the institution shall also demonstrate that it is accredited by the California State Bar Association . Institutions offering online law degrees, which are not eligible for accreditation by the State Bar of California Commitee of Bar Examiners, may be considered provided they are deemed to have met all other WASC Eligiblity Criteria.http://www.wascsenior.org/resources/eligibility.

IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER DOUBTS PLEASE DO NOT DEPEND ON ME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU. Thank you.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 4:35 pm

[quote="Tark"]Why are you accusing Tark of being "WRONG"?

Tark [url=http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9548]said[/url] that Cal Southern's unaccredited law school appeared to conflict with WASC's publicly posted standards (as listed in the previous post), and listed four possible options:

(1) close the law school;
(2) accredit the law school;
(3) separate the law school;
(4) get WASC to change its policy.

If WASC has modified its posted policy to accommodate online law schools, then Option 4 applies, and so Tark's analysis would be proven correct.[/quote]

VINNY: TARK, WASC did not modify its posted policy BUT as usual you extrapolate data that is incomplete but congruent with your pattern of devaluing DETC Schools and degree programs. As posted to Nosborne, I suggest that you read the reference I provided him as well as contact WASC and/or the California Bar and report back to us whether you are correct. In fact you are not (once again)! :roll:
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 4:44 pm

[quote="Rich Douglas"]As usual, the OP misses (on purpose, it seems, since he ignores corrections) an important point. In California, there is a clear distinction between unaccredited (by ABA) schools that are accredited by CalBar and those that are merely registered.

CSU's law school is NOT accredited by the State Bar. It is NOT accredited by the ABA. It is a registered school. The school's website takes great pains to avoid referring to the law school as "unaccredited," but it is. You can find this statement under "Approvals" (which is in itself deceiving):

"The Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) of the State Bar of California has authorized registration of the School of Law as an unaccredited correspondence law school, which enables graduates who have complied with the Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California to sit for the California Bar examination." http://www.calsouthern.edu/about-us/app ... strations/

But elsewhere on the site, it implies that its online process is the problem. (Of course, that's technically true since being online prevents its accreditation. But the real problem is a lack of accreditation, which the school acknowledges where it must, but not where it should.)

Not "approved." "Authorized." In California, "Approval" has a distinct academic meaning.

If Tark and Nosborne are correct, that obtaining WASC candidacy must exclude operating an unaccredited law school, then CSU (SCUPS) must let go of the law program. This isn't hard. It isn't even controversial. It certainly isn't disparaging. But let the vitriol begin, because it is what the OP truly seeks. Troll feeding caution should prevail, of course.[/quote]


VINNY: Nosborne and Tark are grossly incorrect and in lieu of wasting our time with YOUR opinions, grossly inaccurate statements, misinformation and related devaluing comments regarding DETC schools and their degrees, instead provide us with substantive feedback by CONTACTING WASC DIRECTLY and then report back to us what their bottomline is regarding this entire matter. IF NOT, cease and desist with your speculations and opinions which do not substitute for FACTS and which are grossly misleading and a waste of posters' valuable time. We are waiting. :roll:
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby Rich Douglas » Tue May 21, 2013 5:11 pm

The OP doesn't cite his source precisely. But according to WASC's accreditation guidelines, here's the policy on law schools in California: http://wascsenior.org/files/Law_Schools ... icy_on.pdf

In it you will find what others besides the OP has posted.

Perhaps the OP could be more specific and point readers to where his information can be found. (Hint: http://wascsenior.org/files/how_to_beco ... ited_4.pdf)

There seems to be some conflicting information from WASC. However, the information the OP refers to (but fails to cite accurately) was published this year.
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 5:35 pm

[quote="Rich Douglas"]The OP doesn't cite his source precisely. But according to WASC's accreditation guidelines, here's the policy on law schools in California: http://wascsenior.org/files/Law_Schools ... icy_on.pdf

In it you will find what others besides the OP has posted.

Perhaps the OP could be more specific and point readers to where his information can be found. (Hint: http://wascsenior.org/files/how_to_beco ... ited_4.pdf)

There seems to be some conflicting information from WASC. However, the information the OP refers to (but fails to cite accurately) was published this year.[/quote]

VNNY: DOUGIE I gave Nosborne the reference BUT am not here to do your research for you, especially when YOU constantly, inordinately refer to yourself as holding a doctorate. Are you certain that you weren't one of those graduates who wrote an essay in lieu of a doctoral level research dissertation? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :roll: :lol: :wink:

However, for other posters who wish to review the specific reference I provided Nosborne, Tark and Douglas, please read the following section from WASC "HOW TO BECOME ACCREDITED", under the heading ELIGIBLITY CRITERIA, Criteria 1 AUTHORITY. http://wascsenior.org/files/how_to_beco ... ited_4.pdf.
Last edited by vinny123 on Tue May 21, 2013 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby nosborne48 » Tue May 21, 2013 5:43 pm

Well, bully for them.
Una cosa mala nunca muere.
nosborne48
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 am

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby Tark » Tue May 21, 2013 6:10 pm

TARK, WASC did not modify its posted policy BUT as usual you extrapolate data that is incomplete but congruent with your pattern of devaluing DETC Schools and degree programs. As posted to Nosborne, I suggest that you read the reference I provided him as well as contact WASC and/or the California Bar and report back to us whether you are correct. In fact you are not (once again)!

Checked the references. Turns out that I was correct (and no, I don't expect vinny to acknowledge this). WASC has, in fact, changed its polices within the last month or two.

Until recently, WASC policies were outlined in the "Handbook of Accreditation", which was originally published in 2008 and last revised in Feb 2012. You can still see it here. The 2012 Handbook does not address unaccredited law schools, but it refers to the "Law Schools in California Policy", which was last updated in July 2012. The 2012 policy states that unaccredited law schools are not eligible for accreditation, with no exceptions for online schools. The 2012 policy is still posted on the WASC website.

However, WASC recently posted a brand new edition of the Accreditation handbook. It is dated March 2013, and was apparently posted to the WASC website in April 2013. The new edition (p. 6) states:

For law schools in California, the institution shall also demonstrate that it is accredited by the California State Bar Association. Institutions offering online law degrees, which are not eligible for accreditation by the State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners, may be considered for eligibility provided they are deemed to have met all other WASC Eligibility Criteria.


So yes, WASC has recently changed the 2012 posted policy -- as I suggested. A newer policy was posted in April 2013. However, the 2012 WASC policy is still shown on the website as well.

Perhaps this recent policy change, and the conflict between the old and new policies on the WASC website, explains the confusion. On the other hand, maybe the confusion reflects a deliberate conspiracy by evil, DETC-despising trolls, who are attempting to destroy the reputation of noble California Southern University as per instructions from the Russian Mafia. Most people may find the former explanation to be more plausible, but there may be exceptions.
Last edited by Tark on Tue May 21, 2013 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 6:12 pm

[quote="nosborne48"]Well, bully for them.[/quote]

Nosborne, glad to see you admit that you were grossly incorrect, no matter how indirect you are in admitting to being so.

BTW Nosborne can you tell us why you changed from the rigorous LLM degree program from the University of London to a DETC LLM Degree program offered by Taft U? Do you plan to inform your clients that you have a DETC LLM degree as part of an Informed Consent? Just wondering.
Last edited by vinny123 on Tue May 21, 2013 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 6:14 pm

[quote="Tark"][quote]TARK, WASC did not modify its posted policy BUT as usual you extrapolate data that is incomplete but congruent with your pattern of devaluing DETC Schools and degree programs. As posted to Nosborne, I suggest that you read the reference I provided him as well as contact WASC and/or the California Bar and report back to us whether you are correct. In fact you are not (once again)! [/quote]
Checked the references. Turns out that I was correct (and no, I don't expect vinny to acknowledge this). WASC has, in fact, changed its polices within the last month or two.

Until recently, WASC policies were outlined in the "Handbook of Accreditation", which was originally published in 2008 and last revised in Feb 2012. You can still see it [url=http://wascsenior.org/files/Handbook_of_Accreditation.pdf]here[/url]. The 2012 Handbook does not address unaccredited law schools, but it refers to the [url=http://wascsenior.org/files/Law_Schools_in_California__Policy_on.pdf]"Law Schools in California Policy"[/url], which was last [url=http://wascsenior.org/search/site/law%2520schools%2520in%2520california]updated in July 2012[/url]. The 2012 policy states that unaccredited law schools are not eligible for accreditation, with no exceptions for online schools. The 2012 policy is still posted on the WASC website.

However, WASC recently posted a [url=http://wascsenior.org/files/Law_Schools_in_California__Policy_on.pdf]brand new edition[/url] of the Accreditation handbook. It is dated March 2013, and was apparently posted to the WASC website in April 2013. The new edition (p. 6) states:

[quote]For law schools in California, the institution shall also demonstrate that it is accredited by the California State Bar Association. Institutions offering online law degrees, which are not eligible for accreditation by the State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners, may be considered for eligibility provided they are deemed to have met all other WASC Eligibility Criteria. [/quote]

So yes, WASC has recently changed the [url=http://wascsenior.org/files/Law_Schools_in_California__Policy_on.pdf]2012 posted policy[/url] -- as I suggested. A newer policy was posted in April 2013. However, the 2012 WASC policy is still shown on the website as well.

Perhaps this recent policy change explains the confusion. On the other hand, some people might prefer to believe that the confusion reflects is a deliberate conspiracy by evil, DETC-despising trolls, who are attempting to destroy the reputation of noble California Southern University as per instructions from the Russian Mafia.[/quote]


VINNY: Enough with your rationalizations. Bottomline is that regardless of how new or old these policies are they were in existence when CSU obtained eligibility status from WASC. Apparently, YOU did not throroughly review the extant policies of WASC and were grossly incorrect, thereby misleading other posters, intentional or not. END OF STORY!
Last edited by vinny123 on Tue May 21, 2013 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby Tark » Tue May 21, 2013 6:20 pm

No vinny, I was right.

I said that Cal Southern's law school conflicted with WASC's posted policy. And it did.

I also said that the conflict could be resolved by a change in WASC's policy. And it was.

And while it's true that I was unaware of WASC's recent policy change, the same is true for you.
You didn't bring it up at the time either.

But that's OK. I accept your gracious apology.
Tark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: Tark, Nosborne, Douglas et. al, WRONG AGAIN!

Postby vinny123 » Tue May 21, 2013 6:27 pm

[quote="Tark"]No vinny, I was right.

I said that Cal Southern's law school conflicted with WASC's posted policy. And it did.

I also said that the conflict could be resolved by a change in WASC's policy. And it was.

But I accept your gracious apology.[/quote]

VINNY: YOU were grossly incorrect BECAUSE we are/were talking specifically about CSU and their being approved for Eligibilty status by WASC and the policy In question was in effect at the time they were deemed eligible, which was quite a few months ago. IF you did your research, as I did, you would have found it. So enough with your excuses because in fact this information was readily available BUT you, based on your history, have been anti-DETC for years as any poster can confirm by reviewing your previous posts on the search engine of this forum. :wink:

Unfortunately, posts such as yours, Nosborne, Douglas and others are grossly misleading other posters as to the facts regarding this and other DETC schools and this is not a good thing.
Vinny
vinny123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron