Talk:Columbia Pacific University/Archive 2

There is a pattern of non-neutrality here
I agree with the posting below mine. I have attempted to insert the following paragraph:

"Each Ph.D. student was assigned a mentor from an accredited university--a professor who was an expert in the student's subject area. Each Ph.D. dissertation was required to have the approval of the mentor; this means that the dissertation would have to be at the same level of quality as the dissertations at the mentor's accredited university; a California state commission found this to be, in fact, the case. As with all Ph.D. dissertations, those from CPU are available to be examined by anyone with an interest in the subject area."

However, this paragraph keeps being removed by some misinformed, frustrated fool (probably some clueless California bureaucrat). I am a graduate of RPI with two engineering degrees, B.Sc. and M.Eng. I attended and completed the doctoral course work at MIT; in fact, I had enough credits for two doctorates from these distinguished universities. I left MIT in order to get a patent on the device I invented--if I had stayed at MIT, the college would have kept the patent rights. Fortunately, I was later able to finish up at Columbia Pacific University and obtain my Ph.D. in 1991. My dissertation mentor and advisor was a distinguished professor at Syracuse University. My dissertation is 459 pages long and contains 800 equations, 30 tables, and 17 figures. I will happily have my dissertation compared to any at MIT, Princeton, or any other university. My experience at CPU was excellent; no corners were cut. It was a fine place for independent scholarly study. Other CPU graduates say exactly the same thing and will proudly show their dissertations.

Now let's take a look at the situation in California today. The state government is bankrupt! Why is that? Perhaps it's because the Leftist, taxpayer-supported government-run colleges, staffed with Leftist professors, trained a whole generation of Leftist students--who then took over the state government--and proceeded to bankrupt it. In contrast, CPU was privately run, and the founders showed great entrepreneurial skill in establishing it. Since the state is a major player in college education in the state, it's difficult to see how they could rule on CPU in a fair, objective fashion. It wasn't the consumers of CPU--the students--who brought the case against CPU--it was, in essense, the state-run competitors.

=
=

Despite the fact that the university was state approved, this has been removed multiple times. Les Carr's post-CPU affairs improperly blot what CPU was. It was an early experimental college. It had problems. Removal of a basic fact that is of great significance, namely that the university got 3 letters of approval from the state after being reviewed is improper. This slanting of the facts is against the principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.95.13 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the first paragraph after the lead is about initial licensing in California. I reverted most of your changes, but left a statement about state approval in the lead. Note that the lead is supposed be a summary of the important points in the article -- there would be no point in saying 3 times in the lead that the school was state-approved. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you are mourning for the school. If you have sourced information its experimental innovations, the info could be considered for use in the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another CPU alumnus - from the 1980s - bachelors level
I attended two traditional universities with a GPA of 3.75 in the sciences, and finished with CPU. I have since obtained a PhD at a traditional university with high GPA, (3.8) and I have an excellent publication record. Characterizing CPU as a degree mill is just false. The work I did at CPU was considerably harder than anything I experienced at any traditional university, and that includes my PhD program. I wrote somewhere around 1,000 pages of papers that were submitted. (Just one I submitted was 250 pages.) I got excellent education, although one of my mentors (PhD - Switzerland) expressed his frustration after a while at the rate of progress. (I was working more than full time.) It took me from 1982 until 1989 to finish two years of credit hours.

That said, I became aware by the time CPU shut down of problems. But most of this I learned directly from CPU's staff. Quality was variable, particularly after around 1992 when Dr. Crews seemed to pull back. There was not enough oversight on their mentors/professors. Some people had very intense programs like myself, others aparently did not.

I think their major problem was that they paid their mentors in way that didn't discourage them from refusing to pass students. As anyone who has been inside academia well knows, PhDs/professors tend to do what they are paid to do like anyone else. Some of their mentors took advantage of it I think. Others did not. I think another major problem was that they were founded on a basis of trust by at least one person who is very idealistic, Dr. Crews. Some of that trust got abused and there weren't systems in place to deal with it.

I gave my recommendations to them once, I think it was around 1995 or so, but I could be wrong. The gist of those recommendations were:

A. To pay their mentor-professors a regular wage rather than a project wage. (Minimize part-time staff.)

B. To do thorough statistical quality control audits each year of a statistically valid sample of their mentor-professors and students. It wasn't possible to do complete audits on everyone and no school does. Publish the results of these audits each year. Make management changes based on them.

C. To make more use of standardized testing. For instance, I suggested they use the GRE examination for the field of study as a required element of graduating with a bachelor's degree, setting cutoff values for their students.

In 1993 I talked about the possibility of entering a PhD program with CPU. The dean called me back and he told me that his recommendation was that I should go to a traditional program. I questioned him about why, and he told me that he had concerns about where things were going. He didn't feel it was fair to suggest I do it through CPU. A degree mill would not have done that. (I do not remember his name, nor if he remained with them to the end.)

I also came to CPU because of Bear's guide. Since that time there are many such programs all over the USA. Many have had growing pains. But there is a huge difference between a degree mill and a university that has variable quality. At the time I enrolled, it was one of the only programs of its kind. They were ground breakers. Now we have University of Phoenix and many others.

69.230.118.203 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Very few states restrict the use of CPU degrees as credentials
The article states "but several other states restrict the use of CPU degrees as credentials" but in fact there is only 1 reference to partially support this, the State of Michigan restricts it for Civil Service workers. It seems to me this statement should be deleted and it was written by someone who is on a crusade against thousands of CPU alumni and could hardly be considered as objective. There were statements previously in this Wiki referencing Texas and Oregon, both of which lead to dead links. If anything, the statement should say that CPU degrees are widely recognized and accepted worldwide and by nearly all major US companies and the US Government. That is the TRUTH. I also take issue with the See Also containing "Diploma Mills." What's the implication here? My degree is valid, legal and recognized by the top companies in the world. What right does someone have to say my degree is not real? Clearly this wiki has the State of California's statement that Degrees granted before 1997 were legal and valid. Further when I received my degree CPU had full approval of the State of California to grant degrees. I did not buy a piece of paper! I've tried to correct this wiki, but have been warned to not touch the CPU wiki or I'll be blocked, with my content mostly being reversed. Yet the reverted content is very inaccurate, irrelevant, and some of it is slanderous. 74.138.83.249 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Curt Hawley curthawley@curthawley.com
 * The links to Texas and Oregon's information were dead, thank you for pointing this out. I was able to find current links that support the statements about how these states view degrees from CPU, and have restored the material.  The section about California talks about pre- and post-1997 degrees.  I'd echo Will's comment below about approved vs. accredited - they are not the same thing, and we've been through this at length before on this talk page.  I'd be happy to work with you on some of these concerns once you've read through the talk history of this page.  Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to know that you are willing to do the research to back up the rare limitations on CPU degrees. If you are truly unbiased, are you now going to list every one of the 50 states and US territories and explain how they recognize the degrees? Will you also allow Alumni to present a list of companies and institutions that have accepted CPU degrees? I keep seeing how you folks talk about being neutral and unbiased, but what I see is quite the opposite. The elephant in the living room is that most states, the Federal Government, and thousands of companies and institutions have recognized CPU degrees as valid. I eagerly await your unbiased and neutral research. Curthawley 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

I think you missed my point about what you are calling "approved" vs. "accredited". In 1981, when I enrolled with CPU, having the approval of the State of California was far more credible than any accreditation that existed at the time. This is 2007, and accreditation carries a far different contextual relevance, mainly due to the internet and other technologies which have nourished the pervasiveness of "diploma mills" in recent years. You may have had similar discussions with others before, but the issue remains unresolved. The Wiki is slanted making CPU seem like a scam. The first line of the description, which makes the greatest impression starts out with "unaccredited." I motion that the word unaccredited be moved to a new section and the subject of that section be such that it explores all points of view, and particularly it's relevance in the historical context. Curthawley 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley
 * Thank you for your comments, Curt. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of much of a historical change in the status or relevance of the concept of accreditation since the 1950's.  Approval means that a state licenses a facility to operate - that is, to occupy buildings, pay employees, collect tuition/fees and so on.  Approval is completed by the state.  Accreditation means that a school meets academic standards as evaluated by an non-governmental agency (at least in the US).  Even now, accreditation agencies have arisen that accredit nontraditional schools - take a look at the educational accreditation article.  I should also point out having a degree from an unaccredited school is not a huge black mark - many seminaries and theological schools are not accredited, and their graduates are held in high regard in their specific fields.  I realize you have strong feelings about this topic.  On Wikipedia we have to use reliable sources to determine the factual basis of articles, not personal experience.  Can you find some good sources for your claims?  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, upon review of the BPPVE info in the article it seems that the state of California was involved in approving CPU's curriculum (e.g. not just a license to operate as I claimed above) in the 1980s, but changes to the law in the late 80s led ultimately to the state taking action against CPU. CPU was, however, never accredited by a regional accreditation authority, so we can continue to describe it as unaccredited.  I'd really like to get some references on the changing law in the 1980s and how it led to changes at BPPVE.  Cheers, Skinwalker 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem in your zeal to make CPU seem a sham you did not dig deep enough with the state of Oregon for example. I made a simple email request to the ODA and got this response:

Oregon law changed in 2005, and we now allow use of CPU degrees from any period during which the school held state approval to issue degrees. The only requirement (imposed by the legislature, not our office) is that the degree user always include a disclaimer of accreditation with the degree on a resume, web site etc. The disclaimer now appears in the innards of ORS 348.609. Our long list of schools is not a list of diploma mills, as commonly thought, but a list of all schools that have some kind of restriction on the use of degrees. That's why CPU is still on it. Let us know if you have more questions.

Alan L. Contreras Administrator, Office of Degree Authorization Oregon Student Assistance Commission 1500 Valley River Drive No. 100 Eugene OR 97401 (541) 687-7452   fax (541) 687-7419 alan.L.contreras@state.or.us Information: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon law.

Please add this rather significant and easily verifiable piece of information to the wiki. And I still look forward to seeing how ALL other states handle CPU degrees specifically since you insist it is an issue. And again I implore you to set up a separate section surrounding the debate about the relevance of accreditation for a school that closed 10 years ago with many people receiving their degrees more than 20 years ago. This historical relevance to degrees issued in the early 80's is NOT the same as Universities and "diploma mills" operating today. Accrediting bodies and laws have evolved greatly during the past 20 years. You can not apply current standards to something that happened decades ago! Curthawley 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley
 * About the only difference in ORS 348.609 that I can discern (and I am not a lawyer) is that individuals who do not disclose that their degree is from a non-accredited school are no longer criminally liable. The law has been changed to civil liability, not criminal.  Only a handful of states regulate the use of unaccredited degrees.  And, finally, I am not aware of any "debate" over the relevance of accreditation other than the one we are having.  Please stop assuming bad faith, and produce some reliable sources that document your claims.  Private emails are not reliable sources, but I would like to see what question you asked Mr. Contreras to precipitate his reply, so it doesn't feel like I'm playing Jeopardy.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm experiencing it. If you are truly interested why don't you contact Alan Contreas and ask your questions directly, that way you won't have to wonder if the original question I posted was really what I said? Since you have taken it upon yourself to interpret the legalities of my degree, I expect (in good faith) that you will take this task seriously. Were you around in the early 80's researching the question of Accreditation? I doubt it. I WAS. It was my future credentials that were at stake. The credibility of web sources is totally meaningless then wikipedia is no different than propaganda. The only difference can come from an arrival of an increasing approximation of the Truth. To simply have lies and distortions which are merely replicated does not make them any more factual or relevant. Curthawley 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley
 * I repeat: please produce some reliable sources that document your position.  We are at an impasse until you do.  Cheers, Skinwalker 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The current statement about Oregon Law is not correct. The reference link to the law is correct, but you have not changed the statement associated with it. It is no longer accurate. I ask that you remove it until there can be agreement (through discussions with the state of OR, of which you approve) I have posted documentation above, and if the state of Oregon is not a credible source on state of Oregon Law, then who is? Curthawley 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Removal of facts from this wiki
Columbia Pacific University operated as a legally approved degree granting institution in the State of California for many years. As such there are several thousand Alumni! I don't understand how posting that information to this article would be wrong? Yet when I did, it was removed. Why would you block that there are thousands of Alumni? 74.138.83.249 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Curt Hawley curthawley@curthawley.com


 * "Approved" is not the same as "accredited". Please review the disucssions we've already had on this talk page. We're open to improving the article, but it must remain neutral. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, please see my note to skinwalker, and my motion in the above section regarding this same topic. Regards. Curthawley 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Is there some reason why Dr. Lester Carr had Dr. removed before his name? The flimsy articles used as a reference even refer to him as Dr. I assume the original poster removed Dr. to further discredit him, and thereby CPU? Personally it seems to me that CCWU needs it's own Wiki article and there should simply be a link to it from the CPU article if necessary. I would think only someone bashing CPU would find what Dr. Carr did after CPU to be relevant. But in my view, it's not relevant to this article. Yet, if it is to remain, you could at least refer to the man by his appropriate title. I also find it very interesting that such an anal probe of the main founder Dr. Crews is not part of the article. I'm amazed at the definition of neutral and unbiased here. Curthawley 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley


 * Please assume good faith. Academic titles are removed from every article in which they're found. It's nothing to do with any individual. May I suggest that you spend a little time getting acquainted with this project before telling us what we're doing wrong? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anal probe? ROFL!  Skinwalker 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that was rude of me. Skinwalker 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm learning that it's presently a very subjective reality. So do you agree with putting the subject of Accreditation and it's relevance into a separate section? Also do you agree with putting CCWU into it's own article and changing the wordy explanations of it here into simple links? Curthawley 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley
 * I do not agree with removing the subject of accreditation to its own section on this page or another page. The ramifications of having an unaccredited degree is described at length on the educational accreditation page, linked to in the first sentence of this article, which states: "... it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education. Yet, other unaccredited schools simply award degrees and diploma without merit for a price.".  I also do not agree with moving any CCWU material from this article.  This link  demonstrates that Carr moved CPU to Montana and this link  corroborates that CPU was later renamed CCWU.  Skinwalker 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But you still fail to see the point that this happened in the PAST, when the subject of accreditation was not as evolved as it is today. It's not appropriate to retroactively apply criteria from one era to another. By simply putting the word "unaccredited" in the first line, it does not explain the actual standing of the University during the time it operated. Truth is not served by a simple one word branding (of a word and issue that is far more meaningful and evolved today) of the school. Curthawley 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Oregon law and Columbia Pacific degrees
It has come to my attention that Oregon law regarding the use of CPU degrees is not well understood. As of 2005, Oregon allows the use of CPU degrees issued during the school's period of California licensure, provided that any such use carries the disclaimer of accreditation required by the legislature (ORS 348.609). It is no longer illegal to use a CPU degree here provided that the disclaimer is always included. It was illegal during the period 1997-2004.

Alan Contreras, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization 159.121.237.4 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alan. Your IP address resolves to Oregon's state government network, so I can presume that you are who I think you are.  Anyways, can you comment on the accuracy of the following statement from the article?
 * "'Oregon lists degrees from both CPU and CCWU as 'unaccredited degrees', and thus prohibited for various uses under Oregon law. The use of 'unaccredited degrees' in violation of this prohibition can result in civil penalties.'"
 * I think a more accurate version would be:
 * "'Oregon lists degrees from CPU as unaccredited degrees. The use of post-1997 degrees from CPU is prohibited. The use of pre-1997 degrees for employment purposes requires a disclaimer, without which civil penalties can be imposed.'"
 * My understanding is that CPU degrees from before 1997 (when CA revoked its licensure) are allowed if the disclaimer is used, and that degrees from after 1997 are still prohibited. It also seems that the new ORS 348.609 removed criminal penalties (misdemeanors) related to the use of unaccredited degrees, and made penalties civil in nature.  Is this correct?  Cheers, Skinwalker 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from CPU alumnus
You must excuse me - I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and am unsure of how to make my comment. Given the slant of the entry on Columbia Pacific University I am reluctant to give my name, and thereby earn the unpleasant scorn that may result.

I am a retired lecturer who, prior to having CPU recommended to me by John Bear and also by someone at the O.U. in England, had gained Masters degrees at two highly regarded Universities in England, together with three postgraduate diplomas. I gained my Ph.D. in 1983.

I had subsequently learned that CPU were in difficulties some years after I had retired, but am not qualificed to comment on these issues. From what is stated, things apparently went wrong. However, at the time I gained my Ph.D. there was no question of any lack of authenticity or validity in this qualification, something that the main article fails to make clear. The innuendos contained generally about this University are a serious disservice to those who gained their degrees prior to 1997. Lumped together, emotive terms such as "diploma mill" and "fraudulent" are most unfair and might be deemed to apply to all degrees awarded.

A few years ago I contacted CPU, and asked for some explanation as to what was going on. Again, I am not qualified to comment about recent details, but I was given to understand that the attack on the University was more for political rather than academic ones. From the start I had learned that accreditation was not being sought because the University did not have residential facilities which I understood was a prerequisite for accreditation.

Being long since retired I have no personal axe to grind, but I do think that the general thrust of this article on Columbia Pacific University is of a disparaging and derogatory nature and, as I say, most unfair to those who gained degrees prior to 1997. I am sure that things could be put better, and suggest that as it stands it comes over as a bit of a witch-hunt.

Yours respectfully, Argentina98 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Robert


 * The only comment I have is that I have *never* heard that "residential facilities" are required for any accreditation. I could be completely mistaken but that doesn't even sound remotely plausible.
 * If you have some verifiable details we can add to this article then I'm sure that we'd be happy to take a look at them to see how best to work them into the article. --ElKevbo 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a quick response! Thank you for that. Regarding residential facilities, that was what I was given to understand from a reply from CPU at the time. The problem I have is that the general slant of the article is derogatory and negative. In fairness to the former graduates a clearer distinction needs to be made between the University prior to the 1990s and subsequent events. Otherwise all graduates are tarred with the same brush.

Certainly, at the time I gained my Ph.D., which was in the early eighties, the University had a good standing. I was present when several highly regarded people received their honorary fellowships, which surely was an endorsement. I remember talking to them afterwards. They included Barry Taylor, Chief Education Officer, Anthony Hopkins, the distinguished musicologist, Professor Lewis, at the Open University (who actually recommended me to CPU), and Jill Knight, MP. Memory fades with time, but I am sure that in the early eighties there was an article in the Times Educational Supplement praising the CPU for its rigour and forward-looking approach.

But I'd ask you and Will Beback to look at the article as a whole. Any dispassionate reader could be forgiven for writing off CPU in its entirety. It really is unfairly slanted.


 * Argentina98 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would really like to see the Times Educational Supplement article. My access to Lexis-Nexis is fried, though, and I'm not sure it would even have an article that old.  Can someone find the article and summarize it?  Cheers, Skinwalker 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please supply some bibliographic details about the article? I'd be happy to try to find a copy when I get back to campus on Monday (you might want to e-mail me to make sure I don't forget!).  --ElKevbo 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Google searching tells me that the article was in the Times Educational Supplement issue published August 5th, 1983. That's about all the biblio-details I can find at the moment, I'll add more over the weekend if I find any.  Cheers, Skinwalker 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Title and author would be most helpful if you can find them. --ElKevbo 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I found several NY Times articles that mention Columbia Pacific U, but none matching this description. The hits include: 1988 column about nutrition quackery, mentioning one nutrition quack with a degree from this school; 1986 article about nutrition quackery; 1985 column on evaluating nutritional advice; 1997 theater article partly about university alumnus John Gray, a psychotherapist; 1981 review of a book by alum Maxine Schnall --orlady 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Times Educational Supplement is published by The Times, a UK paper owned by Rupert Murdoch (ugh) and unrelated to the New York Times. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably this 2005 article about John Gray is not the one you were looking for.--orlady 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a thought - an article on CPU would most likely have been in the Times Higher Education Supplement (whose online archives only go back to 1994). There's probably a UK editor somewhere with access to a library with the past editions from the 1980s, probably on microfiche..... -- SiobhanHansa 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the minutae, what I find disappointing is the whole slant in the article. The authors seem determined to show up faults, real or spurious, at the same time omitting to mention any good aspect of the University, particularly in the years in which it was authorized. The term "fraudulent" screams at one throughout. It puts a real question about motives behind the article.

My take is that the formation of the CPU met some very real needs, the new institution was led by people of integrity, and at the time was regarded as innovative and demanding. I personally found the work demanding and resent the implication that my degree, gained in 1983, was not worth the paper it was written on. This is I suggest a most unbalanced document masquerading, by its many references, as authentic and balanced.
 * Argentina98 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. However the personal opinions of editors cannot be used as a source for the article. We must rely on sources that can be verified by Wikipedia readers. If those sources tend to find fault with the subject, then we can't help but convey that viewpoint. Other verifiable, significant viewpoints are welcome and necessary as well. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You must surely know, Will, that there are always ways of presenting "facts" that can colour an entire article. To cite one case, this article goes into considerable detail about some alleged examples of wrong-doing. It rightly says that the CPU answered in detail - 82 points I think - but the reply was not given the same coverage. That is what I meant about the slant. It is unnecessarly negative in the way it is presented.

And, I suggest, verbose: there is a lot of minutae in the article that is totally unnecessary. To summarise, the CPU was OK until the 1990s, for one reason or another was savaged (I would say by parties with a vested interest) and has ceased operations. Half of what appears is superfluous, and is extremely unfair to those who gained their qualifications when the University was legitimately in being. Argentina98 08:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Other States
I think it's important to point out that several states restrict the use of CPU degrees. I've attempted to preserve this in the intro, but I've been reverted. This edit summary is technically correct, in that other states (e.g. Michigan and Texas) do not differentiate between pre- and post-1997 degrees. They restrict all degrees from CPU, regardless of when they were awarded. Oregon seems to have changed its law recently (see discussion above) to allow pre-1997 degree use, but they similarly restrict post-1997 degrees, and a degree earned at any time requires the use of a disclaimer in the state of Oregon. Is there a better way we can keep this material in the intro while better reflecting our sources? This is a relevant issue, as people with pre-1997 degrees have gotten in trouble for using them.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading far more into those state lists than is actually there. In general, appearing on those lists merely indicates that the school has been determined to be unaccredited; often there is additional information specific to a particular school that also can be trusted. By itself, the fact that a school is on a list does not provide a definitive indication of the legalities of presenting a degree from that school in the state that maintains the list.


 * For example, read the intro to the Oregon list, particularly the part that I highlighted in italics: "The following list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1). This is not a comprehensive list and new suppliers emerge every day, many of which remain unknown to ODA. The list contains degree suppliers that may not now exist, may never have existed, exist only as unregulated businesses, operate under exemptions in state laws or operate with state approval outside Oregon. Users of degrees from these suppliers may contact ODA with any questions about the legal status of such degrees for use as credentials in Oregon. ODA cannot give legal advice but can provide information about how a degree is treated, why it is treated that way and steps that a user can take to obtain a formal evaluation from ODA or another evaluator. Employers, potential students, potential clients and others doing business with users of these degrees should take appropriate steps to determine the true nature of the credentials listed here in order to ensure that degrees are genuine and are being used legally."


 * That quotation tells me that appearing on the list should not, by itself, be construed as a indication of legality or illegality.


 * --orlady 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Oregon list is somewhat ambiguous. I am still trying to think of a good way to incorporate Oregon's treatment of CPU degrees into the article.  They have not updated their website to reflect the 2005 change in ORS 348.609.  It seems that pre-97 CPU degree holders may use their degrees IF they include a disclaimer on their resume stating that CPU was not accredited.  Post-97 degrees are still prohibited.  You may be right in that I am reading too much into Oregon's list.
 * However, the lists from Michigan and Texas are unambiguous. CPU degrees cannot be used as qualifications for civil service positions in Michigan, no matter whether it is pre or post-97, and the use of CPU degrees in Texas is a Class B misdemeanor. There are no qualifiers on either list stating whether the school can be trusted or not.  I propose including the following sentence in the introduction:  "Currently, Michigan (ref MI list) and Texas (ref TX list) restrict the use of CPU degrees."  What do you think of this as a start?  Cheers, Skinwalker 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, and I've never played one on TV, but my concern is legalistic. My concern is that (for the most part) those lists do not provide definitive legal opinions about degrees from specific schools. For example, it is clear from the Texas site that it is illegal to use "fraudulent or substandard degrees" in Texas in advertisements, in connection with employment or professional licensing, or to gain admission to an educational institution, and that degrees are "fraudulent or substandard" if "conferred in another state in violation of that state's laws" (this is clearly true of CPU degrees after 1997) or "conferred in another state by an institution that was not accredited by an accreditor recognized by the Coordinating Board and that has not been approved by the Coordinating Board for its degrees to be used in Texas" (this is apparently true of all CPU degrees, in the view of the keepers of the Texas list), but nothing on the website says that Texas has definitively determined that use of pre-1997 degrees from CPU is prohibited under the Texas Penal Code. I don't think a Wikipedia article about CPU can state that particular conclusion as fact. --orlady 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - Texas and Michigan specifically list CPU degrees as illegal to use (TX) and unusable for civil service positions (MI). I'm not a laywer either, which is why I'm having trouble figuring out how to neutrally portray Oregon's current law regarding pre- and post-97 CPU degrees.  Still, CPU is listed at Texas's website under the header "Institutions Whose Degrees Are Illegal To Use In Texas".  That is a definitive determination by Texas that CPU degrees earned at any time are illegal to use.  Without this designation I would agree that at least pre-97 CPU degrees would have some wiggle room, but they specifically list CPU as an institution whose degrees cannot be used in their state.  Similarly, the wording of Michigan's list states that "degrees from these institutions will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission", and then they list a number of instititions making no distinction between pre- and post-97 degrees.  I agree that Oregon does not specifically list CPU, and that makes it impossible to state that CPU degrees are illegal in Oregon, but Texas and Michigan unambiguosly name CPU degrees as sanctionable.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why provide a more specific negative interpretation on the listing status of CPU than is provided for the typical diploma mill? Compare the article on Madison University, which says "Madison University is an non-accredited distance learning university located in Gulfport, Mississippi. Madison is listed as an unaccredited and/or substandard institution by four US States.[1][2][3][4] The state of Mississippi considers Madison an "unapproved" college.[5] It has been referred to as a diploma mill by the state of Oregon.[6]" and "Since is not accredited by an accreditation body recognized by its country, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." To make more definitive statements than that (e.g., "if you go to this school, you will be sent to jail") is to venture into the realm of amateur legal advice, or even potentially libel.--orlady 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. I'm sorry.  I would be perfectly happy with substituting statements like that for the version I advocated.  I did not realize you were disagreeing with listing the specific sanctions imposed by various jurisdictions - I thought you were objecting to listing negative consequences at all.  I'll implement the changes tomorrow unless there are further comments.  Cheers, Skinwalker 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, we do agree. (I guess you hadn't run across my work on articles such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning.) I think it's perfectly OK to say that CPU appears on the various lists, but I don't think that those lists provide a basis for Wikipedia to be making statements like "Class B misdemeanor in Texas" in connection with any specific school.--orlady 04:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

CPU Was Accredited
The opening line in Wikipedia describes Columbia Pacific University (CPU) as an "unaccredited" school. This is a misleading and false characterization. It is also a pejorative POV, which has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Accreditation is a voluntary process in the US. Regional accreditation is not identical with accreditation because there are other forms of legitimate school authorization. Unfortunately the six regional accrediting associations have brainwashed the American public that they are the only legitimate agencies of academic approval. Currently they monopolize the academic market, forming in fact a cartel, which the Sherman Act views as a felony. Moreover, CPU was A California accredited ("approved") school and its state approval was also recognized by the US Department of Education as equivalent to regional accreditation. CPU graduates (1978-1997) are eligible to sit for the California Bar examination, and for licensure with the Board of Psychology.

Coda 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.1.230 (talk • contribs)


 * "Unaccredited" means "lacking accreditation"; it looks to me like a simple statement of fact, not a pejorative. The only sourced information I have seen indicates that CPU was state-approved, which is not the same thing as accreditation in the US. If you have reliable sources indicating it was accredited, please share them. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

CPU Underwent Successful Peer Reviews
Saying that CPU was unaccredited because it lacked Regional Accreditation is like saying: Volvo is not a car because it is not Chevrolet. Regional accreditation is not identical with accreditation. In cartelizing the certification process of tertiary education, the regional accrediting associations undermine the democratic foundations of America, oppress educational pluralism and academic freedom.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “accredited” as “officially recognized”. CPU had various forms of official recognition. Wikipedia itself states that in the US “the accreditation of schools has long been established as a Peer Review process” for quality assurance. As a California State accredited (“approved”) school, CPU successfully underwent peer reviews by professional visiting committees. California State Department of Education documents show that CPU’s approved status in 1986 was equivalent to regional accreditation. And as a California authorized institution, the 1984 HEP (Higher Education Directory) of the US Department of Education, listed CPU as an accredited school.

“Unaccredited” is synonymous with unauthorized, unlicensed, untrustworthy, bogus, illicit, unlawful, fraudulent. So to classify CPU as “unaccredited” is misleading, pejorative and defamatory. It is obviously an unacceptable POV. It also needs some form of Disambiguation!

Paul Hartal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.182.80 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all educational accreditation in the U.S. is regional accreditation, but that does not change the fact that CPU was not accredited. Users can read the linked articles to find out what "unaccredited" signifies. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #ccccff;|Collapsed thread started by banned user|

Tag is needed: Institutions can provide High Quality Education without National Accreditation
The US Department of Education (USDE) recognizes the right of postsecondary educational institutions not to seek regional or national accreditation. The USDE also acknowledges that postsecondary institutions can provide high quality education without regional or national accreditation. http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/index.html These facts strongly suggest the need to tag the CPU article, and all institutions lacking national or regional accreditation, in accordance with the stand of USDE in this regard. Let it be stated again: 1.	Postsecondary educational institutions have the right not to seek national accreditation. 2.	Postsecondary educational institutions lacking national accreditation can provide high quality education. Paul Hartal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.182.80 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Users can read the linked articles to find out what "unaccredited" signifies. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr Hartal has a lengthy history of disruption on CPU-related articles. See here and the talk archives. He was eventually blocked for making legal threats, which, as far as I know, are still outstanding. Skinwalker (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul Hartal is currently banned from this website. If he'd like to have the ban lifted he should contact the ArbCom to file an appeal. In the meantime I've blocked the IP account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

}}

"Unacredited versus "Full Approval"
The article relating to Columbia Pacific University is about as correct as one would wish it to be. The only problem has been an ongoing and strange one. At the very beginning of the article, Wikipedia insists on describing CPU as "Unaccredited and "Nontraditional". It was never "Unaccredited"; in fact, CPU was given Full Institutional Approval by the California State Board of Education - which, by the very nature and meaning of the work. . .means 'accredited".

Also, most lay folks are always about 20 years behind relating to cutting edge higher education. This unawareness allowed, for many year, At-A-Distance universities to be made fun of by certain groups of people who didn't really know what they were talking about. Now, it seems enough years have passed, and enough investigations have taken place that it just doesn't make much difference what anyone wants to say negative about the so-called 'correspondence' schools.

The latest conclusion information released by both the federal government research on higher education and all private investigation groups that took up the challenge strongly indicate what most in the field have known for decades: students who obtain their bachelor, graduate and/or  doctor level education by no classroom at-a-distance learning, obtain a more quality education in every major, meaningful area. They learn faster, retain longer, spend less money and less time and are better qualified for the 'real' world.

Thank you for your patience,

Bill Rogers, Ph.D. Director, Behavioral Medicine Southwest Behavior Research Institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.183 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dr. Rogers, thank you for your thoughts. You are mistaken about accreditation. CPU was never accredited. BPPVE approval is most definitely not accreditation. Please see BPPVE's own website to verify. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC

CPU Status
Please note that Columbia Pacific University had State of California approval ("accreditation") from 1978-1997 to offer degrees at various levels. See letter signed on 7/28/03 by the Bureau for Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Accurate information needs to be provided for all readers. Filipillo (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * State approval is a far cry from accreditation. Indeed, the article appears to already state exactly what we've both written here.  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * California state approval was NEVER intended to be considered accreditation. This is a fact. As a matter of opinion Califonia state approval has proven to be such an academic joke that BPPVE was allowed to dissolve and the governor vetoed the ill advised attempts of the legislature to extend its pathetic life. State approval was never intended to be accreditation (a simple fact) and it turned out to be worth way less than what its original intent was meant to be (my simple opinion). CPU was unaccredited. TallMagic (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see BPPVE's own website to verify that BPPVE approval was NEVER intended to mean accreditation. TallMagic (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You confuse the California Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (CPPVE) with its successor, the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE). The CPPVE was closed down by Governor Pete Wilson for pattern of "reprisals and vindictiveness" against innovative private post-secondary institutions, such as CPU. The BPPVE continued the same repressive policies in spite of the governor's efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.164.83 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not confused anything of significance. The fact remains that CPU was NEVER accredited. The rest of your post is apparently irrelevant to the article or at least I fail to see what relevance the above stated personal opinion here has to do with improving the article. TallMagic (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouting ’NEVER’ is not proper for an encyclopedia. But did you read the Wikipedia article on CPU? The opening sentence there alleges that CPU was unaccredited. Although this claim is Tall, it is neither New nor Magic. The fact remains that CPU degrees of 1978-1997 are legally valid in California. Moreover, the 1986 Full Institutional Approval document states that the degrees are comparable, id est equal, to accredited degrees of established institutions, which are recognized as such by the US Department of Education (USDE). The Wikipedia article in its present form misleads the reader. The way to improve the article is to explain that accreditation is a voluntary process in the US and that USDE recognizes that schools can excel without regional or national accreditation. Regional accreditation is monopolistic but not the only form of accreditation. CPU was not regionally accredited but its state approval was equivalent to regional accreditation. Another aspect of improving the article concerns the significant contribution that CPU made to the movement of distance education, in the development of competency education, educational pluralism and andragogy, as recognized today by the European-American University, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.164.83 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try to remember to sign your comments added to the talk page. Shouting NEVER on the talk page was my apparently failed effort to communicate with emphasis that CPU was NEVER accredited. It is fine on the talk page to try to communicate as best one can.
 * The vast majority of educational institutions in the USA are accredited. It is so common and expected that most articles about accredited colleges don't even bother to mention the fact that they are accredited. Accreditation is not interesting or news worthy or really notable unless there is no accreditation. Your suggestion to add apologetics for this fact that CPU was NEVER accredited would be misleading to people because it could lead people to conclude that there is a significant portion of legitimate universities in the US that have NEVER been accredited. This conclusion is false so the unaccredited apologetics you propose shouldn't be added to the article, in my opinion.
 * I agree that stating that CPU made a significant contribution to distance education or anything would be a fantastic addition to the article. All that is needed is to produce a verifiable reliable source to back up this assertion. TallMagic (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * State licensure is not equivalent or comparable to national or regional accreditation. To state otherwise in light of the evidence presented in this discussion and other available evidence is misleading and deceiving.  I would like to assume that you're simply ignorant of this but it's evident that you have some familiarity with accreditation so I conclude that you're simply a liar.  So continuing this discussion with you is pointless and a waste of our time.  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, the assertions that California state approval is equivalent to accreditation is a totally false and unsupported assertion. It is also true that it would seem to be a waste of time to discuss something with someone that keeps making unsupported false assertions on the one hand and refuses to acknowledge verifiable sources that prove thier assertions to be untrue on the other hand. However, I would rather try to deal with their nonsense on this talk page than their vandalism in the article, at least for now. TallMagic (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo: I don't want to degrade myself to your low level, but administrators should take note that you you give a bad name to Wikipedia by being rude and by your lack of respect for the facts. Everything that I said is documented, like Full Institutional Approval document stating CPU degrees are comparable to accredited degrees: [] Re: CPU and Competency Education at EAU: []

In its present form, Wikipedia represents the POV that only regional or national accreditation is legitimate. But even if you deny the constitutional right to transcend the monopolized accreditation system, the historical fact still remains that California challenged the monopoly. Again, see the document of Full Institutional Approval. It all depends on definition.

Dictionaries define accreditation as the act of granting credit or recognition. The appropriation of accreditation by monopolistic agencies is unconstitutional and a POV violating Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.164.83 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest again that you sign your comments added to talk pages. This is done by inserting four tilde characters ~.
 * Your first source simply states that CPU had California approval. That information is not controversial and already is in the article. It does nothing to support your false assertion that CPU is accredited. I don't understand what your second listed source is supposed to demonstrate. Look at these four government verifiable and reliable sources that prove that CPU was NOT accredited.


 * 1) It is illegal to use a CPU degree in Texas because CPU was NOT accredited.
 * 2) CPU degrees suffer restricted use in Oregon because CPU was NOT accredited.
 * 3) Restricted CPU degree use in Maine because CPU was NOT accredited.
 * 4) CPU degree use is restricted in Michigan because CPU was NOT accredited.
 * Your assertions regarding accreditation monopolies is irrelevant. I frequently see this kind of rhetoric spewed by academic frauds trying to defend diploma mills and bogus degrees. I suggest that you're doing a disservice to CPU and yourself by repeating this kind of thing.
 * BTW, I'm looking forward to your wp:verifiable source that supports your assertion that CPU made a significant contribution to distance education or anything else of a positive nature. TallMagic (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell  of the Ludwig von Mises Institute says on CPU: "Not so long ago, in the mid-1990s, the largest distance-learning university in the USA was a private, independent, non-traditional institution (Columbia Pacific University), which was definitely not a part of the educational establishment and that stood for radical change in almost every aspect of its provision. The mainstream saw to it that CPU was suppressed, closed and posthumously trashed. But the ideas that drove it to success won't go away, and nor will the people who believe in them". 68.6.164.83 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[]

The persecution of CPU degree holders for legitimate, scholarly and meaningful studies in a number of states in the US is not only absurd and unconstitutional but also reveals the ignorance and narrow mindedness of the legislators.

The innovative significance of CPU in higher education was well recognized by the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson who became personally involved in its rise. Prime Minister Wilson held a honorary doctorate from CPU and delivered a speech at their commencement in the UK.

The absurdity of the laws applied to the suppression of CPU, is demonstrated for example by a planned visit of Harold Wilson to Florida. “There was a time when Columbia Pacific University was clearly illegal under Florida law”, comments Dr. John Bear, and “it looked as if Wilson was coming to Florida to watch a launch at Cape Canaveral. . . and the plot was hatched to have someone make a citizens arrest as he stepped off the plane."

[]

68.6.164.83 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for attempting to provide some references to support your assertions. I really do appreciate it.
 * The website of an unaccredited institution discussing a different institution is most definitely not a verifiable reliable source. On top of that, I personally, would give those statements absolutely no credance. Dr. John Bear on the hand is an established expert in the field. I have seen him refer to CPU rather positively in the past. So while the statements of John Bear do hold credance in my view, that source you reference is not considered wp:verifiable. TallMagic (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For evidence of recognition regarding the pioneering role that CPU played in the development of Distance Education, please see, for example, Tamita Amor, "Distance Learning: Where did it really Begin?"

[]

US President Barack Obama envisions Distance Education as a most common and widespread modality of learning in the future. CPU was clearly ahead of its time. Nowadays mainstream schools copy its programs.

An important aim of President Obama concerns the modernization of American Health Care by investing in prevention. CPU in this area was ahead of its time as well. All CPU students had to take a course in “Healthscription”, empowering students to achieve and maintain well-being by following a healthy life style.

[] 68.6.164.83 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The real success of a school measured not by its programs but by the accomplishments of its students. CPU graduates have distinguished themselves in many fields. It is simply not true that main stream universities don't recognize CPU degrees. Accomplished CPU degree holders can be found easily on the Internet but they are missing from the Wikipedia article. Here are three of them: Dr. Robert Shurney-- A NASA engineer and scientists, Dr. Shurney was instrumental in the design and implementation of man's first landing on the moon and participated in all Apollo missions. He completed his PhD in physics at CPU in 1986. The Smithsonian Institution recently honored him with an exhibition. [] [] Dr. Reno Taini-- San Francisco State University has celebrated Reno Taini as the creator of the Innovative Wilderness School. He was California State Teacher of the Year 1982. Dr. Taini earned his doctorate in Experiential Education at CPU in 1983. [] James C. Kilgore -- A renowned American poet and Professor of English at Cuyahoga Community College, James Kilgore held advanced degrees from the University of Missouri and CPU. He is featured in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. []

68.6.164.83 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Paul. Are you still on the CPU Press board of directors?  Skinwalker (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

TallMagic:

I appreciate your 'Thank you', but disagree here:

"Your assertions regarding accreditation monopolies is irrelevant. I frequently see this kind of rhetoric spewed by academic frauds trying to defend diploma mills and bogus degrees. I suggest that you're doing a disservice to CPU and yourself by repeating this kind of thing."

They are irrelevant when might is right. The truth remains truth even if you ask to stop repating it. And a truthful argument remains valid regardless of who is using it. My question is this: Why do Wikipedia editors omit the adverbs of Regionally/ Nationally before the word Accredited? Neither cartels, nor Wikipedia have the right to take the word Accredited out of the dictionary and confiscate it. It belongs to the public. Its appropriation is wrong and unacceptable. It also undermines the aim of Wikipedia at striving for accuracy. To say CPU was "unaccredited" is misinformation. CPU was State Approved, which means it was accredited; although obviously not regionally or nationally. Persecuting CPU graduates for their legitimate, scholarly and meaningful degrees that are legally valid in California is absurd and unconstitutional.

68.6.164.83 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. Your assertions regarding accreditation monopolies are irrelevant to the article. (as well as being ridiculous and wrong, IMHO.) Your arguments are wp:Original research and wp:FRINGE theories. They do not belong in the article. Your assertion that CPU is "accreditated" is contradicted by many reliable sources that I've already provided. Wikipedia is not a soap box and wp:FRINGE theories do not belong in the article. TallMagic (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly accredits Wikipedia? Many schools don't accept Wikipedia as a reference, because, simply and unfortunately, it is an unreliable source of information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.108.181 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by "accredits". I suggest that the best place to start to look for the answer to your question is the Wikipedia wp:verifiability policy. If that doesn't answer your question then I suggest that you look elswhere for an answer. This page is for discussing how to improve the article on CPU. If I've misconstrued your query and missed the relationship of your comment to the CPU article then please ask again. If you were actually referring to my last comment then I'll mention that it is a good idea to indent your comment when it's in response to someone else. Come to think of it, perhaps you were asking what to do if you have a disagreement on Wikipedia about the content of the CPU article! If that is the case then I suggest you review the wp:Dispute resolution guideline. TallMagic (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you admit that "It depends what you mean by 'accredits'". Well, Wikipedia postures but has no genuine authority to judge CPU and is written by unreliable editors, and even vandals like the bogus professor "Essjay". Also you make a fundamental fallacy by applying present day criteria to CPU, which existed in an era when conditions were different. Moreover, you soap-box those "accrediting" agencies that control the educational market of today. And: your pegorative assertion that CPU's approval doesn't count as accreditation contradicts the Wikipedia definition of educational accreditation and is nothing but orginal research. CPU underwent peer reviews by qualified visiting committees appointed by the superintendent of public instruction in the State of California. Furthermore: You censor and ignore the sources--like Lew Rockwell and European-American University-- that support CPU, claiming that only "accredited" universities count. This sort of censorship is also falls into the categories of soapboxing and original research! If so many outside of the Wikipedia world find positive things in CPU, why the article doesn't mention its accomplishments? Why is Harold Wilson--a honorary doctor of CPU-- is not mentioned as a notable person associated with CPU, along with other British politicians who were part of the CPU story?

SDSU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.108.92 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are trying to win some argument. I am not arguing with you and Wikipedia should not be making any judgments about CPU. Wikipedia simply reports opinions/statement/information found in wp:verifiable sources. My own opinion is not relevant and your opinion is not really relevant to what goes into the article. You have apparently not heard anything that I've said and have not reviewed any of the policies or guidelines that I've tried to direct you towards. WP:Verifiable sources must back up every statement made in the article. The sources you provided are not wp:verifiable sources. The references in the article are. You can add notable alumni to the article. You can add anything to the article that you want to as long as the statements are supported by wp:verifiable sources and the addition adheres to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines like the wp:NPOV policy. CPU is NOT accredited. I provided four reliable sources that support that position. You have provided nothing except your personal, obviously, very biased opinion backed up by Wikipedia unusable sources and irrelvant unusable wp:original research. I suggest that you stop arguing and just find reliable sources that support the statements you think need to be made in the article. Actually, I really suggest that you instead edit Wikipedia in an area that is not so personal to you. After you learn Wikipedia policies and guidleines, I think that you will be much better prepared to improve the CPU article in a neutral manner, while following Wikipedia policies. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a pattern of mischaracterization of CPU in the main article
I agree with the posting below mine. I have attempted to insert the following paragraph:

"Each Ph.D. student was assigned a mentor from an accredited university--a professor who was an expert in the student's subject area. Each Ph.D. dissertation was required to have the approval of the mentor; this means that the dissertation would have to be at the same level of quality as the dissertations at the mentor's accredited university; a California state commission found this to be, in fact, the case. As with all Ph.D. dissertations, those from CPU are available to be examined by anyone with an interest in the subject area."

However, this paragraph keeps being removed by some misinformed, frustrated fool (probably some clueless California bureaucrat). I am a graduate of RPI with two engineering degrees, B.Sc. and M.Eng. I attended and completed the doctoral course work at MIT; in fact, I had enough credits for two doctorates from these distinguished universities. I left MIT in order to get a patent on the device I invented--if I had stayed at MIT, the college would have kept the patent rights. Fortunately, I was later able to finish up at Columbia Pacific University and obtain my Ph.D. in 1991. My dissertation mentor and advisor was a distinguished professor at Syracuse University. My dissertation is 459 pages long and contains 800 equations, 30 tables, and 17 figures. I will happily have my dissertation compared to any at MIT, Princeton, or any other university. My experience at CPU was excellent; no corners were cut. It was a fine place for independent scholarly study. Other CPU graduates say exactly the same thing and will proudly show their dissertations.

Now let's take a look at the situation in California today. The state government is bankrupt! Why is that? Perhaps it's because the Leftist, taxpayer-supported government-run colleges, staffed with Leftist professors, trained a whole generation of Leftist students--who then took over the state government--and proceeded to bankrupt it. In contrast, CPU was privately run, and the founders showed great entrepreneurial skill in establishing it. Since the state is a major player in college education in the state, it's difficult to see how they could rule on CPU in a fair, objective fashion. It wasn't the consumers of CPU--the students--who brought the case against CPU--it was, in essense, the state-run competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.245.40 (talk • contribs) 16:03, November 15, 2009


 * You may be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. Our own personal experiences may not be used as the basis for writing articles. Instead we rely on what has already been published in reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:OR, two core policies. There would have to be a source for this assertion:
 * Each Ph.D. student was assigned a mentor from an accredited university--a professor who was an expert in the student's subject area. Each Ph.D. dissertation was required to have the approval of the mentor; this means that the dissertation would have to be at the same level of quality as the dissertations at the mentor's accredited university; a California state commission found this to be, in fact, the case. As with all Ph.D. dissertations, those from CPU are available to be examined by anyone with an interest in the subject area.
 * Has this been published anywhere? Also, if the dissertations are deposited in some library or other university then that would be helpful information for the article.   Will Beback    talk    17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor, please review the applicable Wikipedia policies, wp:V, wp:NOR. Your edits violate those policies. Your attitude and arguments do not reflect well on yourself nor on your alma mater. Your edits have been reverted by multiple Wikipedians. I doubt that any one of us could reasonably be considered a "California bureaucrat". You may click on the history tab to view the edit history yourself. Your edits have been reverted because they violate Wikipedia policy. TallMagic (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a matter of minor interest, if CPU only required one person to "approve" dissertations then I dispute the truth of the claims made about quality. Within my own field and many others, I don't know of any reputable university that doesn't require doctoral candidates to have committees of 3-4 persons, with at least one person being an "outside" member and the remainder being experts on the subject matter or methodology.
 * But it's a moot point unless reliable references are provided supporting the statements. And it would have to be a pretty explicit source given the synthesis that is being performed in the statements.  --ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also warn our unregistered friend that personal attacks and incivility are neither tolerated nor are they effective. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CPU was accused by "California bureaucrats" of being academicly substandard. They must have had pretty good evidence since CPU fought the "California bureaucrats" tooth and nail. The "California bureaucrats" must have had to prove it in court since the courts finally closed CPU down. Which seems to me to be strong evidence that the place actually was substandard? TallMagic (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there is a mailing list or message board for CPU alumni that periodically exhorts members to come here and whitewash the article. These new editors invariably come in waves, followed by months of silence. Anyway, I am neither a bureaucrat nor a Californian. I also note that California had a Republican governor (and an arch-conservative one at that) when the executive branch of the state took action against CPU. Hardly a leftist conspiracy. Skinwalker (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your theory seems reasonable to me. Based on John Bear's statements I've seen in the past indicating that he felt there were institutions in California that were far more deserving of being closed down by the "California bureaucrats" than CPU, I had always had some respect for this institution. However, based on statements made by alleged PhD CPU alumni here on Wikipedia, I really find it difficult to believe that this place was ever really very near academic standard. TallMagic (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The references to Les Carr moving CPU are completely erroneous. He was an individual that left CPU and started completely different enterprises/‘schools’, but a simple phone call to any of these schools indicates that there is no connection between CPU and any other school (I have made such phone calls – you should also do this). Making this association is biased and untrue. This error is the equivalent to saying that some administrator of an existing or closing college who goes into a new venture has somehow maintained affiliation with the old college. Real affiliations are documented, legal entities when they exist and are in the form of legal agreements or associations or charters. There is no such linkage between CPU and these other Les Carr ‘schools’. The facts are that no legal association exists, that there is no affiliation by admission of the schools themselves, and that transcripts, diplomas, or records for CPU were not transferred or housed in any way in any of Les Carr's new enterprises.  They are available from the CPU alumni association. Newspaper articles and local gossip do not constitute fact. The burden of proof should be on those making statements that the association exists – in fact there is no association. March 2010 WillbeUncorked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillbeUncorked (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A "Pulitzer Prize-Winning Weekly Newspaper" is what we consider to be a reliable source, read WP:RS. You should also read WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have said about a subject. Articles are not meant to be proving anything, just reporting what the reliable sources have said. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." If you can find a reliable source using our criteria that says something different, then that can also be included. But it must specifically say whatever claim it is that you wish to make, you can't construct your own arguments, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Association of CPU with other Les Carr 'schools'
It does appear in fact that Les Carr did use the name Columbia Pacific University when he incorporated as a religious, non-profit organization in Wyoming in October 2001. The use of the name of Columbia Pacific University for a new Wyoming entity taken from a closing for profit California state approved institution may or may not constitute a move of the school. (I do not know if there is a formal definition for a school to move, but it seems as if it takes more than an individual using the same institutional name and a simple article of incorporation in a different state.) At any rate whatever CPU was it was not a religious, non-profit corporation in Wyoming. From the early years of the institution as a California authorized and then fully approved institution with many kudos to whatever it became in later years, there was obviously negative change that has reflected very despairingly on the graduates and faculty from the early years. In those years (i.e., pre-1990s), the school was a sincere experiment in distance learning and not a spectacle for ridicule. I would ask if the State of California takes any responsibility for its State authorization and approval process, as many students had placed their trust in that California approval process to have some meaning and integrity. (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please just put links inside [] on talk pages, and sign with 4 tildes ~ . As John Bear was involved in CPU, I'm not convinced we should use him, if we do we need to make clear that he had a financial connection. The bottom line is of course that it was finally ordered to close. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Les Carr was a principal owner of both CPU's. More importantly, there are what appear to me to be wp:reliable sources that say that CPU was moved. WillbeUncorked, your doubts that they are the same school is wp:original research and considered to be wp:POV pushing. This is not supposed to be used when editting Wikipedia. It violates wp:V. Let me copy the first sentence of this most important Wikipedia policy here for your convenience. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see wp:V), not whether editors think it is true." Most Wikipedians, of course, want the truth but, to me what this is saying is that in situations like this, it is not really worth while for us to discuss it further. You need to come up with a reliable souce that contradicts the sources in the article or the article should stay like it is on that point because there are reliable sources that support it. You trying to make an argument for "truth" is wp:original research since you haven't yet produced a reliable source supporting your assertion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Columbia Graduate Institute (CGI)
Alumni of Columbia Pacific University open Columbia Graduate Institute, CGI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.71.2 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)