Talk:Diploma mill

Switzerland

It might be worth to say something about the "free universities" (in German. "freie Universität") of Switzerland. Everybody is allowed to launch a free university in Switzerland - it just costs him 50.000 CHF (41.200 USD). Most popular are the "freie universität teufen" and the "freie universität zug". You can get every diploma you wan to have, included Dr. and Prof.

Edward Jenner

Edward Jenner may be the best-known customer of a diploma mill (W. Hadwin, Gloucester address, 1896; E. D. Hume, Béchamp or Pasteur, 1923). Obviously they're nothing new. 142.177.169.163 19:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Family Plots

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Rick from Family Plots is also another customer of a diploma mill. That one episode where the two people wanted to get married in the chapel of the funeral home he whipped out some sort of theology degree. If I remember right, he apparently bought the degree to make himself an ordained minister.
JesseG 20:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Same with Barney in How I Met Your Mother. Raisedonadiet (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename article

This came up during the AfD for List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, but perhaps this article could be moved to Unaccredited institutions of higher learning and replaced with a redirect there since diploma mill is quite POV. Peyna 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Poor terminology

It is confusing and misleading to conflate the two terms "diploma mill" and "degree mill". "Diploma mill" has long been vernacular for an entity that prints and issues fraudulent degrees or certificates for purposes of criminal activity, fraud, or just entertainment. "Degree mill" is a recent invention for purposes of distinguishing outright diploma mills from other entities ranging from spurious schools requiring little academic work to merely unaccredited ones whose quality may be debatable. This new term tends to be used by persons wishing to avoid libel litigation and also by state legislatures that wish to deny legal status to an institution's degrees for a variety of reasons. As such, "degree mill" is actually more vague and should be used with care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.17.172 (talk • contribs)

UotC accreditation conversation

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

Wikipedia template for diploma mills/unaccredited schools

There is a template started for formatting articles that are diploma mills or just unaccredited schools at Template:Unaccredited. At the start of the article it states the lack of accreditation and later goes into detail. Arbusto 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a diploma mill slash unaccredited school. Differentiate between the two because a school could be unaccredited, yet not a diploma mill. We will have a very small list that includes both (with references from professional sources to verify, of course). This new template mentions nothing about diploma mills. It is apparently for unaccredited schools. --Whore of Babylon 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

"{{{1}}} is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. 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."

I don't have the same reading as Gas...uh, I mean, "Whore of Babylon," but then, it won't be the first time. I think we all realize that there are unaccredited institutions and there are diploma mills, and the latter will necessarily be the former. The reverse won't always be true, but it generally is, and so it's worth noting, as appropriate, for each institution for which some advocate of POV-pusher wants to insist be represented by an article at Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"we all realize that there are unaccredited institutions and there are diploma mills, and the latter will necessarily be the former." Not so! Even accredited schools can be diploma mills. See this white paper by Kevin Carey of Education Sector:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/Accreditation%20-%20Kevin%20Carey.pdf The more general point to be made is that accreditation, even regional accreditation, is no guarantee of good educational quality.Gsmcghee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

Please see List of diploma mills. Arbusto 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Warnborough College UK achieved Premier College accreditation status in December 2008 from ASIC. WarnboroughWarnborough (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Experiential Schools

Are there accredited schools, or legitimate yet unaccredited schools, who commonly grant degrees based on experience? My Master's Degree, from an accredited school, had prerequisites to get in, yet a large percentage of the applicants had those prereqs waived on basis of their work history. Likewise my Chiropractor got in to Chriropractor school based on work history and test scores, while he to this day doesn't have a Bachelors or Masters. Not to mention honorary doctorates, given even to Steven Colbert for his work on the Daily Show! At the same time we've all known people who were at the absolute top of an academic field and held no degree. So can we mention in the article, and I don't know enough to do it, schools that are legit yet will actually give a degree based largely if not wholly on properly demonstrated or documented work or life experience? I'm not about to call this article NPOV, but can we have some argument for those who believe the system is only being bureaucratic in that it doesn't recognize real performance? --Mrcolj 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited degrees: Legal facts

The following are laws about unaccredited degrees.

Washington State

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."[2] Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[3] (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.

Oregon, North Dakota, New Jersey

On unaccredited degrees.

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.[4]

Removed statement

I removed the statement about University of Phoenix and Strayer Univeristy, neither school is a "diploma mill". It is completely contradictory to state that regional accrediting agencies approve "quality" online programs and then flame two schools that are regionally accredited. The information is not factual; it was placed there due to the author's personal bias and lack of research. Phoenix has been accredited since 1978 by the NCA/HLC (same as Arizona State) and Strayer since 1981 by Middle States (same as University of Maryland).

Here are links for reference:

http://www.msche.org/Institutions_Directory.asp (a direct link from the Middle States website showing Strayer's accreditation status and history, just type "Strayer" into the search box)

http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/InstDetail.asp (a listing of Strayer's accreditation status from the Office of Post-Secondary Education website, same as above, type "strayer" into the search box)

http://chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?CheaID=409 (Strayer's Accreditation Status from Council for Higher Education Accreditation's Database)

http://chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?accredID=3;Middle%20States%20Association%20of%20Colleges%20and%20Schools (list of schools accredited by Middle States including Princeton, University of Maryland, and Cornell University)

http://www.ncahlc.org/index.php?option=com_directory&Action=ShowBasic&instid=1949 (a direct links from the NCA-HLC website showing UOP's accreditation status and history)

http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/InstList.asp (a listing of UOP's accreditation by campus from the Office of Post-Secondary Education website)

http://chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?CheaID=1404 (University of Phoenix's accreditation status from the CHEA website)

http://chea.org/search/actionInst.asp?accredID=4;North%20Central%20Association%20of%20Colleges%20and%20Schools (list of schools accredited by the NCA-HLC including Arizona State, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Depaul and Notre Dame)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aic712 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 August 2006

"Based in Romania and Israel"

I am changing this passage since to say they were specifically based in these nations gives somewhat of a false impression when it is likely they just had mailboxes there. It would kinda be like stating a multinational corporation was based in the Cayman Islands (or other tiny tax haven) when they probably have no employees and no infrastructure (possibly besides a single mailbox) anywhere near the Island.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the admin was done in Romania, the printing in Israel and the cerificates shipped to the USA for posting there (to avoid the connection with the UDP)

Need for additional "definition"

The following text, in various forms and under various headings, has been added (and promptly deleted) several times in the last several days:

- Definition: Education institution not registered accordingly the law of a nation or country or awarding degrees without a license or permit. Unaccredited education institutions will not be considered diploma mills or illegitimate, if they are registered or have a license or permit.

The user inserting appears to be added like text to related articles. Not only is the addition of a separate "definition" like this not in keeping with general wiki-style, it appears on the face of it to be factually inaccurate (a "licensed" business can still very much be considered a diploma mill, if the "license" in question is not an appropriate academic accreditation). I would urge Consejero to consider his edits more carefully; if not, I hope an admin will do so for him. Robertissimo 02:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Consejero has violated the 3RR within 24 hour WP rule. I have requested, to no avail, that he discuss these type things on his talk page, in edit notes, and/or on the talk page for the various articles that he has been reverting over the last few days. Bill Huffman 03:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Consejero, there is no specific "author" to this article. Stop writing notes to the non-existant author of the article in the article. You have been asked many times. You apparently don't understand WP. You are being destructive rather constructive. The article should look as "professional" as possible at all times. Your notes about what should be in the article should NOT be in the article. I am not afraid of diploma mills. I doubt anyone editing these pages are afraid of diploma mills. Please don't put insulting things in the article like that. Please stop editing WP until you have a better understanding as to what WP is and how it works. Thank you, Bill Huffman 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

John Bear quote

Hi Bill, the source listed doesn't include the quote below, and I couldn't find it elsewhere online. Is it from his book perhaps or another source?

"John Bear, a recognized expert on distance learning and diploma mills, explains,

"it is very risky to buy a fake degree or to claim to have a degree that you have not earned. It is like putting a time bomb in your resumé. It could go off at any time, with dire consequences. The people who sell fake degrees will probably never suffer at all, but the people who buy them often suffer mightily. And -- particularly if their "degree" is health-related -- their clients may be seriously harmed.[2]

Flowanda 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Flowanda, the quote is near the bottom of the article under the paragraph title "An Emphatic Warning". A feature that I've found handy in Internet Explorer is the Find command available in the Edit pull down window. The shortcut to it is ctrl-F. I thank you for your diligence. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it now...if it were a bear, it would have bitten me! (Sorry...couldn't resist) Flowanda 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:-) good one! Bill Huffman 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links / Articles

Article discussing the University of Esoterica Diploma Mill (http://www.geocities.com/university_of_esoterica/) has been removed a couple of times. This is an informative article with numerous references. Does the article violate Wiki policy?

Sophia Sapientia 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like a personal web page. Who is the author of this "article" and where was it published? Also how does this specific text add anything to a general article on diploma mills? --JJay 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure who the author of the page is. It appears to be a compilation of information from several sources most of which link back to, or reference the original source. I believe that this page contributes to the understanding of diploma mills by looking at an on-going diploma mill and pointing out their fraudulent claims (such as religious degrees are not academic degrees and are exempt from having to maintain accreditation and academic standards). Sophia Sapientia 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Without an author and a reputable publisher, the "article" fails WP:RS and WP:V. See the section in WP:V on self-published sources. In addition, the links on the geocities page are all to the state school lists( Maine, Michigan, Oregon), which are already directly linked from this article. --JJay 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish Times Article

I tried to find the article at the Irish Times website but could not find it. Can someone let me know where the originally referenced article can be found?

Piercetp 14:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pierce, The references sections says, "(November 24, 1998) A dirty dozen - 12 famous diploma mills. Education & Living section", Regards, Bill Huffman 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit dated, is it not? Piercetp 23:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a good overview and the diploma mills identified in it are even still amongst the most famous mills. If you would like to suggest an alternative that is more up to date then I'm open to your suggestion. I do know of an Inside Higher Education article that might do that. Although it too mentions KWU/WNU. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement here. The information is no longer relevent. As this is to be encyclopedic I really do not see a reason to include it here. I might even think it to be libelous. I have noticed several instanced here on Wikipedia where articles which had been quoted have been deleted.

If you want an alternative you might quote the often qooted State of Oregon article on unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Piercetp 04:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this were a Consumer Reports article on how to choose a university, I would agree that a 1998 article is irrelevant. However, in an encyclopedia article, historical information is relevant. If the Irish Times article was a milestone in alerting people to diploma mills or if it was widely discussed, it's still relevant. Also, it appears that the deleted passage had been mistakenly edited to include info that might belong elsewhere in the article. Here it is, as it existed until recently:

The Irish Times 1998 list of twelve famous diploma mills

In November 1998, The Irish Times listed with commentary the following twelve education businesses in an article entitled, A dirty dozen - 12 famous diploma mills.

1. Columbia State University, Louisiana: Shut down by the Attorney-General of Louisiana after an aggressive marketing campaign that promised degrees within 27 days. Advertised in The Economist.
2. La Salle University, Louisiana: Claims to be restructuring itself after its founder president was jailed and the premises were raided by the FBI. The biggest institution of its kind in the United States. Advertises in The Economist.
3. Chadwick University, Alabama: The second largest institution of its kind in the United States, it claims accreditation from a bogus agency. Alabama law prevents it from accepting students from Alabama. Also operates the American Institute of Computer Science. It was founded by Lloyd Clayton Jr., N.D., who also founded Clayton College of Natural Health, a non-accredited distance-learning naturopathic college based in Birmingham, Alabama.
4. American State University, Hawaii: Recently offered an American reporter a bachelor's degree in journalism for $1,890 and a thesis of a mere 2,000 words.
5. American International University, Alabama.
6. Columbus University, Louisiana.
7. Monticello University, Kansas: Advertises in The Economist.
8. Frederick Taylor University, California.
9. Pacific Western University, Hawaii: Advertises in the International Herald Tribune and The Economist, offering to "match your position with a legal degree and transcripts." PWU was shut down for several months in 1996 and was allowed to reopen only after it cancelled its graduate programmes in education.
10. City University of Los Angeles, California: The name could easily lead to confusion of CULA with UCLA, the respected University of California, Los Angeles.
11. Kennedy Western University, Hawaii. (Name has changed to Warren National University.)
12. Trinity College and University; operates from South Dakota, USA and the UK. In February, 2007, several United Nations staff were fired from their jobs after it was discovered they had padded their resumes with Trinity "degrees".</nowiki>

--Orlady 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Picture of alleged diploma mill

Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, an alleged diploma mill.

The reason that I deleted the picture of the alleged diploma mill that was recently added to the article was that from my personal view it didn't seem like a significant or interesting picture. The alleged diploma mill in the picture does not have anything particular about it that makes it significant or stand out from other diploma mills except perhaps that it actually has a building associated with it and most diploma mills are post office boxes, private homes, or mail forwarding services. I do like the idea of trying to add a picture to the article though. Perhaps the picture of a post office box or a famous public building that is claimed to be the campus of some diploma mill might be more note worthy or interesting? I'm open to opinion. TallMagic 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The point of a photo isn't to show an exception to the rule, it's to illustrate the point. The point being illustrated here is that it's obviously not similar to a real university or college. Unknown (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Hi Unknown, First, adding a comment to the middle of a 2 year old thread in the middle of the talk page can very easily be missed. Second, the picture was added to the article and remained there until the article was split in two and the picture went with the other half. TallMagic (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the image again. The picture is a distraction. It is not a typical diploma mill (there's no such thing, and many have no physical premises), so it really adds no information value to the article. Let people read the words in the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe a picture of a degree from an alleged diploma mill? --orlady 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I think those are all great ideas for images that would improve the article. Maybe we can get a list of diploma mills that have no physical existence beyond a PO Box and find someone in one of those cities to get a picture of the mill's PO Box? But I also think that the image of Patriot Bible University adds to the article. The school has been accused by several people of being a diploma mill, even if other alleged diploma mills are very different to PBU. As an aside, it appears that the PBU building is also the home of the school's executive director, Lonnie Skinner. Jacob1207 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I've given my opinion on the Patriot Bible University image. I would very much like to hear someone elses opinion. TallMagic 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I have added the picture in question, along with my proposed caption, to this section for ease of review. Jacob1207 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • My interpretation of the silence on this issue is that perhaps I'm the only one that doesn't like the picture. If I'm the only one that isn't fond of the picture then I think my opinion is probably wrong. TallMagic 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GAO section

I have an issue with the GAO section. Kennedy-Western University is listed in the GAO section of this article on Diploma Mills. The report referenced is clear when it mentions in its title to wit:

DIPLOMA MILLS

Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools, Some at Government Expense"

Kennedy-Western University now operating as Warren National University is directly listed, but is an unaccredited post-secondary institution of higher learning; not a diploma mill. By including its name in the writeup at a diploma mill Wiki page is more along the lines of slander and unnecessary defamation of this legal unaccredited institution operating for 23 years. In fact, mention of Kennedy-Western is wholly and erroneously gratuitous to this Wiki page on Diploma Mills. I recommend removal of the Kennedy-Western University name from this section and this Wiki page to prevent guilt-by-associational thinking by the average Wiki reader who may not be up-to-speed on voluntary accreditation issues, nonaccreditation liberty, and actual diploma mill topics.

Additionally, the GAO section seems more like a review of the entire report at this page rather than what it needs to be; it is the largest block of single informational input. I recommend it be cleaned up to a more appropriate entry suitable for this Wiki page.

First though, I am seeking thoughts regarding my comments prior to actual removal of the Kennedy-Western name as well as my rewriting this GAO section. Rkowalke 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, you have not made an argument that seems convincing for censoring KWU out of the GAO investigation report. Please review WP:V, in particular "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." Please check the references and you will see that everything stated is completely accurate and properly sourced. It is all verifiable. TallMagic 04:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link

I removed an external link because it appears to be spam to me. The link doesn't seem to provide any value above and beyond the Wikipedia educational accreditation article. At first glance it doesn't appear to rise to the level of a reliable source, (which admitedly isn't necessarily required of an external link). It was originally added by someone that in three years has made a total of 4 edits. All four edits adding an external link to this same website. TallMagic (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicken and Egg Problem

I must admit in the past I have been incredibly ignorant about the diploma mill issue, but that changed a bit over the years. There are several things I wonder about. For one: how does a University become an accredited University in the US system? Every new school necessarily is unaccredited. I myself attended Hawaii Pacific University, which just had merged with Hawaii Loa College when I started there - all in all a pretty good and duly accredited school. At the same time it started out as a small, unaccredited one class school back in the seventies. A degree from this school would then have been illegal and literally worthless in some jurisdictions. So how does that work nowadays? Law makes it literally impossible to start a new school.

But there is more. Many of the characteristics of unaccredited schools linking them to diploma mills are displayed by schools that certainly are not under suspicion of being in any way illegal - including the University of London external programme, The British Open University and some of the better accredited external programmes in the US, such as Excelsior College, Thomas Edison State College or Empire State.

What irritates me is that experimental and/or new approaches to higher learning are severely impaired by the accreditation practice as-is. The state or authorized entities define content and methodology, favouring established schools while effectively incriminating smaller and newer ones. From what I see the development of the past 15-20 years was that small, innovative unaccredited institutions were pushed aside while large and established schools more and more adopted the methods, approaches and technologies developed by the previous. Current legislation and public discrimination make it difficult for the small schools to attract good students and first rate faculty: who - after all - would want to be affiliated with something that is potentially perceived as a Diploma Mill? Why spend time, money and effort for a degree that afterwards needs to be defended and justified over and over again? Chicken and egg... There is a lot of criminal energy under way - that is for sure. There certainly are many, many fake schools issuing worthless degrees. But I think that there is an immense spectrum, where everything can be found. Accreditation is a way of quality management, but it also involves an arbitrary definition of quality. As a result it is - at least in part - a means of control: a system protecting itself.

I find it extremely difficult to judge the issue. The presentation in this article definitely places every unaccredited institution into the same drawer as diploma mills, which certainly discriminates and even incriminates the real efforts of establishing new educational models. Normally the legal guideline is "in dubio pro reo". Why is it different here? And why is there so much bitterness involved in these discussions? Fact is that accredited schools also differ greatly in scope and quality and it often does not take much to get a degree even from alleged elite schools. OFten the quality differs greatly from programme to programme within one school. At the same time the legend goes (according to John Bear) that even Cambridge University is not accredited. If this is true (I did not check), it would mean that the mere formality of accreditation is not really the point. It also would mean that a degree from Cambridge University would - formally - be illegal in Oregon and some other jurisdictions.

It is all rather strange.

Wassermensch 12:14, 4 May 2008 (CET)

Hi Wassermensch, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy editting here. For general Wikipedia information you may wish to visit wp:welcome. Please note that this discussion/talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussions of the topic. Also, in the future please add new discussion topics at the end of the page rather than the top. (Note that it has been moved to the bottom, thank you Orlady.) That all being said, when legitimate institutions are first started up they are generally done with accreditation in mind. They generally become at least regional accreditation candidates for accreditation before the first graduating class completes. Which allows the graduates to have accredited degrees. But it's true that it can be a danger and should be considered whenever anyone enrolls in such a school. You point out that there's no fail proof formula for diffentiating diploma mills and unaccredited schools. At least not that has ever been formulated into a law. The reason for this is that educational institutions can be flexible and creative in how they approach their goals and diploma mills can be as well. It is true that the rise in number of diploma mill degrees being sold has severely limited the utility of legitimate unaccredited degrees over the past 10-20 years. Your last paragraph has used some facts and distorted them as I've seen done by diploma mill apologists in the past. I'm not saying that you're one but perhaps that's where it came from? I assure you that Cambridge degrees are legal anywhere in the world. If you look on the official list of UK universities you will find that Cambridge is "grandfathered" in as a legitimate UK university. Cambridge (along with Oxford, IIRC) was started up well before the crown or parliament needed to approve the opening of legitimate UK universities. If you wish to discuss the above type issues further may I suggest that we take it to my talk page? Now, the one thing you bring up that is totally legitimate/relevant for this talk page is your assertion that the article places all unaccredited schools into the diploma mill category. I disagree with that assertion. The simplest way to know that a school is not a diploma mill is if it is accredited by a recognized accreditation agency but, that is a different assertion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

South Korea

Just wanted to note here that the proper citation for the quote in the South Korea section should be http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/03/21/2003298471 - this is more authoritative than the previously cited Yahoo News. I'm not sure about referencing Shin, Jung Ah except through Korean language sources and blogs that offer translations... is there a point, except to say that her scandal caused a ballooning suspicion in Korea of people like her? Darkpoet (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Credit for Work / Life Experience

One of the characteristics of a degree mill listed in the article reads :

Academic credit is offered for "life experience," and this is featured heavily in the selling points of the institution

While this is true of many degree mills, many accredited institutions also grant credit for work experience. This may form an integral part of a territory's qualifications framework, ie. the Malaysian Qualifications Framework's Accreditation of Prior Experential Learning and France's VAE (Validation des Acquis de l'Experience). This should be mentioned in the article to avoid any misunderstanding and/or prejudice against legitimate institutions that do provide academic credit for work/life experience. - Bob K | Talk 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that introduces that list of characteristics says: "Diploma mills share a number of characteristics that differentiate them from respected institutions, although some legitimate institutions can also exhibit one or more such characteristics" (emphasis added). I think that sentence should be sufficient to address the situation you describe. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady. TallMagic (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you notice the tone used in the list, some disclaimers are given more explicitly; ie.

Getting a degree requires no visits to the school or other face-to-face meetings with its personnel. Theses or credits can be approved on a mail-order basis. There is little or no interaction with professors. Even if comments and corrections to coursework are given, they do not affect getting the degree. The professors may serve only to write compliments to the "student" that can be given as references. There are, however, many distance education education institutions that are not diploma mills. (emphasis mine)

Shouldn't that be the case for the other more ambiguous points as well? - Bob K | Talk 15:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the sentence you point out should probably be deleted, especially if it encourages a tendency to add a similar sentence to all the items on the list. TallMagic (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a reasonable compromise. - Bob K | Talk 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's act boldly regarding unaccredited schools

It looks like there are years of comments here from people who are offended at the implication that unaccredited schools are somehow to be likened to diploma mills. I was principal at a K-12 a few years ago, an amazing school where I could phone my kids into any major college without their even taking the SAT; but the school was also very deliberately and very passionately unaccredited. I know of plenty of schools, some of them very high end, who don't seek accreditation. Ditto with colleges--there are plenty of large and legit schools that don't play that game, and many others that are seeking accreditation but are as such unaccredited. I think there should be at least a paragraph and probably a section disclaiming this. Will someone please write one? --Mrcolj (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mrcolj, this article is supposed to be about diploma mills. I believe that the paragraph you refer to belongs in and is already part of the Unaccredited institutions of higher learning article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I added Unaccredited institutions of higher learning to the See also section. It already has a Wikilink in the article to this other article but the article is large enough that I didn't think it would hurt. TallMagic (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Whereas the article mentions legislation against unaccredited schools, and a lot of people use "diploma mill" derisively to refer to unaccredited schools, I think the disclaimer should still be there. But I'll defer to general opinion if people want to vote. Again, I consider the recurring topic in the rest of this talk page to be vote enough.--Mrcolj (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You wanted to add the disclaimer to the article lead section, which is supposed to summarize the article topic. This type of disclaimer does not belong there. It is, however, in the first sentence of the first bullet under Diploma mill#Characteristics of diploma mills, which says: "They lack accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, although not all unaccredited institutions of higher learning are diploma mills." That's pretty prominent, and it should suffice. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady's thoughts, although another supporting sentence added to the existing statement that Orlady refers to, might be a reasonable addition. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

US subarticle

As the US section was so much larger than all others, and had a number of subsections of its own, i have breated a subarticle, Diploma mills in the United States, and ported most of the info over to there. I think this is better for readers looking for info on DM in general, and also better for people looking for specific US information (such as specific state laws or anti-DM efforts).YobMod 08:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They're all diploma mills in the US.

They're all unregulated institutions of "higher education" granting degrees with few or no academic requirements, just money and attendance. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it gainsaying to question whether there are accredited or regulated diploma mills? I mean, I would assume the requirements for accreditation, etc. have sprung forth from an earlier lack of said requirements, and consequently accredited schools which weren't within the bell curve of rigorousness? Would there not have been a time when many proprietary schools didn't give a crap whether you actually mastered the subject by the time you graduated? On that logic, can any diploma mill require attendance? --Mrcolj (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hsed

Started the page after looking for options for my Vietnamese gf to get a U.S. high school diploma based on her diploma from Vietnam. Many, many of the online schools offering high school diplomas are not credited and will ship in 5 days. It's amazing. There are some home schooling online entities that seem to be legitimate and offer a HSED. I've opened a can o' worms and could use some advice on how to expand the article. A controversy section would be important. Alatari (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Recognition of prior learning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Clear consensus against merge. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that Recognition of prior learning should be merged into this article. I am not the proposer, but I am starting the discussion because a discussion is needed.

• Oppose merger. Recognition of prior learning is a practice that is recognized as legitimate, if implemented responsibly and with limits. Someone recently edited the other article to make it into an apology for the practice used by diploma mills, but that is not the original focus of the other article. The other article should be revised, not merged. --Orlady (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose That's like saying you should merge rhetoric into salesman because the latter is known to use the former.--otherlleft 19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Diploma Mill is a pejorative term that is notable in it's own right. Would you merge Cracker (pejorative) into white people? Alatari (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Life experience degrees are reasonably tied to diploma mills but valid (real) Recognition of prior learning credits should not be. TallMagic (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - No substantial connection between the two. RPL is a legitimate practice by established and properly recognised educational institutions. Afterwriting (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spiru Haret

The University Spiru Haret received accreditation from The National Council of Academic Evaluation in Romania. It seems that the statement that its a "mill" is just someone’s opinion and not fact a simple check with the Romani government website shows they are legit. I think it needs an edit. They are clearly not a mill and it does not seem fair to have them listed as one. Just because not all of there programs are accredited does not mean the whole school is not, which it is. --Super (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the section on Romania. It had no information about rules and laws or problems with mills in Romania,It's only topic was on Spiru Haret as a mill, which it is not. They have goverment approval to operate under the ministry of education. The article section smelled badly of a former student with an axe to grind. Anyone who has a problem with my edit just let me know. I would be happy to talk about and we can digg some cites up!--Super (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the material for now, rewriting it to omit speculation, opinion, and inflammatory words. What do the sources say? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to look at on the university[[5]] and here is a link to the Ministry of Education [6] or (edu.ro) they say they are full accredited......I edited the Spiru Haret page itself but my edit keeps getting undone :( --Super (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to clear their name, in no way is this school a mill.--Super (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't open the PDF that you linked to, Supercopone. The most recent page about Spiru Haret that I found on the Romanian government website is http://www.edu.ro/index.php/pressrel/12679 . I can't read Romanian, and the machine translation of that page is not fully comprehensible, but it does not contradict the article. It says:

Legislative measures on entry into the legality of Spiru Haret University, 20.08.2009

The Official Gazette no. 581/20 August 2009, was published the Government Ordinance on law students enrolled in distance learning forms or part-time continuing studies curriculum license to operate provisionally approved or accredited. According to this document, since the effective date of this ordinance, Spiru Haret University Bucharest, established by Law 443/2002, cease schooling for all majors / curricula / provisionally authorized / accredited form of learningţdistance loverţA.

In the first semester of the academic year 2009-2010, Spiru Haret University initiate procedures to ensure the leadership of Rector confirmed by order of the Minister, under the law. Also, Spiru Haret University will be particularly monitored over 3 years in order to ensure legal compliance to specific quality standards, according to a methodology approved by order of the Minister of Education Research and Innovation. During monitoring, institution of higher education above hold examinations for a license under a methodology approved by order of the minister of education, research and innovation.

Spiru Haret University graduates specialization of law, with a duration of 3 years and 180 officers are entitled to complete their studies in 4 years and 240 credits in specialization / programs accredited law license.

Students cycle's degree, I enrolled in the 2005-2008 period to specialization / study programs, organized form of distance education have the right to continue studies in specialization / study programs to operate provisionally approved or accredited according to procedures approved by order of the minister of education, research and innovation. For this right university course and students receive the license, I enrolled in the 2005-2008 period to specialization / study programs organized in the form of low frequency. All graduates who support and promote the licensing examination under this ordinance shall be recognized awarded by the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth.

However, the Government meeting of Wednesday, August 19, approved a decision to add the GD no. 749/2009 for approval of classification areas, structures of higher education institutions and specialized / Bachelor's degree programs accredited or certified to operate temporarily. This document contains specializations and curricula provisionally accredited or certified to operate at Spiru Haret University (only forms of education by day and low frequency).

--Orlady (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that looks good to me, but the school is not a mill. They still are still accredited as of now. They are still listed as being accredited in what you c&p in talk.

"However, the Government meeting of Wednesday, August 19, approved a decision to add the GD no. 749/2009 for approval of classification areas, structures of higher education institutions and specialized / Bachelor's degree programs accredited or certified to operate temporarily. This document contains specializations and curricula provisionally accredited or certified to operate at Spiru Haret University"

So by this, they are good to go! On a side note, even if a school does not have accreditation, does not mean they are a mill. Every College or University starts out without accreditation; it is a two to four year process. I still think it is wrong to keep them listed as this school does have accreditation as of now. By the way the article in question is about distance learning and not the brick and morter locations. But as of now the DL programs are still accredited as well, according to what you posted. --Super (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)i

About Spiru Haret: it got a three year ban from holding diploma exams. I have processed this information in the main article. According to the Romanian government, Spiru Haret placed itself outside of the accreditation process (according to Spiru Haret, the goverment misunderstood a court's sentence). This means that some faculties could still be accredited/authorized if such accreditation/authorization did not expire, but makes the accreditation authorities unable to evaluate the education given at this university. About Romanian law: a faculty/curriculum could still be legal study without accreditation, in this case having to be temporarily authorized. A temporary authorization is lower than accreditation, and does not entitle to holding diploma exams. In this case students study at the authorized faculty and have their diploma exams at an accredited faculty (at another university). I see that on edu.ro Spiru Haret is listed as accredited university, but it does not say which of its faculties/curricula are accredited, for how long and does not say if it may organize diploma exams. The info provided on the website of Spiru Haret is unreliable, according to the newspaper quoted in the main article and to the government's own Agency for quality assurance for higher education (ARACIS), e.g. it invokes a law which has been replaced by a new law, the old law being now inapplicable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some documents about Spiru Haret:

• list of its accredited/authorized faculties/specializations, mentioning the year of most recent accreditation/authorization and related problems
• list of its illegal distance learning locations
• news about lack of recognition of its 2009 license diplomas Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I watched the video-chat with the Romanian Minister of Education, available at http://stirileprotv.ro/programe-inregistrate/videochat/ecaterina-andronescu-vine-azi-la-videochat-stirileprotv-ro-de-la-ora-21-00.html . The relevant points are:

• Spiru Haret University has been accredited (as university) by law in 2002. The law requires periodical evaluation of accredited universities, taking place every 5 years. This means that Spiru Haret should have been evaluated in 2007, but this did not happen. It follows that since 2007 Spiru Haret lacks legal accreditation (as a whole).
• The Romanian Department of Education is not entitled to recognize diplomas from "illegal" studies, i.e. studies which were neither temporary authorized nor accredited. As such, students got valid diplomas only if their study was temporary authorized or accredited. E.g. let's consider the law studies. According to the list mentioned above, full-time law studies were accredited in 2000 by CNEAA, and part-time law studies were authorized in 2003 (i.e. considering their most recent authorization/accreditation). This means that a full-time student who began his/her law study in 2000 and got his/her license diploma in due time (i.e. without delaying his/her study progress) has a legally recognized license diploma, since he/she followed a legally recognized study. If he/she started such study in 2005, he/she cannot get a legally recognized diploma, unless he/she transfers himself/herself at an authorized/accredited law study from another university and succeeds at a license exam at an accredited faculty.
• The Spiru Haret University removed itself by a court's decision from the Government Decisions of 2007 and 2008 listing accredited/authorized study programs from Romania. This means that it canceled all its recognitions granted by such Government Decisions. (Don't ask me why did they want to do this!!!) This means that students who began their studies in 2007 and 2008 at this university follow studies which are not legally recognized. The Romanian Department of Education understood that this is the viewpoint of the university and decided to follow the court's decision and not include the Spiru Haret curricula in the Government Decision which lists accredited/authorized curricula (Annex 3 of the Government Decision no. 749 of June 24, 2009). This means that Spiru Haret students who began their studies in 2007, 2008 and 2009 cannot get a legally recognized diploma. In 2009, the University got angry because every prospective student knew that in September 2009 he/she cannot begin an authorized/accredited at the Spiru Haret University. They complained the the Romanian government wants to steal their students (2/3 of all Romanian higher education students are enlisted at Spiru Haret). In the video-chat, the Romanian Minister of Education said that the Department of Education reached an agreement with the university and she promised that the government will taken an urgent decision listing the accredited/authorized Spiru Haret curricula. I did not check if such decision was adopted, but I will do so soon.
• The university said that it does not need ARACIS evaluation, authorization and accreditation, since they appealed to an European accreditation organization. The Minister said that she does not know which organization will perform accreditation at Spiru Haret, therefore she cannot know if it is a recognized European accreditation organization. She was still waiting for the letter of the university wherein the university discloses the name of the the accreditation organization. In any case, in order to be recognized by the Romanian state, studies have to be authorized/accredited according to Romanian law, i.e. by ARACIS.
• All Spiru Haret distance learning locations are illegal, except Bucharest. This means that only distance learning students enlisted in Bucharest follow recognized studies. This does not mean that all distance learning students from Bucharest follow recognized studies! I.e. the faculty still has to be accredited/authorized in order to follow recognized distance learning studies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found the documents promised by the minister: Urgent Ordinance no. 10/2009 (which basically says that Spiru Haret students/graduates from unaccredited/unauthorized studies are entitled to have an entrance exam and, if admitted to such studies, a license/diploma exam at accredited faculties from other universities) and Government Decision 943/2009. I have processed this information in the main article.

About the word "mill": see http://www.google.com/search?q=spiru+haret+fabrica+de+diplome

This query shows some articles from Romanian press calling Spiru Haret a diploma mill (literally translated: "diplomas factory"). Use http://translate.google.ro in order to translate such articles.

I have to correct the statement made above, i.e. not 2/3 but 1/3 of all Romanian higher education students are enlisted to Spiru Haret, according to http://www.zf.ro/eveniment/unul-din-trei-studenti-din-romania-invata-la-spiru-haret-fabrica-de-diplome-300-000-de-studenti-si-100-mil-euro-incasari-4634254/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok well it looks as though you have done your home work. But this still does not make the school a mill. Can a med student from the school can still become a M.D.? --Super (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Romanian press there are many reports that the Spiru Haret University sells diplomas, that all the stuff they learn in classes is how to answer the multiple choice questions from the exams and I have seen myself sites where the answers to the multiple choice exams have been posted on the internet. So, in respect to the question of becoming a physician, Spiru Haret does not prepare physicians which work with humans, but only veterinary physicians. In general the Romanian medical schools do not grant an MD, but something comparable to a MSc, and such diplomas allow medical practice only after several years of supervised practice (training). Some physicians may study for a PhD in medical sciences, and these are the Romanian medical doctors. In respect to becoming a veterinary physician, the study has been acreditted in 2001, but no subsequent evaluation dossier was sent, therefore if a student began his/her veterinary medicine study in 2001 and had no study delays (i.e. finished in the nominal time) and got his/her license in time, then he/she is ready for starting supervised training as a veterinary physician. In he/she had the bad luck of beginning such study in 2004, he/she cannot become a veterinary physician, since he/she cannot get a valid license from the Spiru Haret University.

An open letter has been published by some of the foremost Romanian intellectuals, which urge Romanian politicians not to condone the practices of the Spiru Haret University, which such top intellectuals consider as a threat to the respectability of the Romanian education. It is available upon http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-5993958-apel-intelectualilor-cazul-spiru-haret-luat-act-stupoare-incercarile-lui-mircea-geoana-musamaliza-scandalul-tentativa-lui-traian-basescu-vina-lupta-pentru-influenta-dintre-invatamantul-stat-cel-privat.htm and http://danutm.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/apelul-intelectualilor-in-cazul-spiru-haret/

In order to repeat myself, if you are in Romania and you collect enough people who are willing to attend lessons and call it entertainment or awareness-raising or esoteric teaching, there is no law against that. As soon as you call it "university study" you have to fulfill all obligations stated in Romanian laws, meaning that such studies have to be either temporarily authorized or accredited in order to be permitted. If you even print license diplomas for people who have followed such illegal studies (or, should I say, such no-studies) and apply upon such diplomas the stamp lent from the Romanian Department of Education, this is a criminal offense. Therefore, the Spiru Haret University has engaged in unlawful, criminal activities and this is what makes it a diploma mill. It even has enough balls in order to go to the Court of Appeal and temporarily remove itself from the application of the Government Decisions, taken in full conformity with Romanian laws. In the end, the law will prevail and the state of law will win over the criminals. So the criminals could only prolong the application of the law, but even if it comes later, the law won't get less harsh than before. And even if they prolonged their own torments in order to fool the gullible students who pay the 100 million Euro yearly profit of this non-profit organization, they will have to face the consequences of their own actions. If I make you follow classes and then promise you a legal license diploma, and I have no right of giving you a license diploma, this is a swindle. More than than, it is breaching Romanian education laws, which specify the requirements which universities have to fulfill in teaching their students, and breaches laws for giving students legal documents which grant them all their rights provided by law (i.e. their diplomas) when such documents are granted without having the slightest right of granting them. So, the Spiru Haret University is swindling some of its students and it is illegally granting legal documents. This makes it a double felony. The Romanian tragedy is that this University is very powerful (a lot of Romanian Parliament members are teachers at Spiru Haret) and is able to fool the police and the public prosecutors and even threaten public clerks with paying it damages for writing government decisions which fully comply with the laws in application. I call it harassment. Spiru Haret University tries to harass public clerks into making them so afraid that they won't comply with the law when writing the decisions of the Romanian government. You could think this comes directly from a book by Roberto Saviano. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We will know in a month when the new updated International Handbook comes out, End of March 2010. Only school that are goverment approved make it on the list.--Super (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the Spiru Haret University still has some accredited/authorized studies (this was not denied by the Government Decision 943/2009), and if it has only one accreditted/authorized study it will make it to that list. Therefore such list cannot prove that it is not a diploma mill. So, the problem is not with the authorized/accreditted studies from such university (studies which are fully ok according to the law), but it lies precisely with the lack of accreditation/authorization of certain of its studies. So, this handbook will be irrelevant in our discussion.

The point is: the Spiru Haret University is at the center of a big accreditation scandal, which renders illegal many of its operations (but not all of them). All I have done here is render the details of this scandal and provided hard sources with verifiable information about it. It is a clash between a diploma mill and the Romanian government. The Romanian government wants to keep this university within the limits provided by Romanian laws, and if the Spiru Haret University does not like Romanian laws it should find another country to settle in. Instead of doing that, they want to eat their cake and still have it. This is what makes it a diploma mill. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of government decisions, the law says that a Romanian university has the right to enlist students for higher education studies if and only if such study is listed in the government decision of application for that year of study (i.e. in September 2010 is allowed to enlist students who begin their study then if and only if the government decision of application for studies starting September 2010 mentions such study, i.e. mentions the discipline, the specialization and the university which organizes it). If a study is not being listed in such government decision means that it is illegal to enlist students for such study. The Spiru Haret University found a tricky way around such rules, by removing itself from the application of such government decisions, through administrative litigation at the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Alas, this is only a temporary remedy, since this government decisions have been temporarily suspended, they have not been canceled in respect to the Spiru Haret University. Sooner or later the law will become of full application (as it has been already enforced for the Government Decisions no. 676/2007 and no. 635/2008), and everybody will see that they have enlisted students without having the legal right to do so (as it has already become clear for the years 2007 and 2008). This means that this university has unlawfully received money from these students, i.e. it has swindled them (the swindle is a felony in Romanian law). Further it will be a case for Romanian prosecutors, and the only thing to wonder is that the swindlers have not been jailed yet. In any other EU country they would have been spending some years in jail. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This situation clearly is very complicated -- and most contributors to En.Wikipedia are seriously handicapped in understanding it because the sources are primarily (if not exclusively) in the Romanian language. Considering that "diploma mill" is a very negative label (for example, I recall that it was expunged from the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization website in order to resolve a lawsuit that charged ODA with libel for using this term to describe one specific institution), I think it's best not to mention any specific institution in this article without extraordinarily strong evidence that it is deemed to be a diploma mill. Regardless of the truth, that kind of extraordinarily strong evidence does not exist in the case of Spiru Haret University. Let the article Spiru Haret University discuss the institution's situation, but let's not include it in this article. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have quoted six Romanian newspapers which call it a diploma mill. Is this not enough evidence? Why not invite a speaker of Romanian to double-check my sources? The Spiru Haret University did threaten in 2008 another Romanian newspaper, Gândul, with suing for libel, see http://www.studentie.ro/campus/UNIVERSITATEA_SPIRU_HARET_SI_GANDUL_IN_RAZBOI_64_PROGRAME_DE_MASTERAT/c-73-a-46558 The newspaper was not afraid of it and did not stop with reporting negative news about the university, see http://www.google.com/search?&q=site:gandul.info+spiru+haret (do not confuse the Spiru Haret Federation with the Spiru Haret University). Besides being a diploma mill, there are allegations of illegally promoting people to professorship, see http://www.ziare.com/actual/educatie/07-23-2009/lista-profesorilor-de-la-spiru-haret-care-au-obtinut-ilegal-gradul-universitar-830109

The news have even made it in German language, see e.g. the site of the German Consulate in Romania: http://www.temeswar.diplo.de/Vertretung/temeswar/de/02/Presseauswertung/woche__10__16__august__2009.html and http://www.temeswar.diplo.de/Vertretung/temeswar/de/02/Presseauswertung/woche__13__19__juli__2009.html and on the site of a German FDP member of Parliament http://www.joachimguenther.de/Europas-groesste-Uni-kommt-nach-Plauen/15335c1i1p1448/index.html and Der Standard http://derstandard.at/1246542800888/Rumaenien-Diplomfabrik-droht-Schliessung and Neue Zürcher Zeitung http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/gelehrte_ab_fliessband_1.3738817.html I guess that there are more speakers of German than there are speakers of Romanian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orlady on this, let’s leave it to the Spiru Haret page not the "Mill" page. I think we are at the point where we can make no more progress with this discussion. The point is they have some programs that are still accredited, so they cannot be called a mill. I understand your point of view but find some English based articles. It does state that they are a know mill in the article inside and outside of Romania. So there should be something out there in English. We need to see where we stand.--Super (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove Spiru Haret--Super (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a nice idea to search for English language sources. I have already found an English translation of an article from Le Monde: camgirlnotes.15.forumer.com/a/spiru-haret-univ-denounced-as-a-diploma-mill_post1444.html here is is repeated (in French) http://www.fabula.org/actualites/article32605.php and the original URL is http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/08/15/le-systeme-de-l-enseignement-superieur-roumain-mis-en-cause-par-un-scandale_1228862_3214.html#ens_id=1228932 (requires subscription to Le Monde). According to Le Monde, we should add two extra universities on the diploma mill: University Al. Ghica and University Europa Ecor, both from the town of Alexandria, Romania. The article is repeated here: http://www.sauvonsluniversite.com/spip.php?article2884 and here http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/eh/f/cons/lectures/l'enseignement%20sup%C3%A9rieur%20roumain.pdf (properly printed on a .PDF from the very site of Le Monde).

Here is some info in Hungarian: http://www.hhrf.org/nepujsag/02maj/2nu0530t.htm

Let's see it this way: Piet has honestly earned this month a thousand Euro and he has stolen two thousand Euro. If the police asks him if he is a thief, Piet can answer them: "No, I am honest, I am not a thief, see, I have honestly earned a thousand Euro." If this isn't working for Piet, why should it work for Spiru Haret?

Besides, there is no way that the Spiru Haret University could deny that it has illegally enlisted students in 2007 and 2008. This matter has been settled by final and irrevocable decisions of the Romanian High Court. So I repeat it again: the university has illegally enlisted students, promising them illegal diplomas in exchange for money which it has received illegally from them. Isn't this precisely what diploma mill means? Or is it a mere scam using in vain the name of university? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now for the English language articles upon Spiru:

• Ziarul Financiar
• World Education Services
• Eurotopics
• Evenimentul Zilei
• University World News

And the less reliable sources:

• Facebook article attributted to Radio Romania
• A blog discussion on this affair

The above are some of the sources I have found on Google. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• IPSnews
• Bucharest Herald (1)
• Bucharest Herald (2)
• Bucharest Herald (3)
• Bucharest Herald (4)
• Hotnews.ro (1)
• Hotnews.ro (2)

The above are extra sources (in English) about this university. Please mind that it is the High Court of Cassation and Justice who has the final say, not the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On the article from IPSnews: Spiru Haret University claimed to be in process of being accredited by EUA. But, here is the answer I received from EUA (do take notice that I am a "doctorandus", I am not a "doctor", as Mrs. Byrne assumed): http://members.home.nl/icnl/Answer_from_EUA.pdf Therefore the claim of being accredited by EUA is 100% phony. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another link: Eurotopics (2) Now is it clear that this university has defied law and has deceived its own students? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are lots of reports by Radio Romania International upon Spiru Haret, in many languages, including English: http://www.google.com/#q=site%3Afacebook.com+spiru+haret+%22radio+romania+international (again, do not confuse the Spiru Haret University with the Spiru Haret Federation). Since there are so many reports, I don't quote individual links, but present the Google search (this is not the article, but its discussion). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Good Good....but at the end of the day the school still holds the proper accredidation to operate from the goverment for some of its programs. It is clear there is a lot of pov in the section on this school. I was almost banned for making an edit in this section so I can only use the talk section to try to solve the matter. --Super (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this university has several curricula which operate perfectly legal and legitimate. But it has others which operate neither legal nor legitimate. As said above, Euro 1000 earned earnestly does not entitle Piet to steal Euro 2000. I proved that reliable sources (in English, French, German and Romanian) call this university a diploma mill. The trials upon this accreditation scandal are still going on in Romania, but... a judge cannot change the law, therefore this university cannot invent accreditation/authorization for the curricula concerned by the scandal. In other countries, it is legal to hold university studies even if one does not have accreditation or temporary authorization. This is not the case for Romania. In fact the government made a big allowance for the students duped by this university, allowing them to continue their studies at accredited/authorized faculties. In other countries they would have remained with worthless certificates. Indeed, if this university wants so much to give diplomas to just everyone, why insist to have them printed by the Department of Education and stamped with the stamp of this Department? They could instead use their own stamp and print their own diplomas. But then every student would know: this is not in anyway comparable to a "real" diploma. In this way, the university would lose its students, and therefore lots of money. This is what the scandal is about: offering legal documents without having the right to do so. Since the trials are still pending, the police won't knock at their doors... yet! Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The story continues:

Art. 112 of the Education Law which will soon become applicable provides that offering diplomas for higher education curricula which are neither accredited nor temporarily authorized (by ARACIS) constitutes the felony of material falsification of official documents, punished according to the penal law. Happily, the law provides only for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The above mentioned article was adopted to make the rules of the game very clear, for everybody. Since, according to art. 320 of the Romanian Penal Code, the falsification of official documents (records), including all printed items which have juridical consequences, was already a felony. This makes it look so funny for people used to the rule of law: that instead of sending the Police to investigate the matter, there was a war of press conferences, trials and negotiations between this university and the Romanian Department of Education, although the former Minister Andronescu threatened with reporting the case to prosecutors from the very beginning of the accreditation scandal. And, in Romanian law, the prosecutors can decide on their own to prosecute a felony they know about or have enough reason to think that had been probably done by somebody. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Problem solved in 2015

See Spiru Haret University#Problem solved in 2015. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We have left something out

Power to regulate these issues are held with the states not the federal government. Even the in the most states, a degree can be granted legally even without accreditation if the school is authorized by the state....I.e. Organ. Organ which has the strictest policy towards unaccredited schools or mills still allow state authorized degrees to be used Office of Degree Auth.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Being legal does not mean that it is not also a diploma mill. Diploma mill can simply mean legal but substandard. I also disagree with your assertion that Oregon has the strictest policy towards unaccredited schools. For example, degree use of unaccredited school degrees is much more strict in Texas where it is illegal to use such a degree. In Oregon, unaccredited degrees can still be used as long as they are declared to be unaccredited. TallMagic (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a harsh tone you have in your writing. I was not saying they are the end all, as I in fact live in Texas and am aware of the laws. Texas will allow a school to operate in its borders and outside without accreditation if it has state approvalState of Texas what is your point? So now we know of two of the strictest states allowing state approved colleges and universities to grant degrees. State approved Universities are in no way mills as stated by the USDE website.USDE Mill All nursing programs that issue degrees in Texas can only operate with a license from the state to grant degrees of course they can have outside accreditation as well but it is not needed. My wife’s associate’s degree from a nursing college was issued by a state licensed college,Texas BON that was all they had, no regional or national or any other accreditation at all. So by everyone’s standards here her degree is invalid? But it was good enough for her to take the nursing exam in Texas. As things are going now the States will end up with all of these issues on their laps anyways. USDE states that a school with state approval is not a millUSDE Mill Also the State of New York allows state approved college and universities to sit for state licensing exams...even in the medical field. --Super (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add something to your statement, “Being legal does not mean that it is not also a diploma mill. Diploma mill can simply mean legal but substandard." Being accredited does not mean it is not a mill. The Inspector General for the USDE wanted to end one of the regional accreditors (North Central) right to accredit schools in December of 2009. Article --Super (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

There has not been a Further Reading section to date. I believe there is wide consensus that such is not needed. I have moved these two additions here for discussion:

• Gollin, George, "Unconventional University Diplomas from Online Vendors" (PDF), University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Center for Advanced Study, February 2003.
• Schemo, Diana Jean, "Diploma Mill Concerns Extend Beyond Fraud", The New York Times, June 29, 2008

• The first item is a PDF of a Powerpoint presentation, without peer review, though with sources listed. It appears to be primarily a personal journal of interactions with diploma vendors. If there is an academic paper associated with this presentation, the paper would most certainly be preferred over this narrative. If this item is not notable (published or discussed in peer-reviewed journals), then it isn't notable enough to be listed here. Please read WP:NOTABLE.
• The NYT article would be best integrated into the article.

--Lexein (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a WP:FURTHER section to date is hardly a valid reason for not starting one. (If it were, no such sections would ever be written.) I do not see any discussion regarding such a section, so consensus against it does not exist. This is not a question of WP:NOTE, as that policy deals with subjects of articles themselves, not the sources used to support articles. Diploma mills as an article qualifies as a notable article. (And George Gollin qualifies as notable in his own right.) More to the point, Gollin's presentation is one that qualifies as a source IAW WP:SPS. He is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". (His is one of the first references listed.) In any event Gollin's presentation can be put in the first External Links listing.--S. Rich (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The existence of a rather tight External Links section, combined with long term tacit consensus not seeing a need for Further Reading, followed by deletion as linkspam by another editor, and agreement with that deletion by yet another editor (in this case, me) does count as one of several "valid reason"s not to introduce a Further Reading section. Read WP:LINKSPAM.
2. "Further Reading" implies that added material which will further understanding of a topic beyond the scope constraints of an encyclopedia article, and will amount to some significant reading. The added links offered no real such expansion, and not much reading.
3. Gollin's anecdotal (surely, given its punny, jokey tone(with exclamation! points!), you won't insist that it is serious research) detective work is fun to read about, but reveals little not already cited in the article. A primary danger of self-published sources is that they are not peer-reviewed, nor subject to any editorial policy for fact-checking. Here, he publishes unverified information: "I do not have independent verification of all the information he has sent. With this in mind, here is an example." This would not pass the first round of peer review, nor non-tabloid newspaper editorial standards. Why should it pass here? WP:TRUTH I have nothing against the author or his other works. If this Powerpoint presentation belongs anywhere, it belongs only in the author's list of publications, where I see that it does, indeed, reside.
4. NYT--> article, not links. --Lexein (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is useful information in these sources it would best be integrated into this article using the sources as references. (I've almost always viewed "Further reading" sections as lazy, half-assed ways of noting potential sources without doing the needed work of figuring out exactly what in those source is useful. That one of these sources was added to a half-dozen articles in new "Further reading" sections by the same editor reinforces my view.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Aiii. Multi-article spam. I've been guilty of "parking" sources in Ext Links, but lately I've put them in Talk. Talk is the far more courteous place to park sources(links to articles). --Lexein (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite your protestations, sirs, they are relevant to the article and one is wary of your motivations. Dr. George Gollin at the University of Illinois is perfectly respectable physisict who's done a nice analysis of odd degree mills in his presentation; also the New York Times article was relevant. One wonders about your motivations. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that George has done interesting work in looking at and revealing diploma mills; I only question how the material was (not) incorporated into this article. My opinion of the NYT article is similar - good source, poor (no) integration into this article. I think it's poor form to simply slap potential sources into an article and leave everyone else to figure out how they're useful, relevant, and interesting.

And it's not at all useful to question others' motivations. If you have significant evidence of wrongdoing, produce it in the proper venue. Otherwise, keep your comments limited to content. ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A "Further Reading" section is useful and not unusual. At some later point it can be incorporated into the article's proper. But you didn't discuss it before being a unilateral reversionist. Pity that. I don't appreciate your apparent pontificating. I don't have trouble with fellow editors but this case seems odd. Anyway, time to think about it. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here, at least for me. Just normal WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, and now we're discussing. ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That you are wary and dubious of motivations means that you are failing to WP:Assume Good Faith. My motivations are above reproach. Already said: Gollin's fine, but the breezy Powerpoint anecdotes are not. Already said: NYT goes in the article, not Ext Links. --Lexein (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

However, pronouncements ex cathedra are very off-putting to say the least. Anyway, this is a very unusual matter. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:5PILLARS and WP:UNCIVIL. I know from experience that too-short comments are too easily misunderstood; are reasoned paragraphs really to be labeled "pronouncements?" Editors don't write from thrones, unless it's the loo, and I don't want to know. As written above by another editor, this is the D in WP:BRD. This is hardly "a very unusual matter": most seemingly good external links are rejected because they just aren't good. Lots of discussions happen all the time at Wikipedia, in public; such are not only usual, but de rigueur. Please reread what I wrote above while assuming good faith on my part. Also, please note that by diverting the brewing edit war to Talk, we all win. --Lexein (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Will re-think it all over again and try to see what can be reasonably done, if anything. Cooperation is paramount and a required virtue on Wikipedia. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My turn. The two articles were originally deleted as spam. Clearly that was incorrect -- neither is related to a commercial enterprise. Next I read that they should be deleted because 1. There was not a further reading section before and 2. There was a consensus that there should not be such a section. Again, both these reasons were not correct. (At least the articles are here on the talk page, but such pages are not generally available and are subject to archiving. So the two items really don't have much future (especially as this page gets longer.)) But the other reasons given for keeping Gollin out of the article hardly seem valid. One, his presentation, while SPS, fits WP criteria for inclusion (I quoted the criteria). Two, there is the comment that Gollin's article does not have enough reading material in it and it only repeats what is in the article. My gosh -- how much reading should a further reading reference have? One paragraph? 50 words, 10 chapters? And rather than a bulleted list of characteristics of diploma mills, we now have an illustrated piece which visually explains the proliferation of diploma mills quite well. (With each illustration worth 10,000 words!) But wait -- the last reason I see is that Gollin is not peer reviewed. That's a valid criteria when we evaluated material for the articles themselves, but are we to check on peer review for all further reading? I don't see that as a recommendation. Anyway, how about this as a solution -- we put Gollin in WP:ELYES. Yes? (I'm not addressing the NYT article at all in this discussion.)--S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why this should be a link and not a reference used to actually contribute to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I read, Lexein does not like Gollin as a source. In any event, the article itself covers the bases in the general background. The country by country listing requires constant monitoring. (Gollin's presentation actually is helpful in showing how the "wack-a-mole" nature of these mills makes keeping up on the mills a feckless effort.) Finally, pulling out particular parts of Gollin may be helpful, but I'm not ready to undertake that project. In sum, EL makes for the best preservation of Gollin in this article.--S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful with the blanket "Gollin" there. Gollin is indeed cited in the article - have no fear over preserving that. As a source, this particular slideshow (my only focus) would only be suitable as primary source support for a 1st-person claim: "Gollin claims in his non-peer-reviewed personal account of one investigation into one organization that he (insert claim here)." - that would be the language required here to, in good faith, use this particular slideshow as a reference. --Lexein (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, since you feel strongly, that you seek Editorial Assistance WP:EA. Here, I can only restate my objections to EL more specifically using a sampling of pdf page #s: this slideshow's self-professed amateur status(p. 48), its highly personal (non-scholarly, non-news-like) editorializing tone (p. 3, 61, 76, 78, 79, 86, 106, etc., etc.), cartoons (p. 6, 17, 69, ... ), its publication without verification (p. 99), and its self-publication. If it didn't have Gollin's (or other known researcher's) name on it, would we be discussing this at all? As it is, if it was deeply edited for neutral tone, with conclusions left until the end, and every single unverified example prominently labeled as such, I might be amenable to EL. You have seen the dream: a Featured Article with good, tight, External Links and excellent Further Readings in San Francisco. As an aside, note WP:NOTHOWTO; there's a long history of excluding even External Links to how-I-did-it articles. Offered strawberry shortcake, I could be forced to admit that this slideshow might do little damage, but I'd go hungry before admitting that it actually helps the article. I find it necessary to disengage at this point, because nobody ever offers me shortcake. --Lexein (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Comment

Please provide a source for the the following edit comment, "Mexican Secretary of Education retracted this statement regarding Alliant International University, having confused Alliant with another university." I reverted the deletion of apparently properly sourced information due to no source for this assertion. Zugman (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about it on http://www.rvoe.sems.gob.mx/rvoe/Plantel/BuscadorAvanzado.php Perhaps it does not operate in Mexico? Or maybe it has never applied for accreditation within Mexico? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The notice that is cited in the article is still available from the government of Mexico on http://www.setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Diploma mill

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diploma mill's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thecb":

• From Adam Smith University: Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas
• From Rochville University: Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
• From St. Clements University: Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas state government
• From Bienville University: Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Failure Rates?

The statement "The failure rates at diploma mills are significantly higher than at a recognized or accredited college or university." seems counterintuitive. Don't diploma mills hand out degrees willy-nilly? With this in mind, I'm deleting the statement. --S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "diploma".

There is some confusion in the article due to the different meanings of "diploma" in some countries. It is my understanding that the actual piece of paper issued for a qualification is often called a "diploma" in the United States. Here in Australia and elsewhere such pieces of paper are called the "certificate" and the word "diploma" is used for a qualification using that name - such as a "Diploma of Music" (a "Certificate of Music" could also be awarded but would be a lesser qualification. Can I suggest that the meaning of "diploma mill" be more fully explained as it would not be understood to be referring to bodies which issue fake diplomas / certificates in the name of legitimate universities etc in many countries. Afterwriting (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents location

I see no reason why the table of contents is on the right, so I am going to move it back to the default for Wikipedia pages. Any disagreements? Piguy101 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag

@L235: I haven't noticed any neutrality disputes on this page since 2013. Can you explain why you added this tag to the article in May 2014? Jarble (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: Oops. Feel free to remove it, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Finnish honorary "maisteri" degrees in 1970's and -80's

The mention of the honorary higher degrees in conjunction with Finland is a misunderstanding. The current version claims that a Bachelor of Humanities could get a Master of Humanities degree for a fee. This is incorrect understanding of the degree system prevalent in Finland in the 1970's and -80's. The system included a three year bachelor degree only in select fields. In these cases,,the degrees were humanististen tieteiden kandidaatti (Bachelor of Arts) and luonnontieteiden kandidaatti, respectively. The master's level degree was a five year degree, but it was also called kandidaatti. The degrees of filosofian kandidaatti (arts and science), kasvatustieteiden kandidaatti and oikeustieteiden kandidaatti were such degrees. The corresponding "degrees" filosofian maisteri etc. were not degrees but titles which the university was empowered to award. As they were titles, the award was accompanied by stamp duty. Thus, no degrees were awarded simply for money. The degree of kandidaatti was by itself already the necessary qualification and the title was there only for historical continuity, as some of these degrees had been previously called maisteri.

From mid-1990's onwards, this confusing system was replaced with the current one. The continued recognition of the older kandidaatti degrees is given in the Decree on the system of higher education degrees (464/1998), as amended by decree 426/2005. Therefore, I am removing the misleading sentence from the article. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic International, Endicott, Westbridge now have formed alliances with Mexico and no longer considered Diploma Mill

See Document page 361 This

In Mexico, alliances have been initiated by the Open University of the United Kingdom, the Universidad Nacional a Distancia of Spain, and Phoenix, Atlantic International, and Newport University of the United States. In Mexico commercial international providers, including Endicott College, Westbridge University, and Westhill University, have established branches

38.119.54.108 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is generally bad form to edit an article in which you have a conflict of interest, which you declared here. I did not rever your edit yet but I am inviting discussion. The normal course of action is to propose and edit then discuss it then see if the community support it. If any established editor reverts your edit, it should stay reverted until after it is discussed.

Also, for articles like these, there is typically a long lag between the time an institution stops behaving like a diploma mill and the time the world stops thinking of it as one. Wikipedia tends to "lag the world" which means it may be a semester or two after that before Wikipedia removes it from the list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

davidwr Thanks But I thought wikipedia is about sourced information sir. I was providing sourced information and references. Nothing wrong with that right? Since no one is taking the initiative to do so, I went ahead and grabbed a couple of sources. It's an official document contradicting the outdated reference provide. It's now information. Let's not base this on personal opinions, but facts sir. I understand you are really watching this article for whatever reason, but please use the facts and sources that I am providing as help in getting things accurate. I'm not making edits in a bias way, I am only providing truthful information. We are all human beings here and we are not perfect hence the reason there are a couple of inaccurate statements on this article. Just trying to help wikipedia with accuracy. That's all. I hate to say it, but you have been having a lot of oppositions accurate referenced information to this article. Not sure why. Let's set our personal opinions and egos aside and use the facts provide. Thank you sir 2605:E000:6009:9700:923:5313:9CAF:44EF (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice to all editors involved in this discussion: I have asked for help on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The original text is correct and well sourced. If it is now out of date then these subsequent developments should be reported and referenced, but the original text should not be deleted at this stage. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no arguing the fact that back in 2007, the SEP in Mexico issued a list of schools it did not recognize. However, there is a distinction between the SEP in Mexico listing a school as not recognized and it being a Diploma mill that sells degrees and requires little or no academic work. Unaccredited institutions are frequently incorrectly grouped together with diploma mills despite facts and evidence supporting that the unaccredited school is not a diploma mill. I do not think that is the intent of the article something should be done to remedy this issue. Where there is evidence that the school does not sell degrees, does requires academic work, that academic work from students can be found, has a valid or recognized accreditation then they should not appear or identify clear that they are not considered diploma mills as is the case with Endicott, Atlantic, Univ. Nacional, and possibly others listed. Due to the serious nature of labeling a school a "Diploma mill" special care and diligence needs to be taken.50.204.115.99 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to support Jonathan A Jones's recent edit. Actions speak louder than accreditations, and it will take several years for these institutions to be seen by the general public as reputable institutions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Followup: I did some research into both Atlantic International University and Alliant International University. I looked only at web pages that Google said were updated since 1/1/2013. Both schools had numerous negative reports and the label "diploma mill" appears to be justified. Until several more years go by without complaints or a wholesale change in upper management, it is fair to continue to call these two schools diploma mills. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. It's full of Blogs and Bias. Again, this should not be included in a "Diploma Mill" article without a reliable source. The person above hit it on the nail. "Due to the serious nature of labeling a school a "Diploma mill" special care and diligence needs to be taken." The school has accreditation and work published by students that is verifiable. I saw an edit by a user that provided the English translation of the SEP Article from 2006. This was totally overlooked as the article is not saying that this institution is a "Diploma Mill.' Your statement mentioned above is a personal personal opinion and not Valid. Wikipedia editors can't play Judge and Jury. Your statement " Actions speak louder than accreditations, and it will take several years for these institutions to be seen by the general public as reputable institutions" isn't valid. This article needs to be updated and the schools who now have accreditation should not be included in a "Diploma Mill" Article based on google searches which is clearly a unreliable source. There are sources provided on this talk page that contradicts information in this article and should be taken into consideration. 2605:E000:6009:9700:28DE:5AC5:F0AA:6792 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the situation. The page does not state in Wikipedia's voice that these institutions are diplomas mills: rather it states that the Mexican government issued a warning that these institutions were not accredited in Mexico at the time of the warning and prvides sourcing for this statement. The introduction to the article makes clear that being unaccredited does not mean that an institution is necessarily a diploma mill, but that it is a warning sign. The correct approach is to start from the Mexican government statement and then add additional information about particular institutions which appear to have some form of accreditation, as is currently done in three cases. If you have well sourced information about other institutions then feel free to add it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But Jonathan A Jones, the Editor davidwr is implying and enforcing that both Atlantic International University and Alliant International University are "Diploma Mills" based on his Google search of blogs and forums etc... Plus the article does not start off with the information you are saying "The introduction to the article makes clear that being unaccredited does not mean that an institution is necessarily a diploma mill" It starts off as "a Diploma Mill is an unaccredited higher education institution that offers illegitimate academic degrees and diplomas for a fee. These degrees may claim to give credit for relevant life experience, but should not be confused with legitimate prior learning assessment programs." By reading this paragraph, it automatically creates bias from the public eye. The article needs some amendments and the information provided does not appear to be reliable.38.119.54.108 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

i davidwr Please seethisfor Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Google searches , blogs, etc.. aren't considered valid sources based on Wikipedia's guidelines. This is in response to your statement mentioned above as to Atlantic International University and Alliant International University. These should NOT be listed in the "Diploma Mill" article based on your statement. There are too many reliable source that are Verifiable sources that say these institutions are NOT Diploma Mills, but in the past, lacked accreditation. These are two separate subjects. Diploma Mill v. Unaccredited universities who have operated legally with in State and Federal Guidelines prior to receiving accreditation. Is it really fair to say that all institutions in the past that did not have accreditation, but had state approval to operate are Diploma Mills? Alliant has been operating since 1969, see this and Atlantic International University has been operating since 1998 legally within federal and state guidelines, see this and now they are accredited by a recognized accreditation body, see this listed in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's international website, see this. So what's the issue here and why shouldn't these institutions be removed from the "Diploma Mill" article? Further note that I did a little research as well and the State of Oregon was sued and settled out of court by a state approved unaccredited university called Kennedy Western University, see this, in which the State made statements that they were a "Diploma Mill" hence the reason the State of Oregon changed their laws regarding unaccredited state approved schools and removed their list of so call Diploma Mills from their website. One of the editors mentioned above made a statement saying "Due to the serious nature of labeling a school a "Diploma mill" special care and diligence needs to be taken. My vote is to remove these institutions from the Diploma Mill article as they are Legal Operations and are now accredited by recognized Accreditation Bodies. I hope all considerations are taken before inaccurate false claims are made. This is damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as it's purpose is to provide up to date accurate information. If you want to cite SEP Mexican 2006 alert, than cite it in an article for Institutions that are not recognized by Mexican government. But not a Diploma Mill article. Just my two cents184.74.165.44 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic International University old (2002) court order - is it still in force? [Update: no]

In 2002, the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection sued Atlantic International University, alleging it failed to follow the laws that apply to unaccredited institutions, specifically, that it did not disclose "the fact that it [was, as of 2002] not fully accredited by any nationally recognized accrediting agency or association listed by the United States Secretary" which, in 2002, was a violation of Hawaii Rev. stat. paragraph 446E-2(a).

The final judgment included a "stipulated permanent injunction." Basically, the University and the state settled. Part of the settlement was a permanent injunction ordering the University to follow the law.

The judgment provides that parties may ask the court to terminate provisions of the order.

Does anyone know if this order is still in force? and if not, what court order or legal procedure caused it to no longer be in force?

By the way, it's not unusual for such orders (typically called "consent decrees") to remain in force decades after the behavior that led to them is ancient history. As an example, IBM was under such an order related to anti-competitive practices long after those practices ended in the 1960s or 1970s. As the market changed the effect of the order was to make IBM jump through hoops their competitors didn't have to jump through even after the consumer-protection/fair-play need for such orders was ancient history. Sometime in the 1980s or 1990s IBM convinced a court to dissolve those decrees.

I would expect that after AIU acquires an accreditation that is recognized by a "nationally recognized accrediting agency or association listed by the United States Secretary" it would seek to have the order modified or dissolved entirely.

Editors who want to research it further can research "Civil No. 02-1-1733-07; State of Hawaii vs. Atlantic International University, Inc.; STIPULATED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, INC." The court order was signed by judge Sabrina S. McKenna of the First Circuit Court on October 7, 2002. A PDF is here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Judgment is no longer Valid and has been paid in full see this. This was all prior to the institutions accreditation. If you know how to read legal docs it was enforcing AIU to let students know that AIU was not accredited and the joint stip was agreed upon. All judgments have been paid. This was a 13 years ago and Hawaii law has a 10 year statute for enforcement of judgments. This was back in 2002 and the orders have been satisfied. I hope this explains and helps2605:E000:6009:9700:816A:CA0F:D150:AFF4 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I knew the payment part was taken care of, but the rest would normally be "permanent" (hence the name, "permanent") unless a law - such as the 10-year-limit on judgments you cited - or a court modified it. Thank you for clarifying that Hawaii law "expires" judgments after 10 years" - that is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for when I asked the question. I have re-titled the section so page-skimmers won't make the wrong assumption. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Accreditation for US-based institutions

While lack of recognized accreditation and being a "diploma mill" are not synonymous in the United States, there tends to be an overlap.

Basically, if you make a list of all U.S. institutions who are neither accredited by nor actively seeking accreditation from a recognized accreditation agency or whose programs are neither accredited by nor seeking accreditation from a recognized accreditation agency, what you have will largely fall into several groups:

• Schools that are NOT offering credentials which employers and others expect to come from an program accredited by a recognized accreditation agency in, in an institution accredited by a recognized accreditation agency.
• Schools which ARE offering such credentials and, if doing so legally, are likely to be called "diploma mills" or similar terms by at least some consumer-protection groups (those that are doing so illegally usually either stop the illegal practices or get shut down).

As a general rule if a U.S.-based school's accrediting agency isn't found on either the list run by Council for Higher Education Accreditation (September 2015 list) or the United States Department of Education (list of lists of recognized agencies) then it should not be considered as having recognized accreditation, at least not in the sense that students should expect employers in the United States to recognize the credentials granted by that institution. The same can be said for programs if the subject-area that the program covers is one where employers expect program accreditation. A major exception is if the school or program is actively seeking accreditation from an agency recognized by CHEA or the US Dept. of Education and it is clear that they are likely to earn that accreditation after the application process is complete. The latter typically applies to new institutions or new programs within an existing institution.

By the way, the preceding paragraphs (except the first, which is just a restatement of common knowledge) are a mix of my personal opinion and original research, which is why I put this on the talk page rather than in relevant articles in the main encyclopedia. I'm offering here as something to consider when deciding if a school of higher learning belongs in a list that distinguishes between schools having accreditation (or recognized/useful accreditation) or not and between those largely considered to be "diploma mills" and those who are not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Care should be taken not to assume that an accreditation agency which is in some way recognized by or affiliated with Chea International is the same as being recognized as an accreditation agency for US-based colleges by Chea itself. Likewise, care should be taken to not confuse international accreditation agencies recognized by the US Department of Education as the same as being recognized by that department for the purposes of accrediting schools in the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please see official document from CHEA regarding cross-border accreditation and Non-US international agencies being recognized. See this 66.87.67.250 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing that link from CHEA International. It seems to focus mainly on European schools and it seems to be more of a planning/discussion/ideas document than a statement of existing policies and practices (it does link to some other documents that probably are practices/policy documents). It is interesting but not yet relevant to US schools. Wikipedia editors should monitor for large-scale changes in how the US Department of Education and large, influential employers and graduate schools collectively look at domestic colleges who have international accreditation in addition to or instead of domestic accreditation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I was reading through the conversation.As an FYI. Institutions/Accreditation Agencies can be approved by either or and does not need to be approved by not both (US Dept of Education) for Federally Funded programs and Institutions purposes or (Council For Higher Education Accreditation) for private accrediting and institutions. The subject institution is approved by an agency, who CHEA considers to be a recognized agency based in the UK. Some confuse that if a accreditation agency is not recognized by the U.S Dept of education, it is considered unrecognized. Not true, hence the reason CHEA (a private non-governmental agency) has been put in place. Schools who are US Dept of Education recognized are federally controlled, public schools etc. Post-Secondary private institutions who are accredited by private accrediting agencies are not federally controlled like the institution mentioned above. Please keep in mind that accreditation is Voluntary and when aquiring accreditation, institutions have the right to choose, National, International or Regional accreditation, as long as the agency is recognized. The institutions in question who have accreditation through recognized accrediting agencies (National, Regional and International) should not be included in this article. US Dept of Ed does not apply. I don't think the US should be inferior to any other country if it's a recognized accrediting agency. The subject is "accreditation" and whether some of the institution's mentioned in this article should be removed. US Dept of Ed should not be considered in this matter as we have a lot if international students who transferred from universities in other countries to US institutions. Reevaluate this article and remove institutions mentioned who have legit accreditation from a National, International or Regional recognized agency US or Non-US, but recognized accrediting agencies. See this 12.197.168.254 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Accreditation (US or Non US) does not guarantee the another institution will except transfer credits. It does not matter if you have a degree from a National, Regional or Internationally accredited, institutions have their own standards and policies. This goes for employers as well. See this for information 74.95.73.201 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

There is a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi) which may be of interest to those following this article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 10:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diploma mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090820233857/http://www.abs-cbnnews.com:80/storypage.aspx?StoryId=98390 to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=98390

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Diploma mill. 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/20071229114428/http://www.ugc.ac.in:80/policy/ugcact1956.html to http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/ugcact1956.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029023543/http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2011/Act%20550.pdf to http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2011/Act%20550.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029023543/http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2011/Act%20550.pdf to http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2011/Act%20550.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821142218/http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/120304ccjrkvuestateseminary.8f53085.html to http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/120304ccjrkvuestateseminary.8f53085.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115072626/http://www.billingsgazette.com:80/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/01/30/build/wyoming/40-online-learning.inc to http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/01/30/build/wyoming/40-online-learning.inc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525082240/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106012006/http://www.hecb.wa.gov:80/autheval/daa/ConsumerInformation.asp to http://www.hecb.wa.gov/autheval/daa/ConsumerInformation.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.herald-coaster.com/articles/2007/09/28/news/top_story/topstory.txt

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Diploma mill. 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/20151208102212/https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/diplomamills to https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/diplomamills
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529151749/http://www.komu.com:80/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/7c5b53e7-80ce-0971-018d-6b06461941c1 to http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/7c5b53e7-80ce-0971-018d-6b06461941c1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305003744/http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byid/pmidbbee068dcf0e6790ca256b590077c9cb to http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byid/pmidbbee068dcf0e6790ca256b590077c9cb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029135645/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf to http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029135645/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf to http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808171358/http://ultimaora.phg.ro:80/sesizarea_la_parchet_poate_declansa_desfiintarea_universitatii__spiru_haret_-s165555.html to http://ultimaora.phg.ro/sesizarea_la_parchet_poate_declansa_desfiintarea_universitatii__spiru_haret_-s165555.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622014927/http://www.friktion.se:80/2007/06/17/sven-otto-littorins-akademiska-meriter to http://www.friktion.se/2007/06/17/sven-otto-littorins-akademiska-meriter/#more-84
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216121636/http://www.wired.com:80/news/culture/0,1284,66476,00.html to http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66476,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830151732/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/faq.html to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214640/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310020248/https://www.hedd.ac.uk/search_university_or_college.htm to https://www.hedd.ac.uk/search_university_or_college.htm

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) 14:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208102212/https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/diplomamills to https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/diplomamills
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529151749/http://www.komu.com:80/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/7c5b53e7-80ce-0971-018d-6b06461941c1 to http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/7c5b53e7-80ce-0971-018d-6b06461941c1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305003744/http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byid/pmidbbee068dcf0e6790ca256b590077c9cb to http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byid/pmidbbee068dcf0e6790ca256b590077c9cb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029135645/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf to http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029135645/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf to http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ihe_pdf/ihe53.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808171358/http://ultimaora.phg.ro:80/sesizarea_la_parchet_poate_declansa_desfiintarea_universitatii__spiru_haret_-s165555.html to http://ultimaora.phg.ro/sesizarea_la_parchet_poate_declansa_desfiintarea_universitatii__spiru_haret_-s165555.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622014927/http://www.friktion.se:80/2007/06/17/sven-otto-littorins-akademiska-meriter to http://www.friktion.se/2007/06/17/sven-otto-littorins-akademiska-meriter/#more-84
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216121636/http://www.wired.com:80/news/culture/0,1284,66476,00.html to http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66476,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830151732/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/faq.html to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214640/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310020248/https://www.hedd.ac.uk/search_university_or_college.htm to https://www.hedd.ac.uk/search_university_or_college.htm

Failed because it is a search portal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill?

Hello! You are invited to participate in Talk:Warren National University#RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Diploma mill. 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/20150513185433/http://www.cimea.it/files/fileusers/Diploma_mills_Luca_Lantero_EN.pdf to http://www.cimea.it/files/fileusers/Diploma_mills_Luca_Lantero_EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151031085709/http://getbschooled.typepad.com/getbschooled/2012/04/diploma-and-accreditation-mills-what-to-watch-for.html to http://getbschooled.typepad.com/getbschooled/2012/04/diploma-and-accreditation-mills-what-to-watch-for.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524115003/http://legal.gmw.cn/2015-05/22/content_15748306.htm to http://legal.gmw.cn/2015-05/22/content_15748306.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/ugcact1956.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029023550/http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20555.pdf to http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20555.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107000632/http://www.mqa.gov.my/index1.cfm to http://www.mqa.gov.my/index1.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606212646/http://www.dn.sapo.pt/2007/05/26/sociedade/governo_desencadeia_saneamento_priva.html to http://dn.sapo.pt/2007/05/26/sociedade/governo_desencadeia_saneamento_priva.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724025031/http://www.rau.ro/mydocuments/legislatie/om-4630-11aug2010.pdf to http://www.rau.ro/mydocuments/legislatie/om-4630-11aug2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909060122/http://www.thelocal.se/7644/20070619/ to http://www.thelocal.se/7644/20070619/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C66476%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews%2F2005%2F01%2F30%2Fbuild%2Fwyoming%2F40-online-learning.inc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diploma mill. 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/20081221061246/http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/ammattikorkeakoulutus/ammattikorkeakoulut/ to http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/ammattikorkeakoulutus/ammattikorkeakoulut/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)