Talk:Warren National University/Archive 1

Another KWU student wished to add this
It was mistakenly entered in the article instead of the discussion area so I placed this here on behalf of the student.

I am currently a student at Kennedy Western University, pursuing my PhD in Health Administration. To say that this University is a Diploma Mill is bias and untrue. Prior to my acceptance into the PhD program, I had to submit my Bachelor's and Master's Degrees. My Bachelor's is from Old Dominion University and my Master's is from the University of Florida. These are both very traditional schools, where a student attends class, takes exams, writes papers, and receives a grade, then after 4 years for the Bachelors level, if he/she has successfully obtained the appropriate number of semester hours is awarded a Degree in the speciality field. My Master's Degree took me 4 years to complete, as I was working Full Time and had to devote my evenings to school. I had to complete a Thesis as part of the required work.

At Kennedy Western University, I have had to take several classes, none of which were "easy." The examinations were procters exams, and it took me the full 3 hours allotted to answer the questions (all Essay and discussion). The Professors do not let you slide by, they make sure you have answered the question completely. I must complete a Dissertation as part of the requirements to receive my PhD. This Dissertation is then submitted to a group of individuals you complete an Editoral Review of the document, ensuring that the work is original, and that all sources are cited correctly, and that the proper APA format has been followed. I was required to make revisions in my proposal -- a classic example of not letting one slide. If KWU were a diploma mill, my proposal would have been approved the same day I submitted it.

I chose KWU because I could complete my PhD at MY PACE. I work full time, plus teach at a University at night. Therefore, this non-traditional education was the perfect way for me to complete a degree that I have always wanted. Many non-traditional schools are being started, and many are accredited. My search of a school to attend lead me to KWU because it did not require me to complete 3 trips of "residency" programs, which all other schools required. Yes, KWU did give me some credit for my experience -- as I have had about 40 years in my chosen field, but they DID NOT GIVE ME MY "DEGREE". When I receive the "degree", I WILL HAVE EARNED IT.

Thomas S. Burrell

An Auditors View:

KWU is state-licensed in Wyoming, one of the notoriously easy states to gain a license. They are actually located in Thousand Oaks, California but maintain a small office in Wyoming to take advantage of the regulatory environment. See the Government Accounting Office Report on Diploma Mills that describes KWU "coursework" and the 463 fed employees who were disciplined or terminated for holding KWU and other dubious degrees: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04771t.pdf

As a part of own our internal audit, I registered at KWU and with a Masters degree, I could receive a PhD by completing 5 take home tests and a project (in no way is it a dissertation). Over half of my PhD was awarded for life experience, of which I had to provide no proof. Total estimated time to complete = 10 months.

Also in response to the engineer above, does your KWU engineering degree allow you to become a licensed engineer in Wyoming? Unfortunately No. Notice there are no KWU alumni on the faculty? A KWU PhD doesn't even allow you to teach at KWU due to Wyoming state law, which requires accredited degrees.

KWU profits on rationalization and weak licensing laws. Wyoming is taking steps that will strengthen their laws on the subject. KWU will likely be on the move again by 9/2006.

Although most of the comments above are just rationalization, one point is completely incorrect. There are many many properly accredited universities that offer degrees through "non-traditional" methods with no residency. University of Phoenix, NorthCentral University, Capella, Walden, Franklin, Walsh, AIU, are all regionally accredited distance learning universities, just to name a few.

Although I would not call KWU a diploma mill due to its current state license, their "degrees" are not acceptable for use in our organization, nor do they allow a holder to become professionally licensed for any position that our company employs. I would hope the same holds true for any company with a competent HR or Internal Audit function.

An individual's view
'Note': I had added links to Chronicle of Higher Ed articles; these were removed by Piercetp. I put them back, and added the comment below on my reasoning. This comment was edited to stick it at the end of the "auditor's" comments. I am not the auditor.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is the trade paper for universities and colleges; citing it is like citing The Wall Street Journal when talking about corporations, or Investors Business Daily when talking about stocks and bonds. Looks to me as if KW students are terrified of any non-KW source of information. I returned the Chronicle links to the external sources, but without quotes from the articles, and linked the transcript of Andrew Coulombe's testimony to his name in the article, where the neutrality is disputed. Surely we can let Wikipedia readers assess the usefulness of these links and the extent to which they may be biased.

BuckRose 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to BuckRose:

It was fealt that the links were to old information and thus not relevent. The purpose of deleting them was not out of "terror" as BuckRose says, but because it is believed that such information can be misleading.

For the time being we will allow thse links to remain. But BuckRose should understand the original reason for deleting them.

It is not standard practice in Wikipedia to put external links in the body of the article. For that reason a link to the transcripts of Andrew Coulombe were placed at the bottom. Piercetp


 * Yes, it is proper to put a citation in the body. Arbusto 09:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the auditor
In every US State a candidate for a Professional Engineer's license is required to take an examination. The requirements for taking the examination vary from state to state. I do not know the requirements for the State of Wyoming. Maybe what this author says is correct regarding this. But I know that other state requirements varry. In Illinois, where I live, a candidate who graduated from an unaccredited University or College can take the PE or FE (fundimental's of engineering) exam pending a review from the licensing board. Some states such as Vermont do not have specified requirements for examination.

I do not know how government agencies regard Kennedy-Western's program, but I do know that in the private sector, many businesses regard Kennedy-Western as being a legitimate institution and many will reimburse students for tuition.

I would add that as inany university and college, the student can make whatever he or she wants of the experience. I did graduate from a traditional university (Illinois State) and did find, that while I and most other students did work hard, there were many who found ways of cheating the system. I did know students who literally did not attend classes but graduated.

I strongly support Kennedy-Western and will continue to vigorously defend the honor and reputation of the school in which I attend.

Piercetp 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Piercetp

AUDITOR AGAIN Good discussion, I respect your opinions and appreciate you not just deleting my post. On your points:

GAO Report – It is partially titled “Diploma mills and other unaccredited schools”, I refer to KWU as the latter. The 463 fed employees received improper federal payments, since federal law only allows payment to accredited universities. The report itself is only the research, but you are correct, it does not detail the punishments, resignations, or terminations for the improper payments.

Dissertation – I’m not an expert, KWU dissertation requirements were described to me and evaluated by PhD’s at our organization and found to be substandard in their opinion.

My KWU experience – I did prove my Masters through faxed, unofficial transcripts, but I’ll assume I would need an official copy at some point. On that basis, I was accepted. The majority of my PhD classes were then waived on my claim of continuing professional ed, no proof, and I received a written degree plan with those classes waived. Even with proof, I don’t know how continuing ed equals doctoral level learning.

The 10 month time frame from a masters to a KWU doctorate is exactly what the admissions person told me, not my estimate.

The GAO witness completed 40% of her KWU masters engineering degree plan (not counting thesis?) in 16 hours, but never completed a program, that is correct.

Degree requirements are not an elitist idea, its quality control and functionality. My degree is as Podunk as you can get, but it is regionally accredited. KWU degrees simply do not allow people to become state-licensed or certified in fields we need employees.

I have seen the brochure. GMC, IBM, Honeywell, etc. are listed as what? Corporate sponsors? I’d be curious to know what their thought is on the subject. It looks to me like KWU lists anyone that has sent them a check and seems to imply that they’ve done a complete evaluation of the school. Maybe they have. One listed organization I know MUST require accredited degrees, but apparently accounts payable did not get the memo.

I’m fine with people getting KWU degrees as long as they are fully informed of the limitations on professional licensing, certification, which states they can use them in without disclaimers, which states KWU can offer them to, employer acceptability, and the difficulty of credit/degree transfer.

Student opinions
Another Happy Consumer

I have been a Ph.D. Candidate Student at KWU for over 3 years, it has been one of the most academically challenging and rewarding periods of my life. I stand behind my decision to enroll at KWU. I believe that the institution provides the space for an ideal educational experience and sound real-world results, and that perhaps some more traditional schools should consider adopting the model. Furthermore; I believe that KWU students are extraordinary in that they espouse; commitment, resolve, resiliency, and personal integrity as core characteristics. I wonder how many students at traditional institutes of higher education-including those at the graduate and post-graduate level could successfully navigate their way through a program that is so determinate upon one's emotional intelligence, personal integrity and ability to strive as an independent learner.

Thank you KWU, Another Happy Consumer.

T. T. Brown -aka- A'Man KWU, Ph.D.-Candidate 12.35.254.254 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A Satisfied KWU Graduate

As a graduate of KWU (August 2000) with a PHD in Business Administration, I can attest to the fact that KWU was right for my needs. I currently work and teach at an accredited university and receive the full respect that my PHD behind my name allows. My undergraduate and graduate degrees were from accredited universities but as attested by other current and past students of KWU, the work that I experienced towards achieving my PHD was as tough (and in many instances tougher) than I had ever experienced from my previous college work. In fact, being around other academic individuals with PHD's, my disertation experience parallels my colleagues...and in many instances, my "real world" experience surpasses the experience of my colleagues who simply went from their bachelors to their masters to their doctrate without the enhancement of "real world" experience in the business world. I had 25-years between obtaining my masters degree from an accredited university and finally reaching my academic goal of a PHD. IT WAS NOT HANDED TO ME ON A PLATTER...I EARNED IT WITH HARD WORK AND DETERMINATION!

I would prefer not to list the university where I teach because it would be very political from those faculty members who totally disagree with the Kennedy-Western method of obtaining a degree. Believe me, there are those faculty members who do not agree with the "on-line" method of instruction and never will. For your information,in addition to teaching as an adjunct at the university, I also hold a management position at the same university.

Question for A Satisfied KWU Graduate
Would you be willing to disclose the name of the accredited university at which you teach? Are you tenure-track faculty or an adjunct?

69.44.27.189

Comment followed by a Personal Question for 69.44.27.189
-

Why is it so important for you, who is not even registered, to have so much information about this individual? Piercetp


 * It's not *important* to me. I did not ask for an unreasonable amount of highly sensitive information - only where he/she teaches. I would think it would be persuasive evidence that KWU is, in fact, accepted in the business world and academia, if it were indeed the case that an accredited university hired a KWU graduate as as faculty (or staff, I don't know which, that's why I asked.)

69.44.27.189


 * It seems that I deleted your (69.44.27.189) post. For that I must apologize, but I did give my real name and I did not say I was registered. Also, I did not mean any flaming toward you. As far as the admonishing statement, it was not pointed directly at you, but the Critics. So you caught me in a misspelled word that has happened many times by my editors. For that I thank you. I do not disagree with you and hope you get the factual information you desire. Yes, it would be great information in the persuasion effort to have those that hold a Kennedy Western degree tell us about their experiences, but it seems that the Critics are having a field day kicking KW about.

March 6, 2006

Taylor W. 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The "unaccredited status" section is a POV-fest
This entire section is a POV mess. The entire thing is written in a very defensive tone, and fails the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" of WP:NPOV.

The section's title is nosensical: "Unaccredited status: allegations and counter arguments". There is no "allegation" that KW is unaccreddited... it most definately and verifiably is unaccreditted. The statements of a KW critic, Andrew Coulombe, are for some reason qualified with "... critics question his credibility." At the same time, statements by David Gering, an executive at KW, are allowed to stand on their own merit. The mention of the lawsuit with the State of Oregon strategically leaves out some important details as well.

I would like to rewrite the section as follows and remove the POV-warning from the top of the page. Please throw out any opinions here in the talk page, and if we can reach a consensus, I'll move it into the main article.

''Section Title: Controversy over Accreditation

Section Text: Kennedy-Western University has been erroneously described as a diploma mill which sells diplomas and requires little or no work on the part of the student. However, Kennedy-Western officials state that students are required to undergo extensive work and take exams, usually online. The controversy may stem from a misunderstanding between diploma mills and unaccreditted institutions.

Critics maintain that the school does not adequately train students for the diplomas they are rewarded. A former employee, Andrew Coulombe, testifying to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, described his feeling that his work there was unethical and summarized it thus: "I can tell you that there is no value to a Kennedy-Western education. Anything you learn there can be learned by buying a book and reading it on your own."

Kennedy-Western's director of corporate communications, David Gering, has stated, "We clearly believe that we are not a diploma mill and have an academically rigorous program, and if you ask our students and alumni, they would agree."

New Section Title: State of Oregon Lawsuit

New Section Text: The State of Oregon passed a law making it illegal for graduates to list Kennedy-Western on resumes, specifically referring to the school as a diploma mill. In July 2004, the school filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of three former students.

In December 2004, Kennedy Western and Oregon reached an out-of-court settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, graduates of Kennedy-Western may list the school on a resume as long as they note its unaccreditted status. Further, the State may no longer refer to the school as a diploma mill or substandard; however, the State still does not allow the degrees to be used for governmental employment or for professional licenses.''

Keryst 05:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * W. Taylor: Thank you for describing your experience with KW. I think it is important that alumni from KW describe their *personal* experiences here in the talk page, and resist the temptation to inject POV into the main article.  Plenty of alumni have already posted here in the Talk page, and I hope that more follow suit.  Definately, we can add a statement to David Gering's quote explaining that KW was not invited to speak before Congress.  I think this way we can balance out the two differing opinions and give each an equal voice in the article.  Keryst 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Keryst


 * I see no problem with removing the POV and editing those comments. As long as everyone else here agrees I say go for it.


 * Piercetp: Thank you for the response. As the main editor of the Kennedy-Western article, your opinion on this was vital. I'll give it a couple more days for the others to respond and if there is still consensus, I'll move the changes into the main article.

Auditor response to Keryst
- I like most of the re-write, especially the clarification between degree mill and unaccredited. I think there should be some general clarification of the difference between accredited and unaccredited, such as the limited utility of a KW degree in most licensing and certification situations. I also object to W. Taylor deleting dissenting opinions from the discussion page (not mine) to try and show a consensus.


 * I also object to W. Taylor deleting dissenting opinions from the discussion page (not mine) to try and show a consensus.


 * Auditor: To show consensus? Wrong on that count. I agree that I did delete an article, but it was not due to anything but a mistake. Somehow when I deleted an article that I wished to withdraw, the article in question was also deleted along with mine. I have no objection to your response or anyone elses, but don't flame me without knowing the reason. I couldn't put it back. I would really like for that other anonymous person to repost his or her comments. Guarenteed it will stay. Taylor W. 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To Auditor and W. Taylor


 * Please remember to be Civil and Assume Good Faith. Accidents happen, and we can easily rectify the situation!

I am reinstating below the unsigned comments added by 24.197.238.90 and accidentally deleted by W. Taylor during editting. Keryst 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

KWU Does not stand up to outside scrutiny
FEELING that you got a good education isn't very convincing. You have to look at external, objective evaluators of degrees for perspective, and that is where KWU fails miserably.

Federal investigators - see testimony and "Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations: Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills? (Day 2),"

Auditors - see above

Accreditors - Not accepted, no real attempt either. State Licensing - Not accepted for state licensing, CPA, Nurses, Engineers, etc. There may be a 1% exception to this in total (Even tho I come up with 0% in the examples below).

CPA Licensing. AICPA specifically requires accredited degree. 0/50 States recognize KWU

NCEES / Professional engineer - Bad example, since you can become a PE with no degree whatsoever in some states. KWU does not meet the accreditation requirement in any state. (ABET accreditation)., but may become licensed in some states, like the non-degree holders.

University teaching - KWU grads can't even teach at KWU. If someone claims to be teaching with a KWU degree, that is possible, but I'd bet that it's because someone didn't check, not that they welcome unaccredited degree holders with open arms.

Show me an ad for a college instructor accepting unaccredited degrees! Anyone? Here's a quick look at a sample of 80.

0/30 - The ones I have applied to or taught at all required RA degrees. Can list if you want.

0/21 - First 25 business teaching jobs listed today on HigherEdJobs.com. Some have to click through to University site. 21 specifically require an accredited degree. 4 do not define their criteria.

0/22 - First 25 business teaching jobs listed today on Monster.com. Some have to click through to University site. 22 specifically require an accredited degree. 3 do not define their criteria.

Total 0/73 for KWU, with 7 vague postings and no open acceptance. I'll send an email to those 7 to make it a nice round 0 for 80.

Transfer credits - I've never seen an RA college accept unaccredited credits. None of 16 Minnesota Universities would accept DETC accredited credits, let alone anything so far below that.

Just the facts from independent and objective evaluators.


 * Please sign your responses with ~.


 * I would state that on one account you are wrong. For many states, a degree at KWU can qualify an individual to sit for the FE (fundamentals of Engineering) and the PE (Professional Engineering) licensing examination. The exact requirements vary from state to state but in many cases transcripts from an unaccredited school may be subjected to examination by a State's Professional Licensing board.


 * I am unsure what the requirements are towards other professional licensing but I would speculate that it exceeds 1% as you would state.


 * I can tell you from my own experience that a KWU education is accepted by many corporations. There are a number which actually would pay the tuition of students attending.


 * And about your statement: Show me an ad for a college instructor accepting unaccredited degrees! Anyone? Look at HigherEdJobs.com sometime, I would bet that of the 700 jobs listed none of the ads would accept a KWU degree.


 * With all due respects, I do not know much about HigherEdJobs but I would question that statement. Unless someone actually contacts the employers and asks them what they think I would state that they cannot make such a good statement in good faith.


 * I would ask, did anyone look at other job sites such as Monster Board? Did any of the jobs state that "Unaccredited jobs are not valid?" Maybe some of them but all of them?


 * One more thing. You can make a stronger point by being Civil.
 * Thank you. Piercetp

Refactor of Unaccreditted Status section is complete
Based on consensus reached on the discussion page, I have moved the proposed replacement for this section into the main article. Keryst 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

KWU offering degrees in Oregon / California?
The main page says: "Kennedy-Western does not award degrees to residents of Oregon or California."

I think it is more correctly stated as: "KWU is barred from offering degrees to residents of Oregon or California".

Kennedy-Western has an agreement with the Oregon Attorney General not to offer degrees to Oregon residents.

The institution is barred from enrolling California residents, because it lacks a license from the state agency that certifies private colleges.

Source of both is Chronicle of Higher Education.http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i31/31a03501.htm

The way it reads is slanted as if KWU chooses not to do business in those states as opposed to the reality that they CANNOT. I would propose an amendment to that portion.


 * The source you cited is from 2002. Would you have a more recent document to support your argument? These issues can be mentioned in

Controversy over Accreditation or the Oregon Lawsuit section. And should these be mentionied we can then delete the mention of the University not granting degrees in Oregon and California in the opening section. Piercetp

Note to Thue
You had edited Controversy over Accreditation - rm "erroneously" - the rest of the article does not support that claim

I deleted that revision because I do not believe it would be a correct statement that KWU is a "Diploma mill".

As stated several times here, Diploma mill is defined as "an organization which awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study and without recognition by official accrediting bodies."

What KWU is, is an Unaccredited University.

The controversy over KWU's status is well documented and should be in the article since it is actual.

But to use the term Diploma Mill is erroneous and this is evident within the rest of the article. The Oregon settlement determined that Kennedy-Western is not a diploma mill although it is still cited as being "Unaccredited". Piercetp


 * I agree... there is ample proof that Kennedy-Western does not meet the definition of "diploma mill" though it is consistently described as such. Therefore, "erroneously" is correctly used in the article.


 * If you want to do the legwork of further clarifying the differences between diploma mills and unaccreddited institutes, please do so, and cite your sources. But do not make uncited and unjustifiable edits to the article.  Keryst 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Kennedy-Western is a diploma mill depends entirely on the definition of diploma mill. If one chooses the definition saying no work required then it would seem clear, at least to me, that KWU is not a diploma mill. What is just as clear to me though is that KWU is substandard. I have seen numerous reports from KWU alumni that KWU does not even follow their own policies. I apparently cannot go to a KWU document or website and find the detailed graduation requirements for specific degrees. The statements I've seen from KWU students/alumni for graduation requirements for a KWU Bachelor's degree are all 4 classes to 7 classes. That covers a wide range individual experience from zero previous college credits to 100 semester credits, it still seems to require 4 to 7 classes (usually 5). That appears substandard to me. Bill Huffman 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who you are talked to, but I can tell you that I transfered in with a bachelor's degree and was required to take 10 courses plus a final project involving a 100 page report. And that was just to earn a Bachelor's of Science. If you think its substandard than I can also tell you that it was far more work than I had to undergo at Illinois State, which is an accredited University. My advice is unless you actually take one of these classes, than don't believe the negative info. Piercetp 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Back when the KWU forum was open to the public I read many threads there and asked what the normal number of classes required was for a Bachelor's degree. Never did anyone report more than 7. There were some people that said they had heard of someone that had to have 9 classes. It would seem that if you had to take ten classes and already had a Bachelor's degree to get another Bachelor's degree then either you negotiated very poorly or KWU has significantly changed since my investigation. (Previously what I've seen, people taking more than 7 courses at KWU took extra classes on their own and it was not required for graduation.) Bill Huffman 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I will believe testimony given in front of a Senate committee before I will believe statements on the Internet, even on Wikipedia. I don't have to take classes at a suspected substandard school to conclude that it is substandard. For example, the very fact that KWU did not publish graduation requirements is enough to raise huge warnings flags. The very fact that I can say that the statements from KWU students/alumni indicates that 4 to 7 appears to be the normal number of classes and you can disagree with me but are unable to prove me wrong indicates that KWU is a substandard institution because that kind of information should be published in the school catalog. (Although I do note that you didn't actually disagree with me but instead just provided a counter example.) Bill Huffman 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is that the reliable evidence is that KWU was/is a substandard school. Warren looks like some significant improvements have been made over KWU policies. If Warren achieves accreditation then the interesting question is what will happen to the KWU alumni? From what I've seen the differences between the two entities appear significant enough that the student records should be kept completely separate but like I say, it will be interesting to see what happens, assuming that Warren does acchieve accreditation. Bill Huffman 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 7 classes to graduate????? I had to take 10 to graduate. And mind you they were not easy courses, not one! There were no "blowoff" courses in the program.


 * Now to answer your question about Warren, maybe some loopholes will be closed and the academic standards will be shored up. I think it might be a good thing. We will see. Piercetp 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying?
copied from User talk:John Reid:

Fellow Wikipedian

Regarding the article for Kennedy-Western University, in light of the constant dispute between those who support the University and those who are in general opposed to it, I believe it is best to explain reasons for changing the article in the Talk page. In the case of Kennedy-Western, there was an ongoing debate over what precise terms were to be used and after much arguing, and with mediation through a third party, it was determined exactly what the article should look like. For various reasons, "erroneously described as a diploma mill" was chosen. If you disagree with this than you should please discuss it in the discussion page and maybe we can seek a compromise solution.

Thank you.Piercetp


 * I'm sorry if you're displeased with my editing; but I see I'm in good company. I'd rather you didn't refer to me as Fellow Wikipedian; I'm just an editor. Your contribs suggest that your mission here is to promote an agenda. I don't wish to be offensive but neither do I wish to be your fellow. I'm sorry you spent your money as you did and I'm sorry you have chosen this route to attempt to protect your investment.


 * I don't see any consensus here whatever. What's more, the only defense of this "university's" standing seems to come from its students. I'm well aware of the legal weight that a well-heeled diploma mill can throw around and I'm unimpressed that Oregon was browbeaten. The terms of the settlement as I read them in the article itself don't seem a vindication; I've never heard of a school, accredited or not, whose graduates are bound to mention the question on their private resumes. I find it significant that you don't choose to do business in California; things have tightened up in Sacramento.


 * The text Kennedy-Western University has been described as a diploma mill seems an entirely neutral compromise between Kennedy-Western University is a fine school which just happens to be misunderstood and Kennedy-Western University is a diploma mill that has had to sue a state in which it used to do business in order to retain even a shred of credibility.


 * For my part, I rm the offensive weasel word once. I have no involvement whatsoever with the subject. User:Taylor W. -- a self-declared graduate who has edited nothing else except this article and this talk page -- reverted. That may be fair, unfair, or just plain silly, but my involvement was over the minute I pressed "submit". I don't belive in edit warring, even with edit warriors -- not even with blantantly self-interested edit warriors. I trust that other editors will come by from time to time and rm the offensive erroneously again; I'm sure that some arm of the "school" will restore it each time. Eventually the article will be protected or deleted and that will be that. It's not my responsibility. John Reid 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But the only agenda I follow is the truth. I am a long time user of Wikipedia and I saw an error and corrected it. Thats all I did. As for the rest of your comments, I will not dignify them with a response.Piercetp


 * I made changes according to the wikipedia template for unaccredited schools (See: Template:Unaccredited) and I removed POV. It is important to cut to the chase with arguments. Say what it is (unaccredited), what the school thinks it is (a good/complete school), and what critics think it is (diploma mill). Please don't push point of view it is against wikipedia policy. Arbusto 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also erroneously is removed. Unless it is cited it is removed. Say what critics say it is (diploma mill) and say what the school claims (its a good school). Erroneously is POV just like calling it a diploma mill is POV. Arbusto 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your evenhandedness in this matter.


 * I will avoid editing the article but if you do not mind, I would like to contact you if I see any attempts by any parties to try to sabotage this article. That way a completely neutral party, which is what I presume you are, can determine if the change is worthy of edit.


 * I understand your points that you made. I do have couple of criticisms though. First, the statement The Seattle Times noted in article that included Kennedy-Western that some believe Wyoming has "become a haven for diploma mills." is in the seceond paragraph. Wouldn't it be better to put this under the section "Controversy and criticism"? And the second, mention that KWU is unaccredited in the opening sentence. Should this not also go under "Controversy and criticism?" Just my own, admittedly biased opinion.


 * On final thing to mention. I believe there should be more civility in this discussion. So that this does not become a mud slinging fest I will not mention names but if you read through the comments you will know what I am talking about. This discussion should be about the article and noting else.


 * And contrary to what that individual said I do edit and create other articles on other subjects, from such subjects as German Industrial Music to history, though the KWU article has taken up the bulk of my posts here


 * Thank you. Piercetp 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
Moved from User talk:Uppland:

I respectfully ask you to delete the comment referring to Kennedy-Western University at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Knightsbridge_University as being a diploma mill. Kennedy-Western has filed suite with the State of Oregon and according to a settlement of this suite it may not be referred to as such. The United States government now recognizes KWU as an "Unaccredited University". You say that a VfD page should not be reedited but I strongly disagree when such a page is being used as an example and can be viewed by the general public. Since this is a incorrect statement I ask you to revise these comments. Piercetp


 * Sorry, I stand by what I have written. There appears to be no doubt whatsoever that Kennedy-Western University is a diploma mill. "Unaccredited" in an American context means that it is not a real university. In other words it can be characterized as a "diploma mill", "degree mill" or whatever term one wants to use for an institution that issues completely worthless diplomas that no real self-respecting university or employer would accept as valid. u p p l a n d 10:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement here
I am sorry but I beg to differ with your description of what constitutes a Diploma mill. According to the very definition used by Wikipedia, a "Diploma mill" is defined as"

''A diploma mill (also known as a degree mill) is an organization which awards academic degrees and diplomas with very little or no academic study and without recognition by official accrediting bodies"

In other words, its an institution which essentially sells degrees for money. I do know of such so called colleges and universities.

But Kennedy Western does not fall into such a category.

KWU is not a Diploma mill because it does require considerable work for any student to earn a degree. In my own situation, having transferred credits from another four year institution, Illinois State University, I have been required to take 10 courses plus a final project including a 100 page paper. I have been working on this for one year and expect to complete my degree in Electrical Engineering by the end of this year.

As for your statement about employers not recognizing a degree from KWU I should mention that I am an employee of Matshushita and it was my supervisor who recommended this institution.

KWU is not accredited and does not seek accredidation because it teaches in an non-traditional manner. I can tell you that I actually find the courses more difficult than anything I encountered at Illinois State (where I knew many students who did very little study.)

I respect your opinions but I do wish you would understand the difference between Diploma mill and an unaccredited University.

Also: Perhaps putting a POV statement atop the page might be in order?

Finally I thank you for your response and wish you peace.Piercetp


 * Many traditional universities also use non-traditional teaching methods (distance education using the internet and video-conference systems, etc.). But I think we need to have a cut-off line somewhere for what is defined as a university. As basically anyone can start a business or school and call it a "university" we have to go by what others say. In most countries we would go by what the government in that country (or in some cases region) defines as a university (as is the case in most of Europe, as far as I know). In the U.S., accreditation is the thing that counts and the only reasonable way to define what a university is. And we can't rely on what you or any other single user says about KWU here on Wikipedia. If it isn't accredited, there is no authoritative source we can rely on to define it as a university. I think this follows from Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. Once KWU has acquired accreditation there will no problem pointing that out in the article, and if the course is as rigourous as you say, I don't see why they don't make sure to get accreditation. u p p l a n d 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But do understand the distinction between "Diploma mill" and "unaccredited". Even the State of Oregon, which is hostile towards KWU now acknowledges that distinction. (http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html)

The fact is that KWU is licensed by the State of Wyoming as an institute of higher lerning. I would continue the several departments of professional registration in the United States do accept KWU education as being valid for licensing examination requirements. This may also pertain to other nations as well though I cannot verify this. I do know its true in many states for the Fundamentals of Engineering Requirement (FE) and the Professional Engineering (PE) licensing requirement.

As for what constitutes a University lets look at the Wikipedia definition:

A university is an institution of higher education and of research, which grants academic degrees at all levels (bachelor, master, and doctor) in a variety of subjects

Well KWU does grant degrees at all levels. It is an institution of higher education and research. In fact it requires all students, even at the undergraduate level to research topics within thier dicipline. So it all sounds like KWU fits that definition.

Piercetp

Best Practices
These are the majority of items that Kennedy Western University has been practicing for the last decade. Finally the RA Organizations are talking about their implementation. http://www.aaup.org/Issues/ACCRED/Wichedoc.pdf

No idea who
Whoever is trying to help me with my post is correct, Penn Foster College is now licensed in Arizona and located in Phoenix. http://www.pennfostercollege.edu Taylor W. 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

KW will need accreditation
From the information contained in this article, it appears that KW will need accreditation to operate from Wyoming. Please notice the comments made by Paul Saltman, the chief executive officer of Kennedy-Western University.

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=106639&arch=true Taylor W. 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good detective work. I don't care all that much myself but hopefully with accreditation KWU students will finally get the respect they deserve. At the very least it will get all these so called "experts" to shut up.Piercetp 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Really interested to see what they do. They have "moved" from California to Hawaii to Wyoming, without ever moving their headquarters out of the same spot in California.  Since they have been in operation 20+ years with no serious move toward accreditation, I wonder if this is enough to do it.


 * From a purely financial point of view, I don't think accreditation adds to their bottom line in the long run. Alabama has a similar "residency" requirement that Wyoming has, so it would seem easy enough to lease a building there, after exhausting the "application" grace period.


 * I sincerely hope they persue DETC-Accreditation, which seems to be a good fit.

The Auditor --192.236.22.48 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Auditor:

Thanks for your input. DETC accreditation would be fine with me, since I presently have two DETC accredited degrees. Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Taylor W. 00:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Oregon Issue
For those who want to read the particulars of the issue pertaining to the settlement between Kennedy Western University and the State of Oregon.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20041221/20041221005728

Taylor W. 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And here is the disclaimer you must use in Oregon on "any resume, letterhead, business card, announcement or advertisement" if you are using a KWU degree in their state, from their statutes:

" { + (2)(a) A person who has been awarded a degree from a school other than a school described in subsection (1) of this section may claim or represent that the person possesses an academic degree if the claim or representation is accompanied by a disclaimer that states: '(Name of school) does not have accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education and has not been approved by the Office of Degree Authorization. '

(b) The disclaimer shall be made in any resume, letterhead, business card, announcement or advertisement in which the person is claiming or representing to have an academic degree from a school that does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.

--24.197.238.90 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

KWU is in the Better Business Bureau
http://data.fortcollins.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=11000363

The above link is for the Better Business Bureau report on KWU. KWU is a member in good standing with the BBB. Someone may want to add this link and mention it somewhere in the article. Piercetp 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love to edit the article and include the information, but since I'm involved I must refrain from doing so. I'm not a "Midget" if you recall! Taylor W. 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I as well which is why I ask that a neutral put this in. Piercetp 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother to put this in. It says nothing about KW's educational status or worth. Many colleges and universities have membership in civic and business organizations -- good for local relations, but not really significant to potential students. It was kind of interesting to note that according to this BBB info, KW has seven employees. Seven? Even if all the faculty are part-timers who aren't included in this number, that seems an incredibly small number to administer a university. BuckRose 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kennedy Western University administrative offices are located in Agoura Hills, CA as noted in the main article. My student advisor was located in Cheyenne when I was a student at Kennedy Western. My Final Research Paper advisor was Dr. Herbert Fong, and he is employed at Hughes Aircraft as a Research Scientist. He resides in La Mirada, CA.You can find his name in the list of Faculty at the following web address.

http://www.kw.edu/faculty_profiles.asp?active=faculty&nav=3

Taylor W. 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do consider it relavent that KWU is in the Better Business Bureau because many "fly by night" institutions (if you would call them that) do not even bother with that. What that shows is that a business is willing to stand up to the scrutiny of the BBB's standards. I would wish to point out to Buck that the seven employees are administrative staff and actual teaching facilities are not considered "employees" as such. And as stated, the University also has a business facility in California. Piercetp 18:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Belonging to the BBB is a good thing for a business, but the BBB deals mainly with customer service issues. It does not evaluate educational service. Belonging to the BBB says nothing about KWU's academic merit relative to educational institutions in general. BuckRose 17:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But what BBB membership indicates, as far as I know, is that the member is committed to ethical standards. If the University has membership in the BBB, it would indicate that it is committed to satisfying the needs and demands of the customer, which is to say the student. I do not know if many other unaccredited schools, particularly ones with unsavory reputations would do the same. Piercetp 07:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its a good addition to the article as well. Arbusto 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the BBB information should be included in the main article.

Taylor W. 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More information on Kennedy Western
Perhaps this information will be of interest to Students, Alumni, and Critics. Seeing that this is the only method by which Kennedy Western University has to defend its credibility, since the university was not allowed to present testimony and evidence in its own defense before The U.S. Senate Comittee. I find it time that unanswered questions should be available to the public critics who are constantly at odds with Student and Alumni views about the university. Perhaps this will generate even more controversy because of disbelief, but it is available for public scrutiny . http://forums.degreeboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=58 Taylor W. 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kennsdy Western is a Privately Licensed School
Since it has been suggested that as a Student or Alumnus of Kennedy Western, I should not edit the main article because of opinion ,therefore, I will post this here on the discussion page. Perhaps some neutral person could edit the main article and give a citation pertaining to the shown link.

Although the main article continuses to be reverted to say that Kennedy Western has a business license, the fact is, Kennedy Western is licensed as an unaccredited, Private School in the State of Wyomong.

By Wikipedia defination, "Private education in North America covers the whole gamut of educational activity. Private schools range from pre-school to tertiary level institutions." accredited or not.

Of course Kennedy Western operates a business and so do accredited instutions. So where is the difference?

The document shown in the link below, spells out the conditions and gives Wyoming statutes pertaining to the post secondary education institutions that have been granted Private School Licenses which allows the institutions to operate in that State.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title21/c02a04.htm

Taylor W. 13:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the BBB, KWU has the license from the Education Department of Wyoming and I added that in there with the reference. Arbusto 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wyoming Law Change Links
A couple interesting links on Wyomings law changes mentioned here.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/20/wyoming

Leads with: "Among those who are knowledgeable about higher education accreditation and licensure, Wyoming has often been viewed as a renegade — a place where diploma mills and other unaccredited institutions can award degree with little or no oversight."

And a discussion board topic on it, which incldes author John Bear, who was part of the "DipScam" sting operation on diploma mills.

http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=442&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=kwu&start=0

Good information on the statute changes in Wyoming, and I am inclined to believe Wyoming made a good choice by changing the requirements. But, from reading the link above, I see that the "Shakers and Breakers" (The Mutual Admiration Society of Critics which once camped out over at DegreeInfo), are well into the "Great Debate" and betting the odds for the next "Great Horse Race." Well at least this will force Kennedy Western to move from dead center. Accreditation would be the path to take, but it will do nothing for the present Students or Alumni. Even with all this, I still know what transpired between myself and Kennedy Western. I know that I went through an academically rigorous Engineering program and came out with added value to my learning and education. Hopefully, if KW goes the accredition route and becomes approved, it will reflect on previous Alumni. At the very least, and what will please me the most, is the debate will be over and these Critics will have to become silent or select some other unaccredited school to vie their elitist views against.
 * I was only dreaming!Taylor W. 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Accredited, unaccredited, or non of the above
We argue, debate, and make enemies over accreditation and non-accreditation. But the simple fact is, many very successful people do not or did not have any degrees at all. Number one, and one whom I think takes top rating, was Abe Lincoln. His education was not formal, nor did he have an accredited or unaccredited degree. His had a, "Fireside, Candlelight Degree." Look at his unaccredited education and how he used that education (Experience Degree) to save a nation and free a race of people.

Secondly, look at some of today's billionaires.

Bill Gates, to quote from the article linked below, "who dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), certainly doesn’t fit the stereotype of a low paid college dropout".

Thirdly, "Larry Ellison, cofounder of database giant Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ), dropped out of the University of Illinois and is now worth $16 billion. Fellow billionaire John Simplot, inventor of the frozen French fry, never even finished high school. Neither did Alan Gerry, who built the first cable television network in upstate New York and then sold it to Time Warner Cable Cable for $2.8 billion."

To quote the article "In fact, there is plenty of evidence that what really matters is how smart you are, not where–or even if--you went to school. According to a number of studies, small differences in SAT scores, which you take before going to college, correlate with measurably higher incomes. And, according to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the lifetime income of high-school dropouts is directly associated with their scores on a battery of intelligence tests."

We bicker over accreditation, life experiences and the lot, but in reality it reduces to just how intellegent we are in the beginning and what we acquire through our life's work. Agreed, the chances for greater income potential comes with formal education: what piece wall paper you have hanging on your office wall, where the sheepskin came from. This is today's standard state of mentality, but look at the rich and famous. How many of these have RA accredited degrees, non-accredited degrees, or simply no degree at all?

Throughout our nation's history, many of the "Shakers and Breakers" did not have formal educations, but they helped make this Nation what it is today.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/04/15/dont-go-college_cx_lh_06slate_0418skipcollege.html

Taylor W. 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'''No Degree Needed. Not Even Unaccredited.

The proof is in the pudding.

http://jobs.aol.com/article/_a/20-great-jobs-that-dont-require-a/20060124162609990010

Taylor W. 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Will Tylor, as you already know the days of old were a time when people were judged by what was in their head and not what their college transcripts said. Frank Lloyd Wright never earned a college degree in Archictecture, though he did get a degree in Civil Engineering at University of Wisconsin. He did, incidently, found an unaccredited school of Architecture called Taliesin.


 * Whats more, Clarence Darrow who was in his lifetime the greatest trial lawyer defended the defendents in the Scopes Monkey Trial and the Loeb Leopold murder trial, never had a degree in law ether.


 * Thomas Edison who some have described as the world's first Electrical Engineer was home schooled ever since he was expelled from grade school. Yet he devised some of the greatest inventions known to mankind.


 * So was his nemisis, the great Nikola Tesla who first applied the AC current and may have invented the radio before Marconi took credit for the deed.


 * I can also bring up the architect-political scientist-philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson, as well as Ben Franklen and a good many others who were ether self taught or educated through informal means.


 * My point is that the importance of ones wisdom has little to do with what school one attends but what is in ones head. Piercetp 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good balance, but BBB is silly
I think the main page is fairly well-written at this point and shows both sides of the divide.

I do think the Better Business reference is silly and obviously irrelevant to educational quality.

For example: Sinful Skin Tattoo & Adult Theatre and Bookstore in Nevada, both have a clean BBB record and no complaints within the last 3 years. Like KWU, if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer, everyone is happy, regardless of the product.

Also, I used to travel alot for work, and you can always the quality of a hotel because they put their best feature on the sign. "Member of BBB" for a univeristy is roughly equivalent to "Telephone in Room" for a hotel.

Cheers!
 * That was mentioned in the article because, as stated repeatedly, only reputable businesses can stand up to the standards of the BBB. I do not think that a business which is involved in the sale of phoney degrees would seek membership in the BBB.


 * Essentially, I think its a good counterballance to a great deal of the negative infomation which has been posted about the university. Its all about giving the whole story and letting the reader decide. Piercetp 08:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Counting on BBB is silly. Here's a quote from Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning, 15th edition, 2003 Ten Speed Press, by John B. Bear, Ph.D. & Mariah P. Bear, M.A., page 24

"Some correspondence schools are well known (positively of negatively) to the Better Business Bureau as well, but do not rely on this, some of the worst diploma mills have also been members of the BBB." Bill Huffman 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And we can rely on John Bear for being unbiased in this matter. (thats sarcasm BTW) Piercetp 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy-Western University
I have been researching online schools for one that offers a BS in engineering, but have found only KW that offers a complete program for a non traditional student. Most accredited schools will offer a MS degree, but that does me little good without the BS. I am one of those who has gained most of my knowledge through experience and managed an AS at night. I am looking for feedback (good or bad) on KW from those with experience. I read all of the exchanges on this particular forum and was pleased with the conversations and differing POV. I read the testimony given by Robert J. Cramer and find that most of the problems noted had little to do with unaccredited schools but more so with the goverment policy. The lack of oversight by the different goverment bodies on how their funds were spent seems to be the root of the problem. I did note a discrepency in the testimony by Robert Cramer in the amount of money supposedly spent by the DOE. He states: "However, a comparison of the data received from the schools with the information provided by DOE and DOT shows that the schools and the agencies have likely understated federal payments. For example, Kennedy-Western reported total payments of $13,505 from DOE for three students, while DOE reported total payments of $14,532 to Kennedy-Western for three different students. Thus, DOE made payments of at least $28,037 to Kennedy-Western."

In this statement, there seems to be a difference between the amount KW reports receiving and the amount DOE reports spending. I would say the difference is approximately $1,027.00, but Mr. Cramer adds these two numbers and reports the total. It seems that the "Managing Director GAO Office of Special Investigations" has made a simple logic error, or is he bolstering the GAO's case by inflating the numbers? Just a comment after reading the testimony. I will keep and eye on this forum for any further comments on KW.

SM
 * I can only give you my own experience. I too chose KWU because it was the only institution that I could find which offered degrees in engineering online (aside from some obvious diploma mills and some foreign schools which I could find little information about). I got the go-ahead from my place of employment and I am two classes and a final project from completing.


 * Whether KWU is for you is hard to say. Some employers look favorably on unaccredited schools and others do not. I would check with your employer and see what they say. Also, before agreeing to anything be sure you carefully determine what courses you need to take and the amount of time necessary. Like anything else you should read the contract carefully before signing.


 * I would also caution you by saying that this program really is challanging. "Unaccredited" should not be translated into "blowoff". There are some extremely difficult courses involved, and the Bachelor's program involves final project involving a 75 to 100 page paper.


 * If you have any other questions you may ask me on my talk page. Piercetp 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Auditor - It looks like a logic error on the $28,037, when the real point is that KWU and DOE did not agree on the amount of improper payments to an unaccredited school. I think it is also improper to imply that this resulted in "agencies have likely understated federal payments" with no additional info.


 * Should you get an engineering degree from KWU?
 * 1. We only have a few engineers, but we don't accept unaccredited degrees.
 * 2. The PE is a bad gauge, since some states will grant a PE with no degree.
 * 3. There are legitimate DL engineering graduate programs out there, including Stanford, Wisconsin, GTech, and others.
 * 4. If you want to read a 170-post discussion on Distance engineering degrees, go here.


 * http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19759&perpage=30&highlight=engineering%20masters&pagenumber=1


 * The end
 * SM


 * I would hardly consider Degreeinfo an unbiased source. Piercetp 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked at Kennedy-Western University
I worked at Kennedy-Western University and am convinced that is nothing more than a diploma mill. The "admissions counselors" operate under boiler room like conditions, and the CEO Paul Saltman told me himself that he worked in boiler rooms before starting Kennedy-Western. Managers give gift cards and promotional items to increase productivity. "Admissions counselors" are so highly paid that they fall in line with Saltman and his cronies like some sort of cult. Kennedy-Western has one of the most sophisticated sales database that I have ever been around. It is referred to as K-Wosa, and counselors are told to make at least 75 calls and have 3 hours of talk time. The admissions director for the "university" used to be a restaurant waitress, and she can be seen at the end of each month drinking with other staff members at a nearby bar once quotas have been met. Two former managers had two counselors submit applications with their own credit card information since they got paid 75 dollars on an application that has a 50 dollar refundable application fee. The "admissions" department is so overwhelmed with greed and deception, and the majority of the employees are uneducated and were hired because they answered yes the ultimate sales question of all time: "Are you money minded." This university is an elaborate money making scheme, and the public should be better informed about such diploma mills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.96.30 (talk • contribs)
 * Nothing you stated above indicates at all that Kennedy-Western is a "Diploma mill". This kind of recruiting, if it did happen, is similar to what has been described at University of Phoenix, which is an accredited University. Now Phoenix has a decent reputation, but it had been stated that the University's recruiting practices were controversial.


 * unsigned|24.30.96.30, I can understand being angry at your former employer. Most people have worked at places that we hated. But by using terms like Diploma Mill to describe the University (and I will not put that word in quotation marks, thank you) you are not only speaking ill about the institution, but you are also speaking against the students who attended or graduated from this school, including many who you may have recruited. Piercetp 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fiction? Nope. I worked there ten years ago.  Why?  I was in between jobs, lived near Thousand Oaks CA, and desperately needed money.  Why won't I sign my name?  Because I'm ashamed I was part of it.  I personally observed the following:  syllabi were cribbed by the (uncredentialed) staff from mainstream universities' catalogs.  I was pressured to give a passing grade to someone who had miserably failed a calculus exam, and the staff person simply repeated to me, "Our students pay good money for this program." Students were completely self-taught.  If all you need is a Bachelor's degree to give someone so you can keep your current job, fine.  There are great distance-learning programs. KW-Warren-whatever is not one of them. rjphilippic 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)RJ Philippic


 * RJ Philippic, I would like for you to note that I have retracted my statement. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, since I have changed my view of KW as a whole.Taylor W. 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not belive the above negative POV

 * 24.30.96.30

Why should anyone believe this post since it came from an anonymous user, and other contribs from this user appear to be vandalistic and racial. It is unsigned just like the one I'm posting. It is just pure vandalism to the extreme. It is only a negative POV, trying to inject negativism since so many positive articles exists here about KW. . Also, I could write such an artificial article and try to pass it off as the truth. Show me your cerdentials and then maybe I will show you mine. Then perhaps I could believe you are truthful. Anyone who is disgruntled and angry will say negative things about an employer or business; even friends. Personally I do not believe any of the BS you are trying to pass along as the truth. 71.64.104.158 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I missed this post here... sorry. You are right. It all sounds like a disgruntled employee taking a pot shot at a former employer. Not that I can't understand that. But by using words like "diploma mill" and this person is actually attacking the students at KWU as well. It seems a bit hypocritical for anyone who was in the business of "selling" the university to turn around and trash the honor and reputation of the very people he or she was making money off of. Piercetp 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

KWU now = Warren National University?
Word on the street is that KWU is being renamed to Warren National University. Anyone have any insight on this?

http://www.warren-national-university.com/

Same board of directors, located in Wyoming, some of the webpages weren't copied and pasted well and refer to KWU yet.

The Auditor

Read the news release by AP posted below. KW applied with NCA for accreditation and a new name was mentioned by an NCA representive. Taylor W. 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dateline July 1, 2006: KW Applys for Accreditation.
It's about time!

As quoted in part from the article! "Kennedy-Western applied within the past couple months under a new name, Warren National.

Kennedy-Western has its academic office in Cheyenne and business office in Agoura Hills, Calif., and graduated about 1,000 students last year. The school's director of student services, Susan Ishii, declined to confirm whether the school was seeking accreditation from North Central or was planning to change its name."

I'm not very happy about the name change though!

http://www.codycafe.com/News/detail.asp?iData=6024&iCat=1529&iChannel=1&nChannel=News

KWU New Name
Could it be that the new Warren National University is named in honor of the first governor of Wyoming, Frances E. Warren, who additionally was one of the state’ first U. S. Senators. Also, Warren served on the Cheyenne City Council. The F.E. Warren Air Force Base is located in Cheyenne Wyoming. For the historical details please visit the link shown below. http://wyoarchives.state.wy.us/governor/warren.htm

and: http://www.warren.af.mil/history/index.shtml

Bill BSEE, KWU (or is it WNU)

Taylor W. 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor W. 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Engineering Questions
Having worked as a professional engineer for the last 10 years here are the answers to the above question. To become a professional engineer (P.E.) one must work as an engineer from anywhere from 4 to 5 years with a licensed engineer as whats called an Engineer In Training (E.I.T). To obtain the right to be called an E.I.T. one must pass a national engineering test called the Fundemental of Engineering Test (F.E.T.). To sit for the F.E.T. one must graduate from an accredited school recognized by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technolgy (ABET) which is the national board for all engineering. ABET will not accrediate an engineering program that is not accrediated by the US Department of Education. Thus graduates of Kennedy Western cannot be practicing engineers in any US state sorry.

==

Response:

Actually it is you who failed to do your research. Read ALL the articles carefully. Yes its true about experience, but there is no statement about not having a degree. The experience that they are referring to is the years as an engineering apprentice (E.I.T). But to your credit, Yes, its true you can work under an enginner with no degree what so ever and still call your self an engineer (I have several people in my firm that are) but a P.E. still has to sign off on all work. As an example I have someone working for me in my firm who has a forestry degree, who does all my digital electronics design. But I still have to sign off on all his work, because I am responsible for all the work out of my firm. Also if you read the article close you will notice that the E.I.T. is still a requirement for the P.E. But if it means anything, technically you should note because obviously the above person is a Kennedy Western grad that you do not need an engineering degree to to take the exam, just an accredited degree in any subject from a university recognized by the department of eduation as being accredited by one of its regional accrediation boards (this was the case with my forestry major intern). But trust me from someone who has taken both exams it will be a whole lot easier if you try it with an engineering degree in a specialized field.

Response: ABET influence nothing. All the state laws were in effect long before ABET was even created. But you are correct about there are several accrediated schools who offer engineering degrees but are still unaccredited by ABET. Take Western Kentucky in Bowling Green, they are accrediated and have been accrediated by SACS for years, but recently started an engineering program. They still have not received ABET accrediation, but will probably within the near future.

Actually not quite. The Professional Engineering actually takes the overall responsibility for a project. Its true you can work around the E.I.T. requirement, but you still have to work under an accreditated P.E. which means you can not do any free lance/consulting work, or be called to testify as an expert witness in a court case.

Take my advice because the above individual is obviously a Kennedy Western graduate. Go to an accrediated college and study hard. There are plenty of universities that are accrediated and over the ability to get your engineering degree online (Univ. of Tennessee for example). If you need further doubt look whats happing with all the people getting there credentials revoked for buying degrees. I'm not doubting people's ability to get an engineering degree, but trust me once you graduate it will make all the difference.

In regards to the above statement about going to a different state, note you have to be a resident of that state to sit for the exam, even California. If your found out not to be even after you pass the exam they will revoke your creditials. Trust me I've worked here in California for 10 years as a civil engineer for the biggest engineering firm in the country. I'm licensed to practice in all 50 states and am a member of several national engineering accrediation diciplinary boards and have sat in on several cases including the above mentioned university grads who have lied about their creditials. So take my advice don't do it, its not worth it. Don't throw your money away just because the above Kennedy Western plant tells you to. Call you states licensing board before you do anything and ask them what they would recommend.


 * Well unregistered user 71.64.104.112, I do agree with much of what you say. But what you said about "its not worth it" is a matter of opinion. Some graduates have successful careers. Its not throwing away money but, for some a good investment. And your implication abound "buying degrees" is incorrect and offensive to anyone who has attended KWU.


 * As stated several times before, KWU is an applicant for accredidation. And any graduate will tell you that it is a challanging experience for its students.Piercetp 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with what I say. I'm the one who actually has the Professional Engineer Cerificate, you don't and never will. But I advise you to look at our newly updated website of how we deal with people like you and the rest of the Kennedy Western graduates. You should note that 4 of the people on this list are Kennedy Western graduates, if you don't believe me then you should note all our proceedings are open record if you would like to get copies of the transactions.

http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_citeunlic.htm

Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors 2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95833-2944 Toll Free Number: 1-866-780-5370 (no charge to the calling party) Phone Number: (916) 263-2222 FAX Number: (916) 263-2246

Response:

74.234.100.251 You said, "I'm the one who actually has the Professional Engineer Cerificate, you don't and never will." And, "I'm licensed to practice in all 50 states and am a member of several national engineering accrediation diciplinary boards and have sat in on several cases including the above mentioned university grads who have lied about their creditials."

What does that make you, a Desciple and you sit on the right side of God?

No, but I see that all that Kennedy Western Education has gone to use expecially in the english department (The word is spelled disciple). Perhaps if you had not wasted your money on a diploma mill you would know this. I'm not saying you are not smart enough to do though because I see by your resume you can handle Novell and that states something about an individual. I know Ph.D that can't pass those computer certification exams. Most companies will pay for you to do it. I know Panasonic has a program, so look into it.

74.234.100.251 You wrote: "No, but I see that all that Kennedy Western Education has gone to use expecially in the english department (The word is spelled disciple)."

Response: Well, I guess there are Professional Engineers that can not spell either. Did you waste your money? If you live in a glass palace, don't throw stones! Furthermore, I am not the person you addressed in your last comment. I am just as anonymous as you are, and so are my credentials. If you are what you say you are, then show me! In addition, there is nothing explict in the information at this link http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_citeunlic.htm that points exclusively at Kennedy Western graduates.

Thats why I included our address. The disiplinary transcripts are open record so all you have to do is write to the address and we will be happy to send you a copy of all our proceedings.

++++++++++++++++++++


 * Anonymous 74.234.100.251 


 * Please refrane from using personal attacks.


 * You began with "I'm the one who actually has the Professional Engineer Cerificate, you don't and never will". Perhaps you can use a more mature way of discussing this issue.


 * Furthermore you should not use the term "Diploma Mill" to describe the University in question. Diploma mill is a pejorative term for a institution or service which gives university level diploma with little or no work.


 * Kennedy-Western is an unaccredited institution of higher learning. You may say that. But to say that students of the university do "little or no work" may be considered offensive to its students and graduates.


 * It should be mentioned that in some states, unaccredited institutions can be considered valid experience for educational requirements.


 * The website you posted links to refers to violations of statutes in the State of California. Not everyone here lives in California. The laws for taking the PE exam varry from state to state.


 * The link you posted refers to individuals who are cited for violating the professional statutes of the state of California. However, being a graduate of an unacredited institution of higher learning cannot be considered a violation of the law so your argument can be considered a non sequitur.


 * I do not wish to provoke a dispute but I believe that you can make your case in a more civil manner.


 * If you wish to dispute what I say than you are welcome to post on my talk page and hopefully we can come to some resolution.Piercetp 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt in their your graduates abilities. I had the problem with whoever above posted the statement on how to try and go around the rules and regulations of the system. I'm not saying that Kennedy Western grads cannot do the job of an engineer, but I have problems with people who misrepresent themselves to obtain professional status. These are the same people who later on misrepresent the facts and cover up when an accident happens. I remind everyone who reads this that you DONOT have to even have a college degree to do engineering work but you do have to work under a Professional Engineer. All the cases I have had are problems were this rule has been bypassed of credentials ignored. Please note I sit on the same board in several states besides California (Texas, Louisiana, and Florida) and the violations are always the same.


 * OK then... On that we can both agree.


 * And I will say this to anyone and everyone.... do not ever try to misrepresent your credentials.


 * Me? I went to KWU and will never lie about where I went and what I did.


 * In fact it was my supervisor who told me about KWU and I do not regret my education.


 * But I will say this to anyone. Do research the PE requirements of your state if that is what you hope to do with your education. Talk to your employer. Talk to other professionals. Do not take my word for it or anyone elses. Decide for yourself. I did and made the decission that was right for me. Piercetp 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous 74.234.100.251 

Thank you for confirming that it is not the educational abilities of Kennedy Western graduates with which you were referring. As a Kennedy Western graduate, provocative statements such as “Diploma Mill” and the way you presented yourself stirs anger and makes such Students and Alumni become offensive.

Most every graduate from Kennedy Western holds other degrees and to infer that these persons are uneducated comes over as insulting remarks. In addition, these students do extensive coursework in earning their degrees regardless if the skeptics and academia want to refute this.

Although the school does not have an accredited status, this does not indicate that the education gained is of a substandard nature. I hold other credentials, in addition to my Kennedy Western Degree, and have worked in the field for forty years. I have been responsible for many engineering projects in an industrial environment. To say the Professional Engineer had to sign off on the project, could be true, but for in house engineering projects this is simply false.

Yes, agreed, any person representing one’s self as a Professional Engineer is criminally responsible and should be accountable or be prosecuted. I also agree, if such person was a Kennedy Western Graduate, then that person should have been called to face his or her act.

As a recent poster expressed, “do not ever try to misrepresent your credentials.” I am in complete agreement with this statement. Also, it is simply not true that a Kennedy Western Degree is an illegal document in all states. Only a few have statutes which make its non-accredited status problematic. Well, it does seem there are points on which we agree and points we do not; but, we can agree not to agree in a civil manner because this is what makes valid discussion worthwhile.

Taylor W.


 * Since the previous poster deleted his/her comments I did the same. Thank you for anonymous poster for keeping this discussion at a mature level. Piercetp 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, KWU qualifies as a diploma mill
This is just one person's opinion, and I'll try to be civil but blunt.

"The GAO witness completed 40% of her KWU masters engineering degree plan (not counting thesis?) in 16 hours"

To me, I think that qualifies on the "little or no effort" definition of a diploma mill. The math comes out to 40 hours of total effort for a master's degree, which is the in-class time requirement for one 3-credit undergraduate class (14 weeks * 3 hours), ignoring the out of class component which is usually stated as twice the in-class time.

My background is college teaching / corporate compliance.

In HigherEd, there is no regionally accredited institution that would accept a KWU degree for an instructor, even at the adjunct level. Any statement to the contrary is completely false. Some universities have been burned by lack of background checking and accreditation understanding, but I can absolutely say they do not welcome unaccredited degrees. They can't, their accreditation bodies will not allow it.

Again, one persons experience - In the organizations (large corporations, plus consulted on many dozens more) I have been in, a KWU degree is not valid to meet any degree requirements at any level. In addition, those candidates automatically have the stigma of having tried to "sneak one by HR", which makes hiring managers extremely uneasy to continue with an applicant.

Where we do recognize a KWU courses is under "continuing education", similar to hours you would receive at a seminar or conference towards maintaining a certification, if an applicant presented it that way.

I frankly can't understand how there is even discussion on this topic, but understand the vested interests involved.

Thanks,

The testimony during the Senate hearing also confirmed to me that KWU is substandard and I think diploma mill is a fair label. It is fair from the point of view that to me it is important to let people know that KWU is unaccredited and that the utility of a degree from there is likely not what is expected by most students. To the people that have already paid the money and done whatever work was required of them to graduate, I mean no insult but KWU seems substandard. I hope that your KWU degree works out for you although I would be concerned, if I were you. I would be concerned that a KWU degree would be like a time bomb that you can't know when it might blow up and cause problems. I've seen plenty of unaccredited degrees even of an accredited standard level still blow up and cause problems for people. For example, California Coast University used to be unaccredited. There was at least a half dozen examples of articles written accusing various alumni of CCU to have diploma mill degrees. They have since become accredited. CCU degrees were standard which is proven by their DETC accreditation. You could always get a list of the graduation requirement details for CCU degrees even when they were unaccredited, unlike KWU degrees. So, if CCU degrees could cause problems for alumni, I can only imagine that KWU degrees would be worse. Bill Huffman 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would really like to challenge this GAO witness who stated "The GAO witness completed 40% of her KWU masters engineering degree plan (not counting thesis?) in 16 hours". I believe that this is either a totally false statement or a misleading statement. I can tell you from personal experience that it took me close to two years to complete the program of a bachelor's degeree (I would add that I did transfer credits as I had earned a bachelors at another institution).


 * I would add that many corporations do accept degrees from KWU as being legitimate. The company I work for actually encouraged me to earn my degree there.


 * While I understand that you are being civil I do wish you be more careful about using the term Diploma mill because as stated countless times here, KWU does not fit the definition of this term. A "diploma mill" is an institution in which a client will receive a degree with "little or no effort". And this term does not apply to Kennedy-Western.


 * One final issue. Kennedy-Western is currently in the process of being accredited. This is a long process, as you may know, but the administration of KWU is hopeful that this may make a degree from the University more accepted by the community. Piercetp 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The 40% figure did not count the thesis. IIRC, the statement was 40% of the class work. I'm sorry but you working extra hard to earn a degree from KWU does not erase the fact that apparently KWU was shown to be significantly substandard in the GAO investigation. From that perspective, Diploma mill is a fair label if the definition used is "an institution of higher education operating without supervision of a state or professional agency and granting diplomas without the usual required courses and attendence" rather than "little or no effort". Bill Huffman 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would consider "diploma mill" a pujorative term. In the article Diploma mill it clearly states that not all unaccredited universities are such. As for that GAO investigation I believe it was prejudiced as no representitive from the university was present to defend that institution. I stand by my words. If that witness said that it too 16 hours to earn 40% of their credit than I would say that individual was either lying or cheating. Piercetp 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another point of view
I have for some time been reading the various arguments for and against Kennedy Western University with interest. I am a past student having completed a Doctorate in Administration in 18 months with KWU. I was granted A & E credit Award of 50% resulting in having to complete 6 subjects as well as a Dissertation. I need to make mention that I personally put in a great deal of effort and time in the Dissertation and was very proud of the end result. I personally have no regrets doing the course through KWU and understood from the beginning that KWU was not an accredited Institution.

However out of curiosity I decided to put both my conventionally obtained Master’s degree and the PhD degree obtained from KWU through a credibility test using KROLL MIE .I wish to add that the verification of both school and other degrees in South Africa is top of any Human Resources department’s agenda because of the increasing amount of fraudulent documents in circulation.

Now I know I am stating the obvious when the KWU evaluation come back from KROLL MIE with the following “We regret to inform you that Kennedy western University is not one of our approved suppliers as there is no proof that this is an accredited Institution” The point I am trying to make is that,  it would be unwise to put the KWU qualification on my CV, quite simply because it would not be recognized and may result in attracting unnecessary negative attention to myself.

We can argue until the cows come home with respect to the quality of the courses presented by KWU, but that, in my simple option is a waste of time as I do not believe that is the main issue in question. While KWU remains a non accredited Institution, it will continue to attract negative publicity as well a being classified as a “suspect” degree provider.

Richard – South Africa 196.2.111.63

Finally, an honest KWU alumni that speaks from the heart up front and honest.


 * Perhaps your experience with KWU was not a good one. All I can say is that I have used KWU on my resume and have not received any negative reaction. I guess every place of employment is different. Piercetp 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Still Another Point of View
I am a past student of Kennedy Western University and I knew before enrolling at the school they had a non-accredited status. I also know that the coursework required  of me for  graduation was far greater than critics want to recognize. I also went into the course with an Associate degree from an accredited post secondary institution with over eighty semester credit hours. The credits awarded to me by KWU were composed of credits earned through my Associate Degree, coursework at KWU, and the final capstone project paper I needed to write. The paper in its self was a long and demanding document that exceeded 140 pages of text plus the required research tables, figures, and appendix. This process alone took me six months to accomplish.

In addition to the above, I was awarded credits through portfolio assessment pertaining to over thirty years of related experience in the field of my concentration. This portfolio assessment practice is not any different than other colleges and universities, see links below, which give allowances. This credit allowance rounded out my required 120 credits to graduate with a bachelors degree. After I enrolled, and was into my second year of studies, the Senate Hearings hit the media and this became a stepping stone for the media and the critics- a bone for the critics to chew on while they paraded through the message boards proclaiming that KWU had been exposed as a diploma mill.

The debate over the school’s legality, standards, and the issue with the GAO witness have forced Critic’s opinions with beliefs that the school’s curricula offerings are substandard. I simply disagree with those opinions, biased or not. I am not trying to promote a personal agenda to add credibility to KWU, I simply disagree that Kennedy Western University is a diploma mill based on my coursework and if some critics believe this not to be true, then you have a right to that opinion. I do agree with the statements that the credential awarded appears to be less than standard, and not useful in many situations, but I do know that the effort that I put into the process was much greater than what the Senate witness proclaimed to have done. Irregardless of the beliefs about this witness, there is some doubt in my mind that she actually accomplished these tasks, especially the sixteen hours to complete  40% of her Masters Program.

In addition, I disagree with some statements that proclaim the credentials are earned  without the same level of effort that “legitimate accredited universities require.” In that statement, legitimate accredited universities infers that this school operates on an illegitimate basis which is simply not a true fact. The lack of accreditation does not make it an illegitimate institution of higher education.

I am proud of my accomplishments, whither it be through my accomplished life’s work or my educational accomplishments which were finalized at KWU. Anyone who is detrimental to these accomplishments becomes my opponent. It is as simple as that.

Mack

University of Maine at Augusta http://www.uma.edu/portfolioassessment.html

Thomas Edison State College http://www.tesc.edu/prospective/undergraduate/credit/pla.php

Something Strange?
It appears to me that both Mack and Richard have the same IP address. If true this is either the most amazing coincidence I've ever seen or they are really the same person being duplicitious. Whoever you are, please note that 20 real testimonials (let alone false testimonials) does not disprove what the GAO investigation showed. That is that at KWU it is possible to complete 40% of the required course work for a graduate engineering degree in only 16 hours of work even if one is completely unfamilar with the material.

Well you are wrong, I'm not Richard and it doesn't matter to me what you say, think, or what the GAO investigation showed, I know what I did and that is my "Proof." But, I do agree with Richard when he said "While KWU remains a non accredited Institution, it will continue to attract negative publicity as well a being classified as a “suspect” degree provider," and his comment that "it would be unwise to put the KWU qualification on my CV,(I Add-resume) quite simply because it would not be recognized and may result in attracting unnecessary negative attention to myself." What more can I say?

Mack 71.64.104.112

I have added my IP Address (for what it’s worth) however I believe it still won’t get rid of the paranoia regarding anyone either defending or attacking KWU. I have found no reason yet either to discredit or promote KWU and that certainly was not my intention when relating my experience at KWU.

The bottom line is, my experience with KWU was an enjoyable learning experience but I am still holding a KWU “degree” that I can not use nor boast about, certainly not in South Africa that is. I look forward to the accreditation of KWU to put this matter to rest.

Richard 196.2.111.63

An even more amazing fact is when you do a tracert command on the address or a whois it comes back to being owned by Kennedy Western

An amazing thing that tracert and whois command is. Here's what i keep getting when I use it on certain ip in this discussion forum:

Registrant: Kennedy Western University 30301 Agoura Rd.  Agoura, CA 91301 UNITED STATES

Administrative Contact: Domain Administrator Kennedy-Western University 30301 Agoura Rd.  Agoura, CA 91301 UNITED STATES (800) 635-2900

Technical Contact: Domain Administrator Kennedy-Western University 30301 Agoura Rd.  Agoura, CA 91301 UNITED STATES (800) 635-2900

Name Servers: NS1.MYDYNDNS.ORG NS2.MYDYNDNS.ORG NS3.MYDYNDNS.ORG NS4.MYDYNDNS.ORG NS5.MYDYNDNS.ORG

Domain record activated: 23-Jan-1996 Domain record last updated: 15-Jun-2005 Domain expires:      31-Jul-2007

-- 74.234.93.248

Just what IP address comes back to Kennedy Western? Don't be shy, if you say this as a true fact and your evidence is solid, then reveal it. We all would like to know if there is envasion from outside. Taylor W. ---

Humm.. that's not exactly true. Mine does not traces back KW.

71.64.104.112

The main point that I wanted to make was that positive testmonials from KWU alumni must be considered with a grain of salt. One, the alumni of any institution can be expected to have strong subjective opinions of their alma mater. Two, it's in the best interest of the alumni of substandard schools to exaggerate the academic rigor of their alma mater. The best indication of the objective academic rigor/value of an academic institution is the viewpoint of an independent third party. Ideally that would be an accreditation agency. Since KWU is not accredited, the best opinion that we have available to us is the GAO investigation that was presented at the Senate hearings. Bill Huffman 07:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bill You wrote “The main point that I wanted to make was that positive testmonials from KWU alumni must be considered with a grain of salt.” Now, if I wrote a negative testimonial about KW would you take that as a grain of salt or would you pick it up and dash off for the goal line. The point is, anything said about a school you have concluded is a diploma mill is held in high regard and any thing said in the praise of such is regarded as a lie. Just because a person attends a non-accredited school does not make them dishonest or prevaricators. You are entitled to your belief, as the students and alumni of such schools are entitled to theirs. If you take the GAO witness as your proof that KW is a “Diploma Mill” or a substandard school as you describe it, then you are entitled to that point of view. I will not argue with you about that issue, but to insinuate by proxy that all testimonials are untrue in their nature is insulting. I am a graduate of KW and, as of late, I do not hold KW in high regards, but I do not insult those that testify in their beliefs that they have a valued document which they have worked hard to earn, even if its value as a credential has no value in the eyes of the academic critic. Those graduates do believe they have done the necessary work that led to the conferment of their documents. In recent days, I have come to believe that unless KW or Warren does earn accreditation, all graduates from the school will find their credentials even harder to use for most purposes. I have a friend who lives and works in Texas and is a graduate from KW, perhaps that can give you a hint to my change of mind.

Taylor W.

Good sir, there's a huge difference, in my opinion between considering something with a grain of salt and calling someone a liar. For example, if a mother praises her son's intelligence that means something different than if a teacher praises the same child's intelligence. If a mother praises her son's intelligence and then the boy's teacher says that the boy is well below average intelligence, who would you guess is most likely correct? What if the father and grandparents all step in and also praise the boy's intelligence? Are the parent's and grandparent's all liars? I would say not. As I tried to explain, I'm not intending to insult anyone. I just feel that diploma mills do a diservice to students, employers, and devalue academic achievement. That is why I think it has overall positive value to call KWU a diploma mill even though some may be insulted. The degrees are substandard. Perhaps some KWU graduates have put in a level of effort for their KWU degree that would meet an accredited standard. Being a diploma mill to me means that a significant number of graduates have apparently not meet the standard. I know that Texas law lists KWU degrees as substandard and KWU degree use is restricted in Texas. Nine years ago there were no laws in the USA explicitly restricting the use of diploma mill degrees. Now unaccredited degrees are restricted in over half dozen states and additional laws are probably under consideration for other states. Perhaps the mother of the below average intelligence son considers it insulting to hear from the teacher that her son is below average intelligence but I can accept that without thinking that the mother is a liar. There was a period of time that unaccredited degrees had more utility but the Internet has caused an explosion of diploma mills and this has caused a backlash that makes the utility of unaccredited degrees marginal in an increasing number of cases. Bill Huffman 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________


 * Not to offend you but may I ask, why is it you feel compelled make such statements? I suspect that you have an agenda of your own.


 * As for that statement about 40% of the course work being completed in 16 hours I do not believe any of it. If there is a way to do this I would like to see how. I just do not think its at all possible. And if it is than maybe someone should contact the University.


 * And please feel free to check my IP address. I have nothing to hide. I am not employed by KWU in any capacity. I am a graduate and nothing more. I just hate seeing people say things that are not true.


 * Perhaps once the University finally is accredited all these people who make their careers bashing it will finally find more productive things to do with their time.Piercetp 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply feel that the truth should be known. Diploma mills degrade academic achievement while defrauding people out of hard earned wages. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm using the dictionary definition of diploma mill rather than the Wikipedia definition. This is important information to make known to potential "students" of KWU so that they can make an informed decision before they enroll at KWU. I believe it is also important that any employers that might use Wikipedia to investigate credentials claimed on a resume have access to the full truth.


 * A GAO investigator testifying under oath as to what she discovered in regards to KWU can be trusted in my view. I can't imagine why a professional investigator would risk destroying their career and risk jail time by giving false testimony in a Senate hearing. I suggest that if someone is having difficulty believing the simple testimony from an independent professional, it is probably indictive that they're not being very objective.


 * If you listen to the testimony the simple technique that she used to pass her two tests was to become familar with the Table of Contents and index in the course text prior to taking the test. She then took the open book test and passed. This worked for the two courses that she passed during her investigation which accounted for 40% of the required course work for a Master's engineering degree. She further stated that this was apparently a well known technique that was suggested to her on the KWU student forum after she failed the first test.


 * In my opinion, Warren may have a chance at accreditation but KWU does not. The ex-employee testified at the Senate hearing that he had never heard of the "KWU admissions committee" ever turning anyone down. This is just one minor example as to why I hold that view. Bill Huffman 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I wish to point out to anyone that there are two sides to every story. People need to investigate and find out for themselves. Piercetp 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that very few people are going to be inclined to spend as much effort investigating KWU as the GAO did. A much more straight forward thing that you should investigate before enrolling in an unaccredited school is whether or not the utility of an unaccredited degree will meet your needs. If you think that there's any possibility that you might need anyone in academia to accept your degree in the future then do NOT get an unaccredited degree. The best utility for an unaccredited degree is in the business sector where you can hope that the Human Resources department won't check to make sure that the degree is accredited. If that is your hope then you need to also investigate the laws in your state to make sure that you're not breaking the law by using a KWU degree. If there are no such laws in your state and you're certain that there will not be such a law passed in the future in your state then perhaps you should consider KWU. Bill Huffman 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not illegal to apply for work with a degree from an unaccredited university in the United States. I would say that if your degree is from a overtly fraudulent institution it may be unethical. But since KWU is a candidate for accreditation and it does require work on the part of the student to earn such a degree I would say that it is in no way fraudulent to say that a KWU degree is legitimate. The only instance where there was an attempt to make the use of such a degree illegal was in Oregon but a court ruling severly curtailed attempts by the state to make it unlawful. Graduates in Oregon are required to use the accredidation status on their resumes but it is by no means against any law.


 * It just so happens a good many corporations consider such education as valid.


 * I would finally state that most other institutions of higher learning began without accredidation. Sometimes it takes time for a concept such as distance education to become accepted. Piercetp 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that under some circumstances, it is illegal to apply for a job while claiming an unaccredited degree. I'm familar with the Oregon law and the out of court settlement (not a court ruling) that you seem to refer to. My understanding is that it is illegal to apply for a job working for the state of Oregon if one is claiming a degree from KWU. That seems to be a direct contradiction to your assertion that "it's not illegal to apply for work with a degree from an unaccredited university". My understanding is that some recent laws in other states are more restrictive than the current Oregon law.


 * A study that I'm familar with shows that acceptance of unaccredited degrees is primarily due to the employer not understanding/checking on accreditation. Once they understand accreditation their acceptance of unaccredited degrees drops very significantly.


 * KWU seems to like to confuse distance learning with unaccredited. This is not the truth. We are many years past the acceptance of distance learning by the legitimate accreditation agencies. The vast majority of new schools in the USA plan to become accredited from their initial concept phase and become accreditted within three years of first opening. You are just mentioning KWU marketing hyperbole that is used to misinform and try to justify substandard practices. Bill Huffman 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I would consider a Diploma Mill and what I would not


 * Mr Huffman, I would like to draw your attention to what I believe (in my own humble opinion) is a genuine diploma mill. Please see this site here. Now if there are any students or graduates of this school then I would allow them the opportunity to defend their institution. But from the looks of it I would say it pretty much fits the description of what I would call a diploma mill or degree mill.


 * If there is any doubt about this place please read what is stated on the official website,


 * This program offers you an opportunity to earn a bachelor degree based on your work or life experience, without requiring you to take admission exams, attend classes, or study course books.


 * The point I am tryng to make here is that KWU cannot be put in the same category as this school. (And I would use the term school very loosly here). I personally would never pay for a phony degree from any school. Nor would I recommend that to anyone else. Piercetp 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pierce, I agree that KWU is not in the same category as Ashwood University, at least not in the context that you mean. I would agree that degrees from Ashwood are phony. I also agree that KWU degrees are NOT phony. On the other hand, unfortunately for KWU, Ashwood University and KWU are both unaccredited, from that context they are in the same category. Although to KWU's credit, KWU does not claim bogus accreditation like Ashwood. There's a huge number of these totally phony schools floating around the Internet. This has only worsened the general reputation of unaccredited distance learning schools. CCU was also in the same GAO investigation as KWU. Yet they didn't mention CCU hardly at all during the Senate hearings. It seems obvious to me that they didn't talk much about CCU because the investigator couldn't pass their CCU class without learning the material. CCU has since become DETC accredited. They became accredited because the time for unaccredited legitimate distance learning schools has passed and because the CCU programs were very near standard anyway. The GAO investigation and KWU policies indicates to me that KWU is substandard. I suspect what you may be getting at is the question, is KWU a legitimate unaccredited school or asking in a slightly different way would KWU survive an indepth criminal investigation for potential fraudulent practices? I really don't know the answer to this question. I don't need to know the answer to this question to say that KWU degrees appear substandard but are not phony. Bill Huffman 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Senate Testimony - KWU Master's Degree in Engineering
My bad! Sorry Bill and Pierce, picked a poor source. Let's try again. Here is the actual testimony link.

Statement of Lieutenant Commander Claudia Gelzer Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs "Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations: Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills? (Day 2)" May, 12 2004

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&HearingID=176&WitnessID=632

--Captinron 14:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, to clear up some of the confusion I made.

KWU waived 43% of her Master's based on claims (not proof) of going to seminars. This left 5 classes and a paper for a masters. She completed 2 "classes" (open book exams, no other course work) in 16 hours. She did not recieve a degree, but discontinued.

Read the testimony and decide for yourself. Again, sorry for posting bad info initially.

--Captinron 14:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A "open book" exam now there's a way to show you learned the material.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Captinron

It is not any different than many other distant learning schools, including the accredited school that I'm attending. I do say, though, that my present school presents a greater number of exams than KWU. If the author of the exam puts enough time ino the fornulation of the examination, and does not use the end of chapter questions where the answers are in the back of the book, then this method of testing does prove that the student learned the material.

Taylor W. 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________ Taylor; I agree, if KWU did take some time to formulate the exams, it might take a little effort to pass, but from the Senate testimony:

"I ordered the Hazardous Waste Management test first. I had neither read nor reviewed the textbook.  My objective was to determine whether the test was in fact legitimate.  If so, having not prepared, I assumed I would not be able to pass it.

I had three hours to complete 100 questions. I was able to answer most of them by simply looking up a key word in the index, turning to that section of the text, and finding the answer"

--Captinron 14:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Captinron

I have read that testimony and I believe every person in the world has also read it by now. Anyway, in the past I have promoted KW. I felt that it was creditable and still do, but as of late, I have become less than pleased with their change in plan to become accredited. Accredited, yes, name change to discard the left over negative baggage no. I write this not to promote KW or to persuade anyone to their worthiness. It simply is a diagnostic passage to inject my views. On the open book exam, and as I said in my last post, this is not any different than many other distant learning schools, including the accredited school that I'm attending. We have open book exams.

As you know, there are thousands of textbooks and all have indexes and glossaries where the content keywords are summarized openly awaiting anyone  for lookup. It is common practice to do so since that is the reason for the index and glossaries in all books. The catch here is, the examination for that course must not have been exact enough in its formulation; but, how does a faculty member compose an examination on a subject without using wording from the textbook that the student is using for study? Yes, I agree, the witness “could have” looked up keywords and searched the content of the textbook until she found a matching answer. That is where multiple choice questions fail to give true evaluations of a students understanding of the material and does allow one to pass any examination. The time limit on the examination, though, does not match the time limits I have experienced. If this was true, it seems extreme enough  for her to complete the exam  in the allocated time; but,  this does  not mean that all  the examinations for all courses could have been passed with such ease.

It is not as simple as that for examinations on courses involving mathematical solutions to examination questions. Subjects such as Linear Circuit Analysis, Science, Signals and Systems, microprocessors and Digital Logic where logical manipulation, Boolean, and Karnaugh mapping are required. These courses do not lend themselves to index lookup. These subjects do not allow the student such luxuries.

The courses mentioned in the last paragraph I have studied, and the examinations answers could not be obtained simply by looking them up in indexes and glossaries. In addition, the time limit was not three hours for 100 questions. All my exams had either an hour or a two hour time limit and this limit depended on the number of questions. None were greater than two hours, and  all  mathematical examination questions needed  to be solved not just looked up in a table or an index.

Having been a distance learner for over three decades and studying at many schools over that period of time, it did seem strange to me that a course would only have one exam, where as, with every school I had previously attended had several exams throughout the study of the course and a Proctored final at the end. Although my KW exams were Proctored, one exam for an entire course did seem far more difficult in the sense that this would be the only factor for the grade or for failing the subject. Irregardless of my present feelings about the school, I did learn from the courses and I do not believe that KW is a phony school. Less than standard, yes maybe,  but not phony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_analysis http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/ece201/recipes.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/electronic/diglog.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor

Taylor W. 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice note Taylor. I might be nitpicking but I originally said the same thing as you. "KWU appears substandard but is not phony." I edited it to read, "KWU degrees appear substandard but are not phony." The difference to me is that there are many things that would go into a criminal investigation of fraudulent behavior, should there ever be such a thing (which I doubt) against KWU. For example, the Senate testimony regarding the way that the KWU "admissions committee" was presented to the prospective students seemed dishonest to me. I'm not a lawyer so can't speak to the legality of it all but it did cause me concern that perhaps they were at least operating in the gray area. So from my perspective it is much safer to say that the KWU degrees are not phony rather than saying KWU is not phony. Bill Huffman 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of programs out there that will do a Karnaugh map or linear circuit for you without having to know the material. One merely has to plug a value in to get an answer. There are also several calculatores (ex: Voyager 200) that will do the calculations for you. You will notice that all these are disallowed when taking your FET exam. I can be like the above author and give you tons of meaningless websites, which frankly just point to meaningless information, or you can just call up your state engineering board and consult them. ____________________________________________________________________________________

Unregistered User 74.234.111.22

It seems rather strange that someone would show up with the FET and the PE exam line and try to re-direct the discussion to them when they were not mention in my post. Yes, agreed, there are calculators, computer software and many websites that will allow you to do linear circuit analysis solutions and Karnaugh mapping. In addition, there is Spice, Electronic Workbench, and let us not forget Maple for doing all that Calc and other mathematical solutions while under the watchful eye of a Proctor during an examination. The information in the links I provided shows the complexity of the subject matter and is not meaningless information as you have so boldly stated. What I wrote in that post was true and was not meant to deceive anyone. Form your statement, if you are indicating I'm a cheat, what are you? You come here without identifying yourself and push the FET and the PE test into the discussion, when they were never mentioned. Why should I call up my state engineering board when I care less about those examinations! By the way, my credentials and my identify are posted on my user page, where are yours?

Taylor W. 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the above six links were part of Taylor's note that was entered previous to my response. I misunderstood because Taylor's name was placed prior to those links rather than after. That was an error on my part. I just didn't understand any relevance to the links. I hope that my error has not contributed to this minor disagreement. If so then I apologize. Bill Huffman 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill,

Your post did not contribute nor was it confusing. I was discussing the methods of testing at KW and just used the info to show the complexity of the material. I'm well aware of what the engineering boards require for licensing. KW grads are not allowed to sit in most states. This was not the point that ruffeled my feathers, it was the statement "meaningless information", as if I was trying to "spin" the article or falsely promote KW.

Taylor W. 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My perspective is that the KWU article is a good WP:NPOV article and I've enjoyed the intellectual discussion. Bill Huffman 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the announcement!!!!
And just when we thought there was nothing left to debate and argue about.

http://www.kw.edu/warren-national-university.asp

Richard - South Africa. 28th November 2006

____________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, the show goes on and on and on.

Thanks for the info. Richard.

Taylor W. 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for the info! I'm looking forward to the results of the application for accreditation with great anticipation and interest.

Bill Huffman 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

KWU Graduate Comment:
To the others who have commented previously:

With all the diploma mills in existence, one could wonder why such esteemed individuals who have attained their degrees from accredited institutions, spend so much of their time (days, months, and even years), discounting Kennedy-Western University? Could it be that KWU/WNU is quite the contrary to a diploma mill, and KWU Alumni disgust those who graduated from community colleges and the like, since KWU alumni are surpassing them in their chosen fields?

What kind of person spends their time, away from work, family, and friends, to lead a "crusade" of sorts on KWU? If a person had graduated from Harvard University or the like, and was truly a leader; not only academically, but also in one’s chosen career, he/she would not be bothered by graduates of such "substandard" institutions-accredited or not.

Answer: I wonder how all these Kennedy Western graduares have all this free time on their hands when supposely they have these great paying jobs because they graduated from Kennedy Western. Perhaps they are those who have a lot of times on their hands because they cannot find top class high paying jobs because their credentials are in question. I note that in the above engineering discussion, not one of the Kennedy Western graduates are actually practicing engineers. Most have tech jobs that require no or little higher education to achieve. I'd love to know what they average starting out salary for a Kennedy Western grad is compared to the rest of the nation. Please not that this is a requirement for accredidation but every time they apply for this they somehow neglect to supply this info. Hmmmmm.

Let us face the facts, people who are presenting their obvious "diploma mill" degrees to employers, will not get by. Moreover, in the event that one of these degree holders does manage to gain employment, one could assume that the job would not be of high-importance.

CHEA and ED.Gov are in existence for a reason. Now let us ponder once again, why so much criticism on such a "lowly" school. KWU/WNU is not a diploma mill; although its curriculum is far from being the most rigorous in the world, how hard is the curriculum at Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard? The only difficult aspect of such esteemed universities is its barrier to entry. The same hold true of almost all top-ranked higher learning institutions worldwide.

Had anyone ever examined the curriculum outline for some of the top universities in the world, namely: the London School of Economics and Political Science; it can be easily identified that the institution only requires twelve units for their BSc program.

Answer: Trust me I have a bachelors from Yale and my D.E is from Oxford and yes its hard as hell. I have seen people who have high IQs and ACTs fail out of both schools. But no you are in correct about the admission standards. That is a common misconception about Ivy League schools. The boards look for a broad base class so you may see more and more people from small towns in the midwest than anywhwere else. All I can say is if Kennedy Western or Warren National will just get accrediated then this all would be a mute point. For those of you who are alumni put the pressure on your university to do this. You will never win this discussion here because someone is always going to disagree.

Let things be, only focus what is important, instead of wasting time, being disgusted in others.

159.53.46.141 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Unregistered User 74.234.108.92 from Atlanta. In the middle of another user’s post, which makes that users post appear to be slanted,you wrote:

“I wonder how all these Kennedy Western graduares have all this free time on their hands when supposely they have these great paying jobs because they graduated from Kennedy Western. Perhaps they are those who have a lot of times on their hands because they cannot find top class high paying jobs because their credentials are in question. I note that in the above engineering discussion, not one of the Kennedy Western graduates are actually practicing engineers. Most have tech jobs that require no or little higher education to achieve. I'd love to know what they average starting out salary for a Kennedy Western grad is compared to the rest of the nation. Please not that this is a requirement for accredidation but every time they apply for this they somehow neglect to supply this info. Hmmmmm.”

Continuing, you stated:

“Trust me I have a bachelors from Yale and my D.E is from Oxford and yes its hard as hell. I have seen people who have high IQs and ACTs fail out of both schools. But no you are in correct about the admission standards. That is a common misconception about Ivy League schools. The boards look for a broad base class so you may see more and more people from small towns in the midwest than anywhwere else. All I can say is if Kennedy Western or Warren National will just get accrediated then this all would be a mute point. For those of you who are alumni put the pressure on your university to do this. You will never win this discussion here because someone is always going to disagree.”

In answer to your remarks about free time and Kennedy Western University Graduates.

I certainly have the free time to monitor this site, answer posts like yours, and study at a lowly regarded school like Kennedy Western University. Yes I do have the free time, not because I can not find a “high class job” because of a Kennedy Western credential or because I am ignorant with only enough education to obtain one of those “lowly tech jobs” that requires little higher education to achieve. I’m probably many years your elder, and I believe I have as much or more knowledge than you would like to admit without having ever stepped on Yale terra firma or crossed the Atlantic to England and been to Oxford like those with high egotistical views. Hopefully, you are not insinuating that anyone below your exalted status, like I and others working, or have worked, in those "lowly" positions are morons, idiots, or the like. Yes, I have the free time because I have been there and done that. I’ve been out of the work force for fourteen years after working in those “lowly jobs“ for more than forty years. Additionally, I took the Kennedy Western degree course as a hobby-- something to do.

On the other hand, I certainly agree with this statement: “All I can say is if Kennedy Western or Warren National will just get accrediated then this all would be a mute point. For those of you who are alumni put the pressure on your university to do this. You will never win this discussion here because someone is always going to disagree.” Taylor W. 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) _

Sorry, but it won't be a "mute" point at all. KWU degrees will always be unaccredited substandard degrees to everyone but those with a vested interest(KWU and alumni). Warren National getting accreditation does not magically turn a KWU degree into something better.

--Captinron 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what is your vested interest? Can you back up your statement? Piercetp 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you may want to read some of the US Senate testimony regarding the GAO investigation into KWU.
 * http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&HearingID=176&WitnessID=632
 * It paints a very sobering picture of KWU. Please keep in mind that a school lacking academic rigor can sometimes require more of some students than others and other times students may do more than is required. But the testimony made it clear that for the investigator the two classes passed were a total joke. She didn't have to really learn any of the material. The testimony from the ex-employee of KWU indicated that the published weak admittance policies of KWU were even a bigger joke in practice from the academic point of view and that KWU would let anyone in to any program as long as they paid the money. For example, I have personally heard a story of a person with zero academic experience being offered admittance into a KWU PhD program. Bill Huffman 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read this before and reread it. I look at it this way. The Federal Government was setting its own standards for hiring as any employer would. But it must be noted that no represetative from the University was present at the hearing. No student or graduate was present to give an opposing view. For this reason I do not see this hearing as being fair to the University or its students. As for persons with zero academic experience being admitted into the PhD program, I just do not believe it. Even in all the hostile publicity that I saw presented I have not heard evidence of this. Piercetp 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________

Unregistered User 74.234.108.92 from Atlanta. Next time, please put your text separate from existing text and sign it with four tildes. Even though you aren't signed in it still let's readers know what delimits your note. Also placing colons at the front of your paragraphs threads the conversation so that others can more easily know who you are responding too. Thank you, Bill Huffman 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not from Atlanta. This goes to prove my point about Kennedy Western education. Some of you claim that you have all these great degrees and knowledge, but you can't read a simple IP address. Yes the carrier is Atlanta because BST (Bell South Telecommunication) is headquartered in Atlanta, but if you would have taken the time to tracert the ip you will notice different. This is basic electrical engineering and computer networking material guys (freshman level at that), how come you claim to be experts in these fields thanks to your great Kennedy Western education but don't know this. Hmmmm. Kennedy Western dollars hard at work.


 * I attended UC Berkeley not KWU. I consider KWU a substandard school that can be considered a diploma mill and have said so multiple times. I consider your notes uncivil. You neglected once again to sign your note. You also neglected to place a colon at the beginning of your paragraph. Most importantly your tone of disrespect is why I consider your notes uncivil. You don't like to be referred to as the anon from Atlanta, perhaps you could choose your own handle since you don't like the nickname others have chosen for you? Regards, Bill Huffman 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unregistered User 74.234.108.92, I must apologize for indicating you were from Atlanta. It seems you have many other names, but all these are from the same area of the country. Over the months, the debate has gone on with post after post. You have taken the stance that all Kennedy Western graduates are incompetent, uneducated, and not capable of walking on two feet. I can agree that Kennedy Western’s curricula may be below standard, that they may have bad recruitment practices, but the majority of students enrolled do have other credentials. Some of these credentials you have so freely deem low grade, not of higher learning, and insufficient to compete with the elite like yourself.
 * Your accusations and remarks about Kennedy Western students has not been very civil, as in your latest post: “Some of you claim that you have all these great degrees and knowledge, but you can't read a simple IP address. Yes the carrier is Atlanta because BST (Bell South Telecommunication) is headquartered in Atlanta, but if you would have taken the time to tracert the ip you will notice different. This is basic electrical engineering and computer networking material guys (freshman level at that), how come you claim to be experts in these fields thanks to your great Kennedy Western education but don't know this. Hmmmm. Kennedy Western dollars hard at work.”
 * Below are the results of a freshman level ,basic electrical engineering and computer networking search, resulting from the Kennedy Western dollars at work.


 * adsl-234-108-92.lft.bellsouth.net (74.234.108.92) is located in Marina Del Rey California, United States


 * adsl-234-93-248.lft.bellsouth.net (74.234.93.248) is located in Marina Del Rey, California, United States.


 * adsl-234-93-144.lft.bellsouth.net (74.234.93.144) is located in Marina Del Rey, California, United States.


 * adsl-234-100-251.lft.bellsouth.net (74.234.100.251) is located in Marina Del Rey, California, United States.


 * When I said you were from Atlanta, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I guess in your many guises you are not from Atlanta but from here!


 * Taylor W. 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you proposing that the way we refer to anon from Atlanta be changed to anon from Marina Del Rey? I like anon from Atlanta since it is shorter but, I'll be happy to go with any other suggestion. :-) Bill Huffman 21:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All that said and done I repeat Mr. Huffman's exact words "agree that Kennedy Western’s curricula may be below standard, that they may have bad recruitment practices"


 * Mr. Anonymous, Sir:


 * It is evident that you misread or can not decipher the contents of this post. Sir, if you want to quote this passage, "I agree that Kennedy Western’s curricula may be below standard, that they may have bad recruitment practices..." Please use it in its entirety.
 * You excluded the important reference: that the majority of Kennedy Western students and alumni have other credentials. If you wish, Sir, you can check my credentials which  are listed on my user page. Although, Sir, you probably will think those credentials far below your exalted educational achievements.
 * Sir, in the future if you wish to quote my exact words please give credit where credit is due. I am not Mr. Huffman but Mr. Taylor. I wrote those words. Meaning no offense to Mr. Huffman, I do take offense that seemingly you have respect for a UC graduate and not others of whom you deem  lower in status.Taylor W. 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Anonymous, Sir, please sign your name by putting four tildes at the end, i.e., ~ . I would suggest using a handle but sign with the four tildes in any case to delimit your note. If you're concerned about privacy it is actually more private to use a handle because then the history will not save your IP address for all to see. Please use colons at the beginning of the paragraph to indicate who you are responding to. Thank you, Bill Huffman 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I certainly agree with this statement: “All I can say is if Kennedy Western or Warren National will just get accrediated then this all would be a mute point. For those of you who are alumni put the pressure on your university to do this. You will never win this discussion here because someone is always going to disagree.” Taylor W. 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) _

Sorry, but it won't be a "mute" point at all. KWU degrees will always be unaccredited substandard degrees to everyone but those with a vested interest(KWU and alumni). Warren National getting accreditation (if they do) does not magically turn a KWU degree into something better.

--Captinron 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Captinron, I guess that what I was agreeing to in the quoted post was that one could never win in a discussion over the pros or cons of Kennedy Western University degrees and the school in general, not the issue of Kennedy Western degrees becoming a mute point if Warren National University becomes accredited.
 * Now, I never thought I would ever write these words! Since I enrolled at KWU, I have been a strong defender of the school and I thought the school was creditable, but now their act of seeking accreditation under a new name, and changing the curricula in order to bolster their position so as to shed the excess negative baggage at the expense of previous graduates is  not acceptable to me.  Yes, I understand that if WNU becomes accredited all future graduates will benefit from that accreditation, but the past graduates will be removed from the protective dome of that accreditation.  A KWU degree will still be a KWU degree and carry the same negatives with it.
 * As it has so often has been said, the fools rush in. I knew the school did not have accreditation, but was licensed. I had never searched for any negatives about the school. I took their presentation at face value. With that being said, I still take high offense when anyone belittles my knowledge: the education I have acquired through my studies at KWU, other institutions, and throughout my life. This is also unacceptable to me. I defend my education regardless of the source from which it was obtained. Regards, Taylor W. 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My reading of the announcement of the name change is that WNU states that they are not cutting the alumni loose. IIRC, they explicitly state that if you ask for a new diploma it will have WNU on it not KWU. They must change the curricula. They have to at least pretend to be standard. I say pretend because I've heard of many examples in the past where KWU violated their own published substandard policies in order to collect the money. At first glance the new curricula appears standard to me. The part of the story that I can't really swallow is that they actually expect to achieve RA candidacy. You have to operate for a period of time under academic standard levels before you can get accredited. Now before I get jumped on with examples of people that feel that they put in a standard level of effort for their KWU degree, I would just like to state that based on the evidence, if you did a standard level of effort for your KWU degree then you apparently didn't negotiate very well before sending KWU your money. Anyway, here's my personal GUESS as to what is really happening. WNU doesn't expect to get RA and will really try for DETC. By the time they try for RA and get rejected, hopefully they will have enough time with the standard curricula to be able to exhibit an acceptable history of operation to DETC. So they may be really just buying time with Wyoming and DETC by applying for RA and they're really hoping for DETC accreditation. They need time before applying for DETC accreditation because they have to exhibit academic standard operating practices over a period of time so that DETC will be willing to even consider them. Bill Huffman 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is directed to our anonymous friend

Regarding your statement

''I wonder how all these Kennedy Western graduares have all this free time on their hands when supposely they have these great paying jobs because they graduated from Kennedy Western. Perhaps they are those who have a lot of times on their hands because they cannot find top class high paying jobs because their credentials are in question. I note that in the above engineering discussion, not one of the Kennedy Western graduates are actually practicing engineers. Most have tech jobs that require no or little higher education to achieve. I'd love to know what they average starting out salary for a Kennedy Western grad is compared to the rest of the nation. Please not that this is a requirement for accredidation but every time they apply for this they somehow neglect to supply this info. Hmmmmm.''

I do not wish to be uncivil (and I do hope I am not), but this statement contains several mistruths. You imply first "Not one of the Kennedy Western graduates are practicing engineers." I would ask you how do you know this? Did you poll graduates and ask them what kind of work they are in? In various states, and maybe some countries, you may graduate from an unaccredited college or university and sit for the PE Exam. I have heard of similar requirements for other professions, such as accounting. Mainly the requirements for practicing a profession are determined by state accreditation organizations. In my own state of Illinois it is possible to graduate from an unaccredited institution of higher learning and take the FE and PE exam.

I would kindly ask that you show more care for the facts. Please do not consider my comments unkind. I merely want you to refrain from painting the facts with such a broad brush. Piercetp 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement from an unregistered editor
''The are only a few reasons why Kennedy Western University does not qualify for accreditation and none of them involve basic academics. One is that there is no "live" classroom setting. Interaction may be good, but as an adult, who wants to set in a classroom with 18-year old Freshman?''

''Another is that students are given the opportunity to work at their own pace - there is not a "set" amount of time to finish a class. However, you are given a time frame in which you must complete all course work. Parents with children need to be able to work at their own pace and turn assignments in when it's convenient for them. Although the students don't work in a group, they have easy access to the professors.''

''I am currently in an MBA program with a regionally accredited college. My undergraduate degree is from Kennedy-Western University. The tests were difficult and there was much more self-discipline required than in a traditional setting (I also have two degrees from a local university where I actually attended class!). The program at KWU was much harder than expected, given the ability to work at my own pace.''

It's important to note that the students at KWU are not spoon-fed lectures by their professors, don't have a chance to play favorites or become teacher's pet, and the students are not given partial credit on tests, nor are the grades curved - you either know the material or you don't. I honestly feel as if I worked harder at KWU than I am working now.

An anonymous editor entered the above statement into the body of the article. As it was inapropriate for being added to the article, Bill Huffman rightfully deleted them. I decided to ad it here into the discussion section where it would be welcome. While all comments, both pro and con are welcome in the discussion page, I think we can all agree to please keep discussions, personal anticdotes and related material here in the talk page. Piercetp 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pierce, I rv'ed your change from using the word "impied" back to "shown". I think the GAO investigation results showed that at least the two classes and the granting of life experience by KWU was academicly substandard for that specific student. If you feel that the finding by the GAO is too strong and violates WP:NPOV then perhaps we can come up with some kind of compromise? What I changed from it being shown to be a diploma mill was definitely not WP:NPOV as least from my POV (even though it agreed with my POV :-) ) so I didn't want to discuss it first before the change. Bill Huffman 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding specifically to the text I removed from the article (not to Pierce), my view is that it is nothing more than KWU marketing misdirection that was repeated here. KWU marketing seems to say that type of stuff to try and justify not being accredited. My edit comment was that it needed some kind of verifiable reliable source for it to be made part of the article. Since there are fully accredited universities that don't require physical attendance and allow the students to work at their own pace. It would seem to me to invalidate that part of the statement. The student testimonial part of the information doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia article (but does here in the talk page as Pierce mentioned). Bill Huffman 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, I agree with you that the text does not belong in the main article, but it definitely does not lead back to KW. The IP used by the poster traced to the Midwest, not Ca. or Wy. That text did express a KW graduate's views.Taylor W. 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tayor.

I apologize for posting the text in the wrong section. When I read the negative comments about KWU, I was so upset that I didn't pay attention as to where I was on the website.

Now that I'm calm, the point I was trying to make was as follows:

I have two Associate Degrees from an accredited College. I have a Bachelor's Degree from Kennedy-Western University. Prior to KWU, I completed coursework in Economics at an accredited university and also took classes at The University of Phoenix. When I enrolled at KWU, I was not concerned about its accreditation status. The one aspect that "sold" me to enroll was being able to work when it was convenient for me. I wanted to be able to do the work on "my" time, not my family's time. Besides, at the time, a Bachelor's was all I wanted - I had no plans to get a Master's Degree. One year after I graduated from KWU (It took me two years to complete my degree, taking 9 classes and writing a 100-page research paper that took 6 months), I had a sudden thirst for more. Admittingly, I was concerned that my Bachelor's Degree would not be accepted by other Universities. I conducted research and compiled a list of several Universities to which I wanted to apply. This time, my main goal was to pick a college that did not require a written thesis. The research paper I had to write at KWU was so extensive and took months to research, organize, and prepare. I hated every minute of it, although the experience was good for me.

Surprisingly (even to me), I was accepted at four of the ten colleges to which I had applied. Of the four, I chose the one I thought to be best and am now halfway through the MBA program at a regionally accredited college.

I can honestly say that I worked harder at KWU than in any of my other undergraduate studies and in my current MBA studies. I am not saying that all of my other college studies were easy (by no means ); I'm just saying that KWU does not hand out diplomas and, in my opinion, could never be classified as a papermill. Pierotti 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A point of contention
Just as an aside to Mr. Huffman if I may...

You base your finding that KWU is substandard based on the testimony of a witness at a hearing where no graduate, student or representative was allowed to give counter argument and no one cross examined the witness.

But I would volunteer a personal observation.

I myself did not, as the witness did, perform 40% of the coursework in 16 hours. The shortest time I spent on any single course was a microcomputer hardware course (a subject I was intimately familiar with) and this took me about 4 weeks. Now 4 weeks may not sound long but I did take that one course and only that one course at that time so I was able to concentrate my efforts.

Now maybe, just maybe this witness had the intellegence or the background to pass the exams. I believe it possible. Lots of things are possible. But it may be that she found a certain way to cheat the exams. I do not know. I would like to learn more about this myself.

I do know that when I attended Illinois State University, where I earned a Bachelor of Science, I knew some people who were experts in the art of cheating.

What they did was enroll in very large classes. They passed on exams that other students took the previous year and during examinations used the passed-along-tests as their guides. I even knew a person who graduated with a degree in sociology without even attending classes. All he did was go to the exams and turn in plagerized term papers.

I myself did not cheat the system. In fact I never cheated in my entire life. It was not really out of fear of being caught, but rather I wanted my educational experience to be a real one.

Now Illinois State is a fine school and has a solid academic reputation. I will never dispute this. But its still true that some students graduated by doing very little work.

I even think that at a world class institution like Cal Berkley there may be some students who graduated by cheating. Its probibly more common than people are aware.

I do not wish to change the article at this time... I can tolerate it as it is. But I do want you to understand my concerns here.

Peace Piercetp 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice note, Pierce. For me it is more than the GAO investigation. I have had this hobby of looking into academic fraud for a few years now. I find it interesting and frequently amusing. Of course I find almost everything amusing so I guess that doesn't mean too much. :-) Anyway, a few years back I looked into KWU. I found that they didn't publish their graduation requirements for their various degrees. I found that they frequently seemed to award life experience credits without requiring academically rigorous proof. It seemed that they frequently violated their own substandard policies if it meant enrolling another student. I freely admit that I never enrolled in a KWU course (I'm from California so it's not possible anyway) but the posts by KWU students seemed to indicate that there could be a wide disparity between the difficulty of the KWU classes. I would also suggest that your own personal approach to your classes at KWU was one of "I would like to learn as much as possible." Whereas the investigator's approach was one of "I want to pass this class and learn as little as possible." Perhaps these factors could be at least a partial explanation of the different experience that you and the investigator had at KWU? BTW, in her testimony she said that she knew nothing about Environmental Engineering before enrolling and they still gave her a large amount of life experience credit.


 * I note that at least some of the concerns that I listed have been addressed on the new WNU website. That would seem to indicate to me that the KWU adminstration recognized the academic substandard previous practice and addressed it in preparation for their accreditation application. Regarding the argument that accredited schools can sometimes have problems, this is true but they are accredited. If they have too many problems like you mention then they go on probation and lose accreditation if they don't clean up. KWU had no outside quality assurance pressure. There's little doubt in my mind that they used this fact to their advantage to maximize profits.


 * I wish you and your family a most wonderful holiday season! Bill Huffman 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Where To Next ????
So Gentlemen, now that the 1st January 2007 has come and gone, and Kennedy Western University in theory does not exist, do the alumni apply for their new Warren National University degrees and transcripts? Is this perhaps the vehicle we should be using to gain some recognition for the work we have completed at KWU and at the same time putting the “stigma” of KWU behind us, if that’s possible?

I believe we are all aware that accreditation will not be happening in the near future and although I am not really clued up on the different forms of accreditation in the U.S.A, I tend to agree that there a good chance of WNU obtaining a watered down recognition of sorts.

In one of the previous comments /inputs it was suggested that KWU has had to seek accreditation because times have changed. What was acceptable 5 years ago, namely an unaccredited degree just does not make the grade today! It makes for some good discussion, if nothing else.

Richard (South Africa) 4th January 2007 12.09pm


 * Until WNU receives accreditation or at least candidate status for regional accreditation, a WNU degree won't mean much more than a KWU degree, IMHO. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to KWU the only thing that changed about the University is the name. Alumni will now have all transcripts and records under the new name of the institution. Piercetp 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is it illegal?
A question asked in the edit note of a recent anonymous editor to the article was, "Where is it illegal to use a KWU degree?"

It is illegal under various conditions in a number of jurisdictions within the USA and internationally. The ODA has a website that I believe answers your question.

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx

As another example, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf

Regards, Bill Huffman 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the 7 seven states where it is outright illegal (10 total with various restrictions) to use an unaccredited Kennedy Western / Warren National "degree".

It is also illegal in North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Washington and Maine to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana to use an unaccredited doctorate and Michigan law limits the legal options of users. Illinois limits the use of unaccredited degrees to those licensed by other states.

See those states’ laws

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccred......

for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud."

Me - 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Academics section of article
I was looking at WNU's website today. It appears to me that WNU has dropped some of the more questionable programs that they previously offerred as KWU. Probably to increase the chance of getting accredited. They apparently no longer offer any engineering degrees, for example. The Academics section says 20 different areas but it looks closer to half that now. I'm thinking of fixing it but wanted to solicit opinions whether or not I should mention the greater selection of degees under KWU? My concern is if someone looks at the article to try and check up on someone's claimed degree in engineering for example they might conclude it is bogus if engineering isn't listed there someplace. Thanks, Bill Huffman 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, the best thing to say would be to state that the University had previously offered degrees in Engineering (and any other diciplines no longer offered) but these programs have been phased out. Piercetp 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Bill, I fixed that. Piercetp 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to 64.203.165.125 (aka Bnmoore143, Bnmoore)
I sincerely welcome you Wikipedia. I hope that you decide to stay and help edit this wonderful project called Wikipedia. I encourage you to get a login name. This will provide a history of your edits and will allow others to more easily communicate with you. I have reverted your changes again for the same reason that I reverted them earlier. My view is that your edits were a violation of WP:NPOV. I also want to thank you for your wise decision to remove your comments on this talk page, some might have considered them a violation of WP:AGF. Please feel free to discuss your proposed changes on this talk page. Regards, Bill Huffman 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The KW "Sheepskin" hanging on my university office wall looks just fine. And if you have a degree from KWU (now WNU), hang yours with pride on your wall too.


 * Sir, please sign entries on the talk page by adding four tildes at the end of your post ( ~ ). It is against federal policy to accept unaccredited degrees. KWU degree use is also restricted in approximately 7 states. I know of people that have gotten jobs with totally bogus degrees. In no way does that legitimize diploma mills or outright fraud any more than your one example of success proves the validity of a KWU degree. I also have heard of examples where far more legitimate degrees than KWU have blown up like a timebomb on people. The facts regarding KWU is that their degrees were substandard. As part of their apparent attempt to become accredited they have dropped many of their more questionable programs and have apparently tried to make their remaining programs closer to standard, at least it appears that way on paper. I say it appears that way because KWU apparently frequently didn't even follow their own substandard policies when going after potential students. Please reference an additional note I wrote to you at the end of this page. (Please accept my apologies for mistakenly reading the history page and incorrectly concluding that your above post had been deleted.) Regards, Bill Huffman 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bnmoore143, as another counter to your apparent argument that you worked really hard for your KWU degree and it was at the same level as a standard accredited degree, I have heard of a person that were offerred admittance into the Computer Science PhD program at KWU and they had zero academic experience except for a degree from an institution listed in the diploma mill chapter of Bears' Guide. The point being that since KWU has never been accredited there is no way that anyone can reasonably evaluate someone's KWU degree without actually looking at all the work they did to earn the degree. Another example of KWU being substandard is the lady that testified in the senate committee investigation that she passed two graduate classes in environmental engineering with only 16 hours of effort. Which was 40% of her required course work for a masters. Plus she was told her non-existant life experience in environmental engineering would reduce her coursework requirement for graduation to only five classes, IIRC. Regards, Bill Huffman 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "timebomb" analogy is really not correct. I think a lot of it has to do with where you work and what job you do. I actually got a promotion in my company and during the interview brought up the fact that my Engineering degree was not from an accredited university but the answer I was given was that they knew how hard I worked. In fact they did indeed know how much time and effort I put into my school work. Anyway its all about what you know and not where you learned it. I am a Computer Networking specialist and quite honestly nobody cares if you graduated from MIT. If you cannot keep the system running than who cares where you graduated.


 * I think that this may be a problem for those employed in government or in academia. But rarely is this a problem in the private sector.


 * As for this John Bear character, I would hardly consider him an unbiased source. I did see somewhere that had founded an unaccredited university. And Andrew Coulombe, who once recruited students to the University and then turned around and trashed the reputations of the very students he recruited, all I can say is this is an extreme case of hubris.


 * I found it actually very funny to hear Coulombe state that "I can tell you that there is no value to a Kennedy-Western education. Anything you learn there can be learned by buying a book and reading it on your own." Couldn't this really be said about any university.


 * One more thing, as the article states, at the Congressional committee hearing, not one representative was present to defend the repution of the University or its students. I don't see how anyone can consider the University to be "substandard" when they could not answer such criticisms.


 * I believe that the root of this criticsm of Warren National is based on the fact that internet based distance education is something new. It is a revolutionary concept in fact. Some institutions have managed to gain accreditation, such as Unversity of Phoenix. But others are working to gain legitimatcy.


 * But to cut to the chase here, when you have an idea that is revolutionary, it will alway attract criticism from elitists. Traditional brick-and-mortor universities detest institutions such as National Warren because they seem them as a threat. If someone can take a prodcuct and make it more available at a lower cost than it creates resentment.


 * And if you look at history you will find that revolutionary ideas have always faced opposition. For example, junior colleges and adult education was opposed when it emerged as an alternative to four year residential schools. Work-study programs faced similar opposition. Why? Because this these programs did not conform to what traditional educators believed higher education should be.


 * Well we had this argument and it may go on and on.


 * Have a good summer and peace to all. Piercetp 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Piercetp, as always I enjoyed your reasoned and articulate statements. My view is that WNU/KWU has two faces. The face that you, Bnmoore143, and others here have portrayed as well as the face that was presented by the GAO investigation and others (like the Council on Higher Education that called KWU a diploma mill). This means to me that the quality of a WNU/KWU education cannot be counted on. Your own employer saw how hard you worked but the investigator passed two graduate courses in engineering with 16 hours of effort in a topic that she was unfamilar with. She was told that she only needed to take 5 courses for her master degree because of life experience. Yet, she had no experience in environmental engineering. That is substandard academics no matter how you look at it. The point being that as things stand today, the GAO investigation is the best WP:NPOV we have on WNU/KWU quality that can go in the article. The testimonials of alumni here on the talk page is not WP:V and can't be sourced in the article. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill. Again we have our GAO investigator. Well all I can say is I wish this investigator was here to be cross examined. I would really like to know just how to pass... what was it now... four classes in 16 hours. If there some way to take a short cut I would really like to know how. Maybe the University should be made aware of it. Now if I were on that committee I might ask such questions as "How did you learn of this way of passing so many courses in such short a time?" and "Did you learn this on your own or did a faculty member show you how." And finally, "Do you know any incidents of cheating going on at National Warren (or Kennedy-Western as it was then called).


 * I for one am looking forward to National Warren getting accredited so that discussions like this one will be renered mute.


 * Don't take it the wrong way friend, because I think you are a smart guy and I respect you, but this argument is getting old. We keep covering the same ground and it goes round and round. I guess I am giving my point of view and you are giving yours.


 * Increase the peace! Piercetp 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that that our views differ but perhaps this is a slightly new angle on my previously stated view. While I agree that WNU accreditation would nulify much of the argument, I would like to point out that WNU has changed policy to apparently become more standard and in no way would WNU achieving accreditation legitimize the past substandard polices that KWU practiced, at least IMHO. As a specific example, the credit for life experience as practiced by KWU was substandard and diploma mill like. This practice was also tied into the substandard practice of not listing the graduation requirements. This practice was used by KWU to deceive candidates into believing that they could earn a legitimate degree by taking only four to seven courses. Standard handling of credit for life experience is described by the two articles that begin with the title "Prove What You Know:" For an example of how it is done at typical diploma mills, reference the way it was done at KWU. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know of no "life experience" credit awarded at NWU or previously at KWU. If it existed than I was never told of it or it was once used but no longer exists. As completing a degree in 4 to 7 courses? I never heard of such a thing. I can tell you that I graduated with a four year degree from another institution before attending Kennedy-Western and I graduated after 10 classes (and rather difficult courses at that I would add), not to mention a long and difficult final project. I am not saying that such practices do or did not exist. Only that as a student I never saw this. I wish you well. Piercetp 03:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * KWU played the life experience game that is typical for diploma mills. Read the GAO investigation more carefully. She was told by KWU that her life experience was amazing and that is why she only needed to take 5 classes to get her master's degree in Environmental Engineering (even though she had no experience in that field). That is a very similar story as was reported by a number of KWU students on the distance learning forums as well as on the KWU forum when I was investigating there when the forum was open to the public. In my opinion this is more damning than the GAO investigator passing two graduate classes with 16 hours of work because that could be a strange coincidental flaw in the two tests that she passed. In my mind, the life experience scam has to go to the heart of KWU policy that had to be approved (more likely formulated) at the highest levels. The only difference between this and the run-of-the-mill mill :-) is that KWU requires at least some tests to be passed. Regarding your statement that you never heard of anyone getting a degree at KWU for only 4 to 7 courses, sorry, I can't believe that unless you haven't read the GAO investigation testimony given to the senate committee. Five classes is an example of 4 to 7, is it not? Show me a KWU catalog that has the graduation requirements listed for each specific degree. I've never seen or heard of such a thing because I don't think it existed. That means to me that KWU was a substandard school. Note that WNU now provides that information. I'm sure because they say that they want to become accredited. Is that not further evidence that KWU degrees were substandard? Regards, Bill Huffman 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks--I have been faculty at an ACC university with that job achieved on a KW PhD. The search committee did not question the degree since their demanding and detailed questions over three days more than confirmed I knew my subjects in business administration. A couple years ago I took a career jump and am now a vice president at another noted university with 28,000 students.

At this point, frankly, all this Kennedy-Western this or that harping by some on the validity of the degree, whether or not it is a diploma mill or a moon rock, or is "earned," appears nothing more than nonsense from some people who need to get a life. No, it is not a degree from Harvard or Princeton or Stanford, but if university search committees from Tier One programs accept the degree, government agencies with few exceptions accept the degree, communities accept the degree, than the degree is accepted for the long view of life.

The knowledge is the most important thing here I would think. If one can hit the bulls eye dead center, than is it the most important thing to know how one learned to shoot so well, or the fact that one is an expert marksman? This continued controversy by a few regarding Kennedy-Western (now Warren National) does not take into consideration the end result, but rather the process being more important. Not real world stuff here where you are judged on performance and accomplishment, but instead it appears to be both academic gobble-gook and/or jealous resident program students more concerned with the process than the results.

People, the results are what count--not the "how" you learned it so well, just the fact that you meet or exceed your employers expectations, whether by a Kennedy-Western degree or a Harvard degree. Bnmoore (sig added by Bill Huffman 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Sir, please sign entries on the talk page by adding four tildes at the end of your post ( ~ ). My response to your statement has been moved twice by me while I'm trying to follow the new places that you kept moving this statement. This is getting ridiculous. Please stop moving your comments around and please sign your entries. Thank you, Bill Huffman 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bnmoore, I reverted your changes again. Please discuss before attempting to reintroduce those changes again. Your changes made unsourced assertions and appear to me to be an attempt to introduce a biased view into the article. Thank you, Bill Huffman 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement Regarding Utility of KWU Degree
"Folks--I have been faculty at an ACC university with that job achieved on a KW PhD"

Not possible and not verifiable, but if it were true, this is a violation of the Regional Accrediting agency requirements for the ACC School. To be accredited, faculty must hold degrees from regionally accredited institutions. Even the no-name schools I've taught for have been very well aware of this requirement and have verified it aggressively.

Even the diploma mill haven of Wyoming laws require regionally accredited degrees and therefore a KWU degree would not permit you to teach at KWU, let alone an accredited school, let alone an ACC school.

Captinron 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have great difficulty accepting Bnmoore's assertions. I know his assertion that KWU degrees are accepted by the federal government is incorrect by Civil Service policy. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Below Message
Hi MojoTas, your "note below" paranthetical comment that you added seemed vague and didn't make sense to me. WNU is unaccredited. That sentence says that the law states that WNU must be trying to become accredited in order to continue to operate. Applying for accreditation is not the same thing as being accredited. Regards, Bill Huffman 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, that's not what the article says. The opening stanza (where I amended it) states that WNU is licensed under Wyoming law; the latter text states that WNU has only sought accreditation (not that it has received licencing) under the same Wyoming law. (As a side point, an article in the Seattle Times I have seen online states that the school is now accredited, but I'm not here to argue that.) Accordingly, the article is contradicting itself. I'd ask that the text not be reverted when I put it back. Cheers, MojoTas 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, MojoTas. The article does not contradict itself. License and accreditation are not related. If you put the same paranthetical comment in the article, I will need to revert it because it doesn't make sense. WNU is NOT accredited. If you want to delete reference to WNU being licensed then I would tend to agree with you because WNU uses that fact to try and cloud the fact that the school is unaccredited and that means the utility of the WNU degree is limited. However, this is an encyclopedia article and the WNU license is a fact and therefore can go into the article. Perhaps a compromise would be a sentence that I could quote from a reliable source stating that lincensure of a school is pretty much irrelevant to judging the utility or value of an academic degree from that school? P.S. Thank you for trying to improve the article. Bill Huffman 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MojoTas, I added a sentence or two to try and address what you perceived as a contradiction. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Bnmoore Edits
Hi Bnmoore, I welcome you back and thank you for your attempts at improving the WNU article. Please discuss your changes here before you try to make them again. There are what I believe, multiple problems with the changes that you keep making. For example, you make the following assertion.

"Oregon and California does not recognize the degrees. The other 48 states have no such rule."

This is not supported by any reference, plus it is false. The WNU degrees are not illegal in California but are legally restricted in Oregon and about a half dozen other states. WNU is not supposed to accept students in California or Oregon, which is a different issue. Neutral point of view and verifiability are extremely important and cannot be compromised.

Please discuss your intended edits here on the talk page before you make them again. Thanks, Bill Huffman 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Chronicle with a few paragraphs on KWU. I think it supports well the overall tone of the current Wikipedia article. Which IMHO is essentially that KWU is academically substandard. Bnmoore, note that unverifiable hard work by some individuals does not mean that KWU is up to academic standards. As opposed to verifiable lack of hard work by a GAO investigator is a definite indication of being academically substandard. The Chronicle article contains facts that seems to negate a number of Bnmoore's edits that, in my personal opinion, seem to be an attempt on his part at pushing his personal POV into the article just because he received a diploma from there. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bnmoore, I count about six times that you've tried to make similar changes under two different accounts (User_talk:Bnmoore and User_talk:Bnmoore143) and without being signed into an account (User_talk:64.203.165.125). I appreciate your attempts to improve Wikipedia but I'm also dismayed that you continue to try to make these similar edits without discussing them first, even after your edits have all been reverted and you've been asked to discuss your edits first. Your pattern of editting may be considered a Wikipedia single purpose account. This is sometimes considered a red flag indicating someone that might have an axe to grind or is pushing their own personal point of view into an article without considering the WP:NPOV policy. Please discuss your proposed edits here before attempting to reintroduce your changes into this article. Your changes violate Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV and WP:V. I also suggest that you try editting some other articles, become a real contributor to the Wikipedia project, and thereby learn Wikipedia policy and the value of those policies and guidelines. Thank you, Bill Huffman 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)