Talk:Warnborough College/Archive 3

Accreditation claim
I'm moving the following material here for discussion. I'm unable to find this claim on the Warnborough web site: "* List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning (WCUK claims accreditation by an organisation on this list: the International Accreditation and Recognition Council.)"

It will be good to research the ISO claim, which is currently the emphasis on their website. TimidGuy 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ISO standard is purely awarded for Administration performance, in this the Warnborough have managed to produce adequate admin processes to convince ISO Inspectors that their admin structure meets the standards required. ISO is not accreditation.Degreemill 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ISO's own materials make a point of the fact that ISO certification is not accreditation, and strongly discourage use of the term "accreditation". ISO only uses the term "accreditation" to designate ISO certification bodies that are themselves authorized to grant ISO certification in specified business sectors. See p. 5  Warnborough is not authorized to grant ISO certification. Thus, its use of the term "accredited" in connection with its ISO certification is contrary to ISO's own policies and guidelines.


 * 216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The IARC accreditation claim isn't hard to find, just google for "Warnborough IARC" and you'll find several links from Warnborough domains. Here are some supporting the claim:
 * http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/general/accreditation.aspx
 * http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/advice/faq.aspx
 * IARC site: http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx
 * The statement should be restored in the article, with citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the sentence that Orlady put in earlier. TimidGuy (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence said:
 * Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC), which is not a recognized education accreditation organization. (Displayed as Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC),[2] which is not a recognized education accreditation organization.)
 * --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in, but then reverted back. Seems like we need a better source to discredit IARC, since Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orlady. I didn't quite understand your edit summary. I do now see, though, that iARC lists both Warnborough Ireland and Warnborough UK. There is no stigma being associated with IARC. What I think we need to do is simply say that the Warnborough UK web site says that it's accredited by IARC and then note the information from the IARC web site that says that it's not a replacement for national accreditation but an adjunct to it. I don't see any point in using Wikipedia as a source here, especially since it represents IARC as not being a recognized accrediting institution -- something that IARC doesn't itself claim. TimidGuy (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, I hope you will respond here. I think that the current version is problematic. For one thing, IARC doesn't claim to be an accreditation association. It seems odd to say that it's not recognized for something it doesn't even claim. And again, in this context Wikipedia is being used as the source. Also, the problem isn't Warnborough's association with IARC, which is in itself commendable. The problem which I think you have identified, and which isn't made clear in the article, is that Warnborough is seemingly misrepresenting IARC as an accrediting body. We could fix this by using wording suggested above.

On a related note, maybe we should put ISO under a separate subhead, since it too is not an accrediting body. In addition to the Accreditation subhead, we could maybe add a subhead that says "ISO certification." TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon citations
Note: Before recent edits, had two citations to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. One was the current list of unaccredited schools, while the other was an archived list from 2005 containing the following text regarding Warnborough College: "Not a degree-granting institution. Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees." Regarding Warnborough University, it said: "ODA has no evidence that this is a genuine Irish postsecondary institution. Accordingly, its degrees are considered invalid for use in Oregon." Similar information appears on the current list, but I don't want to forget this history, which may be useful at some future time. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, just today I came across this article, added the archive cite, then merged it with ODA's list of unaccredited schools when I noticed they were similar. If you want to revert my edits, I don't mind. I wasn't aware of previous edits to mine though. -Amatulic (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year each. I may have been the cause of the ODA update, mainly because I worked myself up into a frenzy causing me to write lots of emails to make certain authorities aware of the Warnboroughs' current siutation. I do understand that Wikipedia has to have unbiased and cited articles but I feel these guys in Canterbury UK do more damage than even we can imagine, and that the authorities seem to turn an almost blind eye. The reason being is that they have been in existence prior to certain laws and statutes and therefore almost untouchable. An examples is the domain registry for edu names, any organisation registered prior to a certain which I think is 1995 then despite their (Warnborough) being unaccredited, unrecognised and unable to legally issue degrees in UK or Ireland, they are still legally entitled to hold the edu domain name. Ergo they have the facade of being legitimate by default.Degreemill (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sentence recently added, it may be redundant. The article already said that Warnborough isn't a chartered university in the UK, which means that it's not recognized by the UK education officials. Regarding the Oregon citations, I would be inclined to agree with the edit and to only reference the current web site, given that the situation of the institutions listed may change. A good compromise regarding the latter, is, as Orlady had done, to note the historical info here. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IARC
Hi, Orlady. What's the point of adding IARC? It seems kind of odd to say that IARC lists Warnborough and then to say that IARC is bogus. Seems like this would only be relevant if Warnborough was claiming IARC as a credential. Are they? Otherwise, it seems pointless. What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IARC website that lists the two Warnborough Colleges as members is one of the few independent sources of current information cited in the article. I thought that was a good thing. Far be it from me to be able to explain why Warnborough doesn't advertise its membership in this organization, but this is an article about Warnborough, not just about information that Warnborough chooses to disseminate about itself. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they realized that IARC wasn't credible and chose not to use this credential -- especially now that they're apparently intent on becoming a chartered Irish university. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) It seems like the main this is to state clearly that neither institution is chartered, and seems like the article does that. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant
Hi, Orlady. Some nice changes. I'm glad you sourced the accreditation application to the Irish Independent article -- something I'd been planning to do. Also, nice cleanup by Djegan.

It seems, though, that the article now says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think that's a bit of overkill. Also, I don't think we should have the quote. And why quote one side but then not quote the refutation? TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Telling a complete and accurate story about this institution is not a matter of giving "equal time" to positive and negative viewpoints.
 * The somewhat mealy-mouthed statement "Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland" is not nearly as informative (or factual) as "Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI)." Furthermore, I believe that unique information value is added by the sourced quotation from a NQAI official who said: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless." That's trimmed down from what was in the Irish Independent article, but I believe it would be irresponsible for the article to quote the second part of that without including the first part (which you may see as redundant) to provide context for his opinion.
 * You may notice that I removed the statement that All Hallows had cancelled the rental contract because Warnborough is "not chartered". I did not find that argument in the article, but did find a more complicated story about the misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind." To correctly represent the situation, I felt it was important to provide that detail.
 * Thanks to your efforts, I believe the article gives Warnborough ample "benefit of the doubt" throughout.
 * --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As for "quoting the refutation", I think there would be value in adding a quotation from Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. However, given the nature of his comments, they belong in a discussion of Warnborough's academic program, not in a discussion of accreditation. Since there's not section on academics, there was no convenient place to insert his comments. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no complaint regarding the way you reworded the sentence that you noted above; nice job.

Here's the redundancy: It says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think a first step would be to merge points 1-4. I would do that by merging point 3 into points 1 & 2 and deleting the quote. If we can agree on this, then we can discuss the quote about "worthless degree." TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland[12] or the U.K.[13],
 * 2. and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.[14]
 * 3. Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI).
 * 4. In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body.


 * That's not redundancy, that's standard paragraph writing (as I was taught in the various schools I attended), with a topic sentence followed by additional details. Here's how I "diagram" the paragraph:
 * Topic sentence of paragraph, introducing and summarizing the points to follow:
 * Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland or the U.K., and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.
 * Additional details about status in Ireland (amplifying upon topic sentence):
 * Warnborough has applied for recognition in Ireland through the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC).
 * However, Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI). In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless."
 * Ideally, at this point there would also be some specific details about the approval situation in the U.K.
 * Additional details about how the school's status affects its acceptance around the world (these points don't completely fit in this paragraph, but I don't think they should be moved to a separate paragraph):
 * Warnborough degrees are not accepted in Texas, Oregon, or Australia.
 * According to the Warnborough web site, over 200 colleges and universities have accepted transfer credit from Warnborough College.


 * IMO, the paragraph should be expanded (particularly by adding sourced details about the situation in the U.K.) rather than compressed. Compressing all of the information into the topic sentence (and making the reader go to references to try to find out what the article is talking about) would eviscerate the paragraph.
 * --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's hard for you to imagine what I have in mind. I'll go ahead and edit it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits. I feel like i made no substantial change in the accreditation paragraph but was able to eliminate redundancy. I deleted material in the previous paragraph that I hadn't yet discussed here. In my mind, it wasn't appropriate encyclopedia style -- which is to find a source and summarize the point it makes. It's not like journalism, where you make the point and then back it up with a quote. I think your summary of the reason why All Hallows won't renew is fine. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the way you revised the beginning of the accreditation paragraph. Nice wording! --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * However, I restored the two items that you removed:
 * Changing "The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" to "[Warnborough] qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" garbled the sentence. An ungarbled version with the same meaning would say "The qualifications on offer [by Warnborough] are effectively worthless." However, that still takes the statement out of context. Out of context, is it unclear why they are "worthless." With the previous sentence included, it is clear that he was saying only that the lack of accreditation makes the qualification "effectively worthless"; he was not making any statement about the quality of the education.
 * I also restored the statement in the previous paragraph, in which the vice president of All Hallows said that his institution had "no involvement of any kind in the academic programmes or arrangements of Warnborough College" and had asked Warnborough to remove from its website all images of All Hallows and references to plans for seminars and graduation ceremonies at the All Hallows campus. As I stated in comments above, I felt that in order to correctly represent the situation, it was important to provide that detail about the alleged misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind."
 * --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Glad you liked the change.

I have a number of concerns about the quotes, related to policy and to encyclopedia style. But since it could take days or weeks to work through the issues, do an RfC, mediation, etc., maybe we can short circuit the process. I think I can write a few sentences that will address issues related to the "worthless" quote and that I think will satisfy both our concerns. Hope to do that tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes -- I thought we were having an amicable discussion and here you are discussing RfC and mediation! Let's not go there. IMHO, the most useful thing that could be done right now would be to add a section about the university's educational program(s) (what a novel thing to discuss in an article about an educational institution, eh?), including (but not limited to) information about the comments of Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. Since you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for Warnborough, I've been assuming that you could find some useful information sources about academic offerings, faculty, etc. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... After writing that, I visited the Warnborough websites. They have extensive information about the educational program, faculty, etc. -- information I had not seen before. There's plenty of material to use in expanding the article. I must tell you, though, that warning sirens go off in my head when I see a school offer a Ph.D. in Metaphysics. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. What I meant to say is that I'd like to avoid long explanations of what I see are breeches of policy and encyclopedia style (and possibly any dispute resolution) by doing as I did yesterday and simply writing something that I hope will satisfy both of us. I don't have a special regard for Warnborough but do have a sense of fairness. Will give it a go tomorrow. Good idea about adding content. And I do intend to address your point below. TimidGuy (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)