Talk:Warren National University/Archive 6

The paragraph on Plagiarism
The section on plagiarism adds nothing at all of importance to the article and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.148.133 (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Degree Restrictions
I am certain that someone else will undo my deletion of the states where "unaccredited degrees are restricted" and so on.

But if you do so, than please be a little specific here. Just what are these laws pertaining to? I did notice, for instance that Illinois is on that list and in Illinois there is no laws forbidding employment applicats from stating their educational experience at WNU. And if laws did exist for such than it would be difficult to enforce them. Furthermore the US Constitution First Ammendment gurantees free speech and freedom of the press so I doubt it would pass a court challange.

Anyone who does undo this, please do not do so until you specifically state what is meant to "use" a degree and what the laws are. Furthermore please use better referrences because that US Department of Education link did not mention what was posted here. Piercetp (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That content is fully sourced and has been discussed here ad nauseam. I reverted your removal of it. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pierce, The Illinois reference is the ODA website. The ODA website says that unaccredited degree use in Illinois is illegal or restircted in that state. The reference supports all that is stated in the article. You ask an interesting question but that question does not have to be answered to be able to keep the supported information that you deleted from the article . If you want the answer to your specific question then YOU will need to research it. You cannot delete that information because you want someone else to do your research. That is unless you've already found a reliable source that actually contradicts the ODA website. If that is the case then what is the source? If that is the case then perhaps we should delete Illinois from the list but what is the rational for deleting the whole list? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that I need to research a claim by someone else which is unsubstantiated. The fact is that in the state of Illinois Department of Professional Registration does in fact allow individuals with unaccredited degrees to take the examinations. I know this is true for the Professional Engineer exam, for instance. See http://www.idfpr.com/.


 * Now I could take the time to research others but this would be not be productive for the article, Piercetp 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an assertion above that the claim in the article regarding Illinois is unsubstantiated. Please reference the piece of the ODA site that, to me, substantiates that claim, http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/images/Degree_use_law_map_50.JPG, note that Illinois is red. The words say, "States where the use of unaccredited or degree mill degrees is restricted are shown in red." Based on that please clarify what you mean by "unsubstantiated" claim in the article. I looked at your link, http://www.idfpr.com/, and skimmed through the whole webpage and found no mention of accreditation at all. So please also clarify the statement that this reference disputes the ODA statement that Illinios is a state where the use of unaccredited or degree mill degrees is restricted. TallMagic 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.idfpr.com/DPR/APPLY/forms/pe-ex.pdf See page 5. This states that educational requirements for the Professional Engineer's exam can be either an ABET approved program or a non apporved program. Piercetp 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be a difference between non-ABET and unaccredited. The reference above says nothing about unaccredited. I couldn't find any information there that mentions accreditation? Also I don't see how this disputes the accuracy of the information on the ODA site even if we assume that unaccredited degrees can be used for engineering licenses? For example, what if the restriction was that one couldn't use the title doctor or PhD for unaccredited degrees? That would still be a restriction but have nothing to do with the information that was pointed to? TallMagic 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-ABET is not even vaguely the same thing as unaccredited. That Illinois PDF is about the procedure for someone with a degree in a field other than engineering (for example, chemistry) to apply to become a registered engineer. --Orlady 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And even if a WNU engineering degree could be used it would still require more experience than an ABET degree before a license could be applied for, which seems like some sort of restriction in any case. So it seems to fail completely as a reference to dispute the assertion that there's a restriction on unaccredited degree use in Illinois? TallMagic 06:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not consider that a restriction as much as an additional requirement. That is the difference. Personally I think that the link provided by the state of Oregon is biased. At any rate I will be researching this topic further and will let you know about the results.Piercetp 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, you are wasting your time by grasping at straws, Piercetp. What you are reading about is the procedure that allows a person with a bachelor's degree in a field that is not engineering to qualify to get permission to take the exam to become an registered engineer. (For example, this would apply to a person with a bachelor's degree in engineering and a graduate degree in chemical engineering.) This has nothing to do with accreditation or with WNU. --Orlady 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. Currently I am checking with the state of Illinois and other state professional regulation authorities. i do know that the Illinois have very strict regulations when it comes to Engineering qualifications. For instance, I have a degree in Industrial Technology from Illinois State which would not qualify me to take the exam. Well I will let everyone know what I find. Hopefully I will be able to document my sources. And if restrictions do exist I will be able to specify them. Cheers. Piercetp (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that in this case an additional requirement is a form of restriction. For example, in Oregon there's an additional requirement that the user must specify that the degree is unaccredited whenever using a WNU degree. I'm looking forward to seeing your results. Regards, TallMagic 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Personally I dislike taking things at face value. Often people in authority have hidden agendas which they try to promote. And I do not necessarily mean the State of Oregon either. I am a skeptic by nature. So I like to get specific sources. I guess you are the same way. Piercetp (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An anon account added the following to the Degree Legal Restriction section. "As an example, the use of a false or misleading degree in Nevada is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both (NRS 394.700)" This sentence seems rather general and I suspect that many WNU graduates would feel that the sentence shouldn't apply to a WNU degree. Therefore, I would like to better understand the exact part of the statute possibly violated by WNU graduates using their degree in Nevada. It appears to me (I'm not a lawyer) that the following seems most likely, "4.(c)(1) Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon actual completion of academic work;" This seems to me like it might be a good phrase to eliminate the use of substandard degrees? The granting of life experience by WNU has always been the part of their program that I felt most closely mimicked the typical diploma mill policy. Anyway, if people agree with my assessment that this would most likely be the part of the Nevada law that a WNU graduate might violate, I propose changing the sentence to "As an example, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both (NRS 394.700)" TallMagic 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) -- TallMagic 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tallmagic, I disagree with your interpretation of the Nevada educational code NRS 394.700, section 4. (c) number 1. “Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon actual completion of academic work;---.“ To me this refers to a “Life Experience Degree” since it is not based upon academic work. Although some may think that KWU is such, the student/alumnus are required to do academic work and earn credits, not just life experience. Oh, I’m sure you will disagree with my opinion, but that statute is like the Bible, it can be interpreted to mean different things to different people who read it. If you want to have dialog about the code, include the last part also. Just cutting it into peices to prove your point is not acceptable to me. Leave it like the other states and let the readers interpret it for themselves. Taylor W. (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Taylor, thank you so much for making your opinion known. Here's the full relevant text from the statute.


 * 4. For the purposes of this section, a degree or honorary degree is false or misleading or is used in a false or misleading manner if it:
 * (c) Is awarded, bestowed, conferred, given, granted, conveyed or sold:
 * (1) Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon actual completion of academic work;
 * (1) Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon actual completion of academic work;


 * I'm not sure that I really understand your point. There's no question in my mind that WNU requires coursework. Typically 5 classes but seems to commonly range from 4 to 7 classes per degree. The GAO testimony also makes it clear that some classes are required. That 43% of the Lt. Cmdr's degree would have been based on unverified life experience that would not be based upon actual completion of academic work. So I think that is clear in the article that some classes are required. The 43% is greater than 10%. So, it also seems that based on this, WNU degrees, at least sometimes, may violate Nevada law. The statute says to me that if a degree is based on more than 10 percent life experience then it is false or misleading. What is an alternative interpretation? What is the "last part" that you refer to? TallMagic (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Taylor after rereading your response a few more times I still don't understand how your interpretation makes sense but I think PERHAPS I may understand what the misunderstanding could be based on. Let me try to add a small clarification to 4(c)(1)


 * Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and at least 90% not based upon actual completion of academic work;


 * Does that help any? TallMagic (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise if I'm belaboring the obvious, let me try again. 4(c)(1) mentions two parts for a degree the "based upon" life experience part and the "not based upon" life experience part. The based upon life experience can be no larger than 10%. So using simple math the not based upon life experience must be no less than 90% and must be based upon actual completion of academic work. It can't be based on saying please, for example. It can't be based on work experience, for example. It must be based upon actual completion of academic work or the degree is false or misleading. TallMagic (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I feel that I'm really belaboring the point now but thought of a third way to explain the same basic interpretation. "not based upon actual completion of academic work" could be looked at as a different definition of what they might mean by life experience credit.


 * I really don't understand your interpretation, though. Why would there be mentioned an explicit 10% amount, if they just meant life experience degrees? Why would they allow 99% life experience degrees to be valid since your argument is apparently that since 1% of the degree was based upon actual completion of academic work it must be considered valid? This is actually quite common for diploma mills to require some miniscule amount of work for a degree. For example Hamilton University in Wyoming required one super easy online class to be taken and Columbia State University, that was featured on 60 Minutes at one time, required a one paragraph essay. What does the 10% mean if not the maximum amount of life experience credit allowed for a valid degree? I apologize if I've misrepresented your interpretation. I admit that I don't think I really understand it. I'm just trying to make it clearer to you why I don't understand it. Perhaps you could expand your explanation, like what does this all mean,


 * "For the purposes of this section, a degree or honorary degree is false or misleading or is used in a false or misleading manner if it: Is awarded, bestowed, conferred, given, granted, conveyed or sold: Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon actual completion of academic work;"


 * You only seemed to descripe what you thought this meant,


 * "For the purposes of this section, a degree or honorary degree is false or misleading or is used in a false or misleading manner if it: Is awarded, bestowed, conferred, given, granted, conveyed or sold: Based upon more than 10 percent of the recipient’s documented life experience and not based upon ANY actual completion of ANY academic work;"


 * Which seems like an incomplete and unreasonable interpretation to me. TallMagic (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the Nevada statutes. TallMagic states quotes statements from the infamous GAO investigator. This is a reference to how the University operated in the past. In WNU's official website and all documentation provided by the institution, no credit whatesoever is offered through life experience. (I would also consider the investigator's statements to be suspect.)

Finally, I belive the final statement in the paragraph about "committing fraud" is misleading and should be deleted. While many US states and international jusridictions may be considering restrictions, it would be misleading to suggest that Warren National is fraudulatnt for that reason. 99.141.71.51 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! welcome to Wikipedia! If at all interested, please visit WP:welcome for some helpful tips in making contributions to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy making contributions to the project. Thank you for signing your comments above and for explaining on this talk page the rational for your edits in the article.
 * The Nevada statute is very relevant to the article because credit for life experience has been part of the KWU/WNU core business model for many years. I'm very pleased to hear your assertion about WNU discontinuing that millish practice. However, it was only a couple months back that I saw a WNU web page that seemed to indicate that the life experience practice was still alive and well. This has been the practice for over twenty years. There have been many WNU/KWU graduates that still fall into that category. So the information is still very relevant, IMHO. For example, if you were a KWU graduate living in or thinking of moving to Nevada, I would think that information would be very valuable! I will restore the deleted text. If you have a reliable source that states that WNU no longer practices the life experience ploy then please add that information to the article. Or, if you'd rather, post the reliable source here and I'll be happy to add that information to the article. The comment about committing fraud is simply an explanation from a reliable source as to why other states are considering similar legislation. I think that information is informative and relevant. Thank you again for you contribution to Wikipedia. TallMagic (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That statement is incorrect. I am aware of what WNU states on their website, which I would submit as a reliable source. I did not see any indication that any credit is granted for life experience. WNU does not offer any credit and if you can find any current proof that this is still practiced than be sure to cite a source. Piercetp (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What statement is incorrect? If you're referring to the KWU/WNU common practice of granting credit for unverified work experience then please look at the bottom of this page where two reliable sources are given that support that. If there is something else that you think is incorrect, please be more specific. TallMagic (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Faculty is speculative at best
Personally, I think the Faculty numbers in the article, directly from Kennedy-Western / Warren National are very high and dubious at best.

It says "135-150 Faculty members in 2007" But in 2004, during the Senate Investigatino of diploma mills, Kennedy-Western University represented in writing that they had approximately 120 TOTAL employees and ONE Faculty member.

The number is too high, IMHO, especially given the unknown (if any) role these "faculty" members perform.

Captinron (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Chronicle article, http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i31/31a03501.htm, said at least 22 professors moonlight for KWU. My understanding is that almost the whole "teaching" staff at WNU moonlights a few hours a month for WNU. When faculty members only put in a few hours a month, it is very easy to think that 120 might be a good number. Note that WNU classes are not taught by faculty. They are simply online tests taken after purely self directed study. A WNU faculty must get involved with a student only when reviewing their one final paper. TallMagic (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really correct. The faculty (I will not put that word in quotes) does assign work and study assignments. There are notes and study guides written by the faculty and it is posted online. Furthermore instructors can be reached by students having questions. Piercetp 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really correct. I did not put faculty in quotes either. You seem to claim that professors give specific students assignments that will be completed and graded. This does not agree with my understanding? I never said that students couldn't ask questions of faculty. TallMagic 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the current logical thought of many who think that WNU doesn’t utilize the faculty in teaching roles. Under the Blackboard system, which is now fully in place and being used by current students, there is interaction with faculty members asigned to the courses. All students get their assignments through Blackboard. They communicate with other students through the system and the faculty members. All the examinations are given through the Blackboard system. It is not just read the book and take an examination when you feel ready. You must use the system to do quizes and take exams on the lesson material before you can  sit for the final exams. KWU was using the Blackboard system when I was finishing up my program back in 2004. Now it is fully implemented and in daily use. Taylor W. (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Captinron was questioning that the number given for WNU faculty was too high. I tried to argue that it seemed reasonable. I believe that the discussion went off on a tangent from there. I'm not sure that the tangents are relevant to the article itself. Unless you know of a reliable source that could be referenced for your Blackboard statements and faculty involvement. I think that would make a good addition to the article. TallMagic (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An article titled "P.S.: Your M.A. or Ph.D. may be B.S."
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/06/State/PS__Your_MA_or_PhD_ma.shtml

There's three paragraphs in the above recent article that are talking about WNU. In my mind the above article only reinforced information already in the article, e.g., importance of GAO investigation, danger of bad publicity when using a WNU degree, and spotty utility. I didn't see anything new in the article that should be included in Wikipedia that isn't already there but perhaps someone else has a different view? Perhaps adding Florida to the list of restricted degree use jurisdictions? TallMagic (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did note the following statement in the article:


 * the 1989 law that made such a claim a misdemeanor has been declared unconstitutional in part of the state and is rarely enforced elsewhere.


 * It seems that the attempt to restrict a degree from an unaccredited institute of higher learning in Florida was largely unsuccessful.


 * The gist of the article is that a number of employers may consider a degree at such a school to be of less validity than a conventional one is all. I see no reason to include this article. Its just a rehashing of previous statement. Piercetp (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Law Details
Each state that restricts unaccredited degree use has different laws. Some here have expressed interest in the past in researching more detail for these individual laws as they might apply to WNU in particular. In the archives, Rkowalke started some further research but it was rather incomplete. Here on Wikipedia I found some more sources that anyone interested in pursuing these details might find useful. see Template_talk:Unaccredited -- TallMagic (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Credit for Work Experience Granted by WNU/KWU
PierceTP very recently deleted the information on the Nevada law with the edit comment that WNU does not grant work experience credit. This is a very confusing assertion to me because I've heard of many examples where people only had to complete between four and seven KWU classes to get their degree. This was justified by the granting of credit for life experience? The GAO investigation testimony was that KWU gave the Lt. Cmdr. 43% of the credit required based on unverified life experience credit. I'm obviously misunderstanding something. Please explain. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not heard of such "life experience" credit in the past. It might have existed at the time of the GAO investigation. But I know of no recent examples of this. I did examine the Warren National website. I did not see any indication of such a program at WNU or previously at KWU. Normally, if any institution grants credit based on "life experience" than they state in in their liturature and promotional advertizing. But I do not know of this at Warren. Piercetp (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was sworn testimony describing KWU's awarding of "life experience" credits in the Senate hearings in 2004. See the Statement of Lieutenant Commander Claudia Gelzer. She said "I first called Kennedy-Western in July of 2003," so she was describing something that happened rather recently. Recent or not, an encyclopedia article about a university should include its past as well as its present, so this history is highly relevant. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KWU used to state that they granted generous credit for life experience. That is why they had a policy that anyone applying at KWU had to have at least five years job experience. When the KWU discussion board was public I read about a big controversory because they had apparently granted the same generous credit for life experience to someone for a master's degree. The person had zero years work experience, which is what the controversy was about. So I'm rather confused by the assertion that Piercetp hasn't heard of credit for life experience from WNU. As Orlady mentions though, sworn testimony published by the government is as reliable source as anyone is ever going see. This is mentioned in other reliable sources as well. "That's not surprising, given that many educators hold Kennedy-Western in low regard, troubled by the institution's secrecy and slick marketing, decision to avoid oversight by accrediting agencies, awarding of academic credit for work experience, and attempted moves to different states." So even though Piercetp has never heard of it, I think it needs to be assumed that it is true. TallMagic (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sworn testimony was given over four years ago before Warren National was a candidate for accreditation. As it is no longer a policy at the University to provide credit to candidates for previous work experience it cannot be considered a valid concern. Orlady claims this is relevent. Perhaps it is for the history of the institution. But what is being discussed here specifically is whether Nevada's law will apply to students and graduates at this current time. I believe that this may be a sorded legal issue which could be best left to an attorney. But to include this in the article may be something of a stretch. That is why I believe that the specifics of the Nevada law do not belong in the said article. As for the amount of time a candidate for admission is to have at a place of employment, I believe this is purely an internal matter for Warren and any guess as to why this policy exists is only a matter of speculation. Wikipedia articles need only deal with facts and not heresay. If any credible sources can be quoted as to whether life experience is actually granted at Warren National than they should be presented. Otherwise this statement should be ommitted. Piercetp (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KWU/WNU has been in business for over twenty years. That makes the history issue very relevant in the article. I think the best way to handle this is to explicitly state in the article that life experience credit is no longer granted as of some certain date. However, life experience credit has been granted for many years and that needs to be in the article as well. I think this is a very important point because in my opinion and according to the reliable sources, it is a bad questionable practice that was part of KWU policy over many years in the past. That makes it very noteworthy for a Wikipedia article. Someone with a KWU degree or someone wanting to evaluate a KWU degree in Nevada might be very interested in that information. It is true that the fact that KWU granted unverified life experience credit is covered by the GAO investigation but the critical additional important information that the Nevada law provides is some quantitative and qualitative detail showing how bad and millish this practise actually was, as is recognized in Nevada law. IMHO, anyone using or evalauating a KWU degree anywhere should be interested in that information. Can you please point out a reliable source for the assertion that WNU no longer practises the granting of credit for life experience, hopefully with a date that they cleaned up their act? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding this statement, "If any credible sources can be quoted as to whether life experience is actually granted at Warren National than they should be presented. Otherwise this statement should be ommitted." The GAO Investigation and the Chronicle article titled Moonlighting ... have already been presented as reliable sources providing the verification for what you wanted? TallMagic (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TallMagic is correct about the importance of sources. Is there a reliable source that supports the assertion that life experience credit is no longer granted? Without a reliable source, the article should not make that statement. On the other hand, there is plenty of reliably sourced information about KWU's history of giving life experience credit, which is a vital detail about this institution. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a few days ago, I did a Google search of Warren National University and didn't find any mention of this. I'll do another one. I sincerely hope it is true and if true I hope that there's reliable source available. I consider this information HUGE and it will be extremely important to be included in the article. Even if the only information we could find is self published, IMHO, we should still mention it in the article with the caveat that "WNU now states". TallMagic (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what my Google search turned up. Experience: At Warren National, they understand there is no substitute for real-world experience. That’s why they offer you credit toward your degree for your time on the job. You can complete your degree entirely online. It’s the flexible and convenient way to achieve your career goals. Apply your work experience and previous education toward earning a degree from Warren National University. The educational and work experience of each student is evaluated prior to admittance and academic credit is given for applicable experience toward the degree program pursued.  At Warren National University, you can apply your work experience and previous education towards earning a recognized degree online, studying courses that relate directly to your profession. Credit for Work Experience Recognizing that professional students already possess a wealth of knowledge in their chosen field, Warren National University’s evaluation process grants credit for previous experience by taking the student’s educational and professional experience into account. Thus, the qualified student does not have to repeat basic courses that have already been mastered. Because of this unique approach, five years of full-time work experience are required to be considered for admission into the University. Because Warren National University recognizes the inherent value of work experience, knowledge accrued on the job will be immediately credited towards your degree in addition to previous educational credits. Receive credit for professional experience as well as prior education This offer is only valid to US residents at this time. This offer is not valid for residents of California, Oregon or Utah, or with individuals with less than 5 years of work experience or under the age of 23. Experience: At Warren National, they understand there is no substitute for real-world experience. That’s why they offer you credit toward your degree for your time on the job. You can complete your degree entirely online! It’s the flexible and convenient way to achieve your career goals.  These last two are the wnu website. I can only conclude that WNU is still offering degrees that would be considered fake or misleading to try to use in Nevada. Our new anon contributor and Piercetp are apparently mistaken unless it is so very recent change in policy that WNU hasn't had time to fix their website yet? TallMagic (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Piercetp, I undid your article deletion. I will also mention that when you deleted the text regarding the Nevada law you also deleted a needed reference that was referenced just above which caused a "Cite error: No text given.". So for future reference, it is a good idea to look at the reflist after deleting named references to make sure that the deletion hasn't caused a "Cite error: No text given.". Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that, though Warren National does not grant any such "life experience degrees", this entire ad scheme is misleading. Maybe they need to be made aware of it. Personally, I do not know of any of this being a reality. The Nevada statute says its over 10%. Maybe this would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.


 * Personally I find Nevada's law overly paternalistic and may be struck down by a higher court for the same reason Oregon's attempt to curb students free speech had already been. We can only hope so.


 * I did delete that last part of the last sentence as it was misleading. If you agree to keep the paragraph as it is I will keep the statement about Nevada's law.Piercetp (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued again by your statement that Warren National does not grant credit for life experience, especially in the face of the advertisements seemingly being directly contradictory to that. I provided only a small sample of the advertisements. There were many many more that I didn't think would make the demonstration much more compelling. I'm still anxious to include the assertion that WNU does not offer such credit if we could but find a reliable source, even self published.
 * I believe that the 10% figure can only mean a quantitative evaluation on a case by case basis.
 * Oregon's law was not struck down by any court, rather it was an out of court settlement. It seems to me that defining by law what constitutes a fake or misleading degree may be qualitatively different from the Oregon law. The free speech violation argument does not seem to apply. Perhaps it could be struck down for something else though. I consider it enlightening that credit for work/life experience can be directly linked to fake or misleading degrees as demonstrated by the Nevada law.
 * I disagree that the last part of the sentence you refer to was misleading but believe that the current wording is acceptable. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Enlightining" is hardly my choice of words but I do think Warren National is not in the business of selling "fake" or "misleading" degrees. If anything, its pretty sad when government agencies target hard working people and tell them that they cannot seek employment using degrees they work hard for (if indeed that is the case of this Nevada law). I suppose this is yet another assult on individual liberty.


 * Personally, I would prefer seeing government agencies targetting bone fide fraud like the many mortgage scam artist which are preying off the public like parasites instead of some honest students and alumni. nI suppose its because the mortgage industry has a lot more clout than college students.


 * If WNU does in fact grant credit for "life experience" than the amount is minimal. None of the students I know ever mentioned it before. I would guess that the ad which you cited might have been for the purpose of luring in perspective students. Its a pretty bad idea whatever its reason. 99.141.71.51 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, those government regulations are aimed in large part at protecting students against unscrupulous vendors of substandard "education." IMO, students should steer clear of any "university" that markets degrees rather than education. Yes, punishing a student for using an unaccredited degree may be punishing the fraud victim rather than the fraudster, but if those regulations cause students to steer clear of diploma mills, they are a good thing. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is not the case at all. People need to stay away from obvious Diploma Mills. But this kind of bullying tactic is not good. Not at all. Me, I am a very strong advocate of individual freedom. I see any affront to freedom as being negative. This is especially true of free speech and free expression. Piercetp (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few unaccredited schools that offer substandard degrees but still require significant work. WNU is apparently one of those institutions. I say substandard based on the GAO investigation testimony (e.g., 43% life experience credit) and multiple other government agencies like ODA and THECB as well as WNU/KWU's own website and other advertisements all seem to indicate that WNU does allow a substandard education, at least on occasion. So it's entirely possible for WNU to require significant work but still sometimes bestow substandard degrees. To tell the truth I had expected WNU to cease this millish tactic when they changed their name and applied for accreditation. Since they apparently haven't, I can only guess that WNU is not serious about achieving accreditation, only time will really tell though. TallMagic (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I already said what I think about the GAO investigation. I do not wish to involve politics here but I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings.


 * While advertizing like the one you cited does cast the University in a negative light, I think you fail to see the truth. I would ask you to talk to any recent graduate of this school (those who have enrolled in the last three years) and ask them ho much of their credit is through life experience.


 * I wish to add something:


 * University of Phoenix is accredited. (Check out the article if you do not believe me) But this institution also uses an advertizing campaign in which "Life experience" is described as degree requirements. Let me submit as evidence...


 * http://www.trade-schools.net/university-of-phoenix/index.html


 * University of Phoenix offers nighttime and weekend classes to make it easier for busy people like you to attend classes while maintaining work and family responsibilities. By attending one class session and one team meeting each week, you could earn your bachelor's or master's degree in just 2 or 3 years.


 * University of Phoenix programs are delivered in an information-intensive and interactive format which provides students with the best quality education in the most efficient way possible. Students help achieve their learning goals by participating in class discussions and projects and applied research.


 * University of Phoenix offers a wide scope of certificates and undergraduate and graduate degrees in the following areas:


 * Business
 * Counseling
 * Criminal Justice
 * Education
 * Health Care
 * Nursing
 * Technology
 * University of Phoenix also considers transfer credits from other Universities, military experience, corporate training and other life experience which can be applied toward degree requirements. Earning your degree might be closer than you think!


 * This would lead me to ask, would the Nevada statute also apply to graduates of UP?


 * Oh, and Orlady, please note that the this advertizement for University of Phoenix does indeed stress Degrees rather than Education. Personally, I think students should be motivated by learning in and of itself. I do agree with you there. It would be nice if modern society actually valued knowledge and not personal advancement. The ancient Greeks were strong believers in such motivation and if Plato was alive today he would certainly agree. Sadly, in this day and age higher education has become a comodity like new cars and breakfast cereals. This is quite evident in how many educational institutions sell themselves, including many respected brick-and-mortar colleges. I cannot say I like any of it but its just how things are today. Universities have to compete for students and the ones which can promise the most to the students are the ones that get the student's money.Piercetp (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * University of Phoenix gets bad PR for their ad campaign. UofP has a big advantage though primarily because they are accredited. Of course the Nevada law should and would apply to UofP graduates. I can guarantee though that UofP does not treat life experience credit like was described in the GAO investigation testimony. They would loose their accreditation if that were the case. TallMagic (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, TallMagic, I was reading the Wikipedia policy concerning Original research and I suspect that what you said about the Nevada Statute may be bordering on that. Piercetp (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the talk page then I fail to see the relevance to WP:NOR. If you're talking about the sentence in the article then I really don't see it? TallMagic (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As some general information about how academic rigorous "life experience" credit is handled please reference http://www.universityofphoenixdegree.com/admissions/prior_learning_assessment.aspx https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/pla/default.asp http://www.degreeinfo.com/article17_1.html http://www.degreeinfo.com/article18_1.html TallMagic (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have communicated with many KWU graduates, KWU applicants, and KWU students, not in the past year or two but previously. It is true that KWU did not seem to emphasize quantitatively the actual amount of credit being bestowed for life experience. What they seemed to do instead was to not publish the overall number of credits required to graduate and only require 4 to 7 classes plus a paper to graduate. Where in the range of 4 to 7 classes a candidate fell seemed to have more to do with their negotiation with the admissions counselor rather than with years experience or previous educational credits. I suspect that the Lt Cmdr in the GAO investigation either explicitly asked for how much credit was granted or perhaps just asked how much credit the paper and each class was worth and subtracted that total from the standard credits required for a Master's degree. TallMagic (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no clue who you spoke to but I do know that it is normal for KWU to require at least ten courses (for students transferring in a bachelors in another dicipline) plus a research project. Piercetp (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When the student forum was public, I spoke to many and I also reviewed many of the old threads archived on the KWU discussion forum. Perhaps the courses that are offered have changed but a few years ago the courses offered by WNU did not include any general education courses for Bachelor's degrees and many (most?) of the majors being offered had a choice of about eight courses to choose from. The student got to choose any 5 (or how ever many courses they had negotiated for with the admissions consular) out of those eight or so courses. Perhaps things have changed since they significantly reduced the variety of majors being offered? It would be interesting, I think, to include this type of information in the article but I haven't ever found any reliable sources on this topic except for the GAO investigation. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing Nevada Law is original research
I read the policy carefully.

The law may or may not pertain to Warren National based on previous testimony and a WNU promotional advertizing.

The advertizing presented as evidence, while it may indicate that WNU does give some credit, perhaps in certain situations for life experience, it is little different from other distance education.

By stating that WNU may grant some credit based on "life experience", and then in turn cite a Nevada law which makes it a crime for a student to state their education based on 10% of life experience, it would be an example of original research.

It has been cited a GAO investigation from previous years which one witness claimed to have around life experience account for 40% of credit.

There again this cannot be proven.

If more recent and more relevent articles can prove that Nevada law does pertain to Warren National than it can be included. Otherwise it should not.

If there are any further disputes than perhaps we can bring this up before the mediation cabal.Piercetp (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peircetp, It is a sourced fact that KWU/WNU grants credit for life/work experience. It is not original research. I've already provided sources for this reliably sourced bit of information. The GAO investigation testimony is very clear. The advertising evidence does not need to be part of the evidence for that fact. You keep stating that WNU does not grant life experience but have not provide ANY source supporting that assertion. Your statement that it can't be proven that the Lt. Cmdr. was actually granted life experience as she testified is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifiable statements supported by reliable sources. This article will need to be based on verifiable statements supported by reliable sources. Sorry but it can't reasonably be based on your unsupported assertions and disbelief in verifiable statements supported by reliable sources. Although I do appreciate your concern for the truth and the accuracy of this article. Please let me remind you of the first sentence out of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (Note that the bold is part of the policy, not my own addition.) The inclusion of information in Wikipedia is most definitely not further verifiable statements supported by reliable sources that may turn up in the future as you claim in your next to last sentence. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again Piercetp, I'll try to respond here regarding your mistaken assertion above that the life experience credit was (is?) handled little differently at KWU/WNU compared to other universities. You had previously presented as evidence some University of Phoenix advertisements. Here is how it is handled specifically at UOP.
 * http://www.universityofphoenixdegree.com/admissions/prior_learning_assessment.aspx
 * https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/pla/default.asp
 * Here are some articles explaining how it is handled in an academicly rigorous manner from a more general point of view.
 * http://www.degreeinfo.com/article17_1.html
 * http://www.degreeinfo.com/article18_1.html
 * To see how it was (is?) handled at KWU/WNU please reference the GAO investigation testimony. Please note that unverified work experience is significantly different from the article descriptions above as well as the way that UOP handles it. If you need me to try to point out explicitly and specifically what some of those differences are then please just ask. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that perhaps the following might be an acceptable compromise?
 * As an example of a law that may restrict WNU/KWU degree use, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is defined as use of a fake or misleading degree and is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both. Note that other sections of Nevada law may or may not apply as well.
 * Another possible compromise? As an example of a law that may restrict WNU/KWU degree use, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is defined as use of a fake or misleading degree and is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or up to six months in jail or both. Note that it would require analysis on a case by case basis to evaluate whether or not the amount of life experience bestowed was greater than 10%.


 * TallMagic (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree to the comprromise. Not necessarily that I agree but its better than getting into an edit war.


 * I am not in disagreement that the GAO investigator was a quotable source but rather that you can infer that the Nevada law would pertain to WNU. But that rephrasing, well speaking just for myself I find it acceptable.


 * As a pacifist and a libertarian I always seek to stick to my principals and am a bit high strung, I admit. But I always seek to take the higher road.


 * Peace Piercetp (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents on wording. "As an example of a law that may restrict WNU/KWU degree use, the use of a degree in Nevada that is based upon more than 10 percent life experience is defined as use of a fake or misleading degree"

Irregardless of the Gelzer testimony, Kennedy-Western University, on their own admission, grants an more than 55% of degrees for life experience

"Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations: Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills"

"In fact, documents produced by Kennedy-Western indicated that nearly half of all students in the Master's programs have received more than 55 percent credit for their experience"

To soften it by saying "MAY restrict WNU/KWU degree use" is pure speculation, and would go against what has already been proven. Captinron (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Captinron, I appreciate you sharing your opinion. You make reference to some document that indicates about half of Master's bestowed were given based on overly generous life experience credit. (Overly generous for Master's degrees is probably more like 2% so in this case it would really have to be blatantly millish, if true.) Do you know of a verifiable source for this interesting tidbit? I know that the KWU Singapore branch was selling totally 100% life experience PhD's at one time, but that website was taken down. If you have any reliable sources for any of this kind of stuff, can you please post it here? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding use of the word "may", we can't really say that all KWU/WNU degrees utilized more than 10% life experience. I have communicated with multiple KWU/WNU graduates that had lots of credits from other colleges and that added to their five KWU classes and their KWU paper would have had less than 10% life experience credit. Also, some potential doubt can be raised when going to a direct source, especially when that direct source was written by lawyers for lawyers. TallMagic (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment posted in article
The following was added to the article from 71.227.7.65. I removed it from the article because it is "original research" that does not belong in a WP article. I tell those who are planning on attending WNU - don't. It's a scam and they will take your money and run. I have learned that CA kicked them out for ripping people off. The degree is worthless and your money is NOT well spent. Do not fall for their lies, do not assume the degree is real...you will find the degree is really a employment improvement certification. I learned the hard way and now I'm out a great deal of money. -- 71.227.7.65 --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the following assertions can be extracted from the statement above. (That is not being presented in a neutral point view, by the way.)
 * 1. WNU is a for profit private university.
 * 2. WNU left CA to avoid regulation that was enacted to chase diploma mills out of the state.
 * 3. WNU degrees can sometimes lack utility.
 * My opinion is that all three of these assertions are already included in the article in a neutral tone that is fully supported by reliable sources. I'm sorry that this person feels cheated by WNU. I think that the John Bear quote about unaccredited degree utility may even partially cover that aspect of the "testimonial". TallMagic (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The university operates primarily out of ...
My thought on leaving in the phrase primarily out of is that we don't know if the WNU agents operating in Singapore etc are still in operation or not. Singapore was/is an especially shady operation where they were/are apparently selling PhD's to business executives. TallMagic (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to delete the "Campus" section entirely. It takes 152 words to make the point that there's no campus. Everything in the section is either (1) stated elsewhere the article (i.e., that WNU is a distance education institution based in Cheyenne, Wyoming), or (2) peripheral material that does not belong in this article (i.e., the long quotation that says that distance education institutions are different from other universities). Elsewhere the article says that KWU was at one time purported to have locations in Moscow, Jakarta, and Singapore. Eliminating the "Campus" section should obviate your felt need to lengthen it with weasel words (see Avoid weasel words). --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for 50%+ "Life Experience"
"Captinron, I appreciate you sharing your opinion. You make reference to some document that indicates about half of Master's bestowed were given based on overly generous life experience credit. (Overly generous for Master's degrees is probably more like 2% so in this case it would really have to be blatantly millish, if true.) Do you know of a verifiable source for this interesting tidbit?"

Sorry, I don't check this site very often. The source is

"U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Title: Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations: Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills?"

Senate Hearing 108-553

You can download the entire testimony (198 pages of .pdf) or search for the Hearing Title if this link is bad.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED496044&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED496044

To me, it is the only independent insight into their operations. Well worth the read.

Page 39 has testimony of an undercover agent who enrolled. "In other words, Kennedy-Western was prepared to waive six Master's level classes in engineering based soley on my claims of professional experience"

She then says on Page 42 - "With just 16 hours of study, I had completed 40 percent of the course requirements for my master's degree"

Page 39-40 “We were told that EVERY student in the Master’s program is awarded between 33 and 60 percent credit toward a degree for their experience. In fact, documents produced by Kennedy-Western indicated that nearly half of all students in the Master’s program have received more than 55 percent credit for their experience”.

Page 43 starts the testimony of a KWU employee. He was an "admissions counselor".

"Shortly after being hired, I started training at Kennedy Western. I soon discovered this was like no other school I had ever seen. I saw immediately that I had been mislead by Kennedy Westerns recruiter. I was not going to be counseling anyone. I had been hired to be a telemarketer, using a script to sell Kennedy Western just like any other product.

As an admission counselor, I was required to call between 120 and 125 perspective students per day, trying to convince them that they should apply to Kennedy Western.

...The problem is, much of our sales pitch was not true. There is no admissions board. Applications were reviewed by one person. Of course, the applicant had excellent chances of getting in. In fact, I had never heard of an applicant being rejected."

Page 192 has a KWU employee list of 119 employees and ONE "faculty" member, but 52 "Admissions Counselors".

Captinron (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm assuming it's business as usual with the latest name change / location change. As of late 2006, they were still granting massive life-experience credits. Here is a verbatim "degree plan" of a prospective Doctoral student and acceptance letter from late 2006. This amounts to 24 out of 51 Doctoral credits waived, based on claims of life experience.

"Dear xxxxxx

This is to confirm that you have been accepted to the Doctorate program with a major in Business Administration at Kennedy-Western University. You are required to satisfactorily complete 5 courses and a final project to graduate.

Tuition per course is as follows:

Business Administration Course $xxxx.00

Business Administration Course $xxxx.00

Business Administration Course $xxxx.00

Business Administration Course $xxxx.00

Business Administration Course $xxxx.00

Total Tuition   Amount: $xxxx.00 Please refer to the Kennedy-Western University Course Description Catalog to make your course selections. We recommend that you select courses that will benefit you most with your desired personal and professional objectives."

Captinron (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some very interesting facts. I'll add the fact "EVERY student in the Master’s program is awarded between 33 and 60 percent credit toward a degree for their experience". Perhaps to the paragraph that talks about more than 10% life experience degrees being illegal in Nevada. It is worisome if WNU hasn't cleaned up their act. I don't think they have a chance of being accredited if they haven't cleaned up their act. The old policies were just too substandard. TallMagic (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Captinron's link (dated from 2004) really is the same stuff that we have been reading all along. Its really not a lot different from the same type of criticisms I hear at other distance learning programs. (Many of them accredited.)


 * I actually find it comical that the links that Ron used include discussions from "The Pub", a closed discussion board in which access is only allowed for students. People can say anything they want on a message board. It means nothing really. Why a government research study would even waste their time with this nonsense is beyond me but thats the government for you.


 * All that "life experience" stuff is actually common talk in a lot of distance learning programs, including the accredited University of Phoenix. I believe that the University should do a little more self policing and stop making such claims.


 * And that stuff about "Every student in the Master's Program is awarded between 33% to 50% credit towards graduation?" Maybe I missed it but just who said this? Where is it found on that link? And how long ago was this statement made?


 * Anyway, the link makes statements from KWU before it had sought accreditation. I know many students of WNU and most of them told me that very little "life experience" credit was granted. 99.141.68.250 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon, thanks for posting your thoughts. You make a good point that much of the reliable sources available to us are prior to the application for accreditation. As Captinron mentions, it appears that some of the old habits of KWU may still be in practice more recently. The bottom line regarding that though is that anything mentioned in the article must be verifiable. I agree that the article should make it clear what year different things have occurred and that's why you see the year mentioned frequently in the article. The GAO testimony indicates to me that likely many degrees bestowed by KWU were probably significantly substandard. As to the more recent history and the future, we'll have to wait and see what happens with the accredition application and any new articles that might come out on WNU. TallMagic (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to this. In the full document there's a paragraph that is broken between page 39 and 40 that says.


 * In response to a formal query from the Committee, Kennedy-Western told us they only admit students who can demonstrate applicable work experience. We were told that every student in the Master’s program is awarded between 33 and 60 percent credit toward a degree for their experience. In fact, documents produced by Kennedy-Western indicated that nearly half of all students in the Master’s programs have received more than 55 percent credit for their experience. Again, I received roughly 43 percent toward an engineering Master’s degree. VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:28 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 094487


 * I also point out that the testimony was that the work experience credit bestowed by KWU was not verified. That makes it irrelevant, deceitful, and dishonest in my view to even call it work experience credit. Within that context it seems much more like diploma mill credit, at least to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something though? Anyway this is a statement from KWU directly to the government in response to a formal request from the government. This does seem like a very important point to include in the article in any case especially within the context of the Nevada law? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you'll need to actually read the Senate Diploma Mill testimony before making a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I posted. The quotes I posted are from 1 of 3 sources. Kennedy-Western University directly (the massive Life Experience Awards and Employee list that showed 1 faculty member), testimony from a former employee, and testimony from Lt. Cmdr. Gelzer, who was enrolled as part of the investigation.

There are postings to the student bulletin board (The Pub) that are a part of the Senate Diploma Mill testimony. Some refer to how most of the open book exams had questions copied directly from the glossary. I don't think they qualify as a quality source and didn't cite them.

You'll have to point to a source that shows how awarding 30-60% life experience to all students is a common practice at legitimate universities.

As far as timeline, 2004 was the last clear insight we have. I think we can assume this continued up to January 2007. 2007 and forward remains to be seen. Captinron (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Captinron, you need be more careful with your pronouns. "We" can assume nothing as the report from the investigation was dated from four years previous. As the University has applied for accreditation much has changed. Much of what you talk about is not in any such report.


 * This ridiculous statement about comments made on a message board which is closed to the public is absurd. I can make any statement i want on a message board but that does not qualify as evidence.


 * I am unsure what courses had questions copied directly out of the glossery. If such a statement is actually true (and I doubt that it is) than I would like to see evidence.


 * It is unfortunate that the US Senate wasted their time and energy on this idiotic witch hunt. Did anyone happen to notice that there was not any representives from the University, nor students of faculty memebers invited to give the other story? And I have not seen any more recent evidence of anything you stated. For this reason I refuse to accept what you stated as being valid. 99.141.64.195 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For your specific question on the ease of coursework, look at the diploma mill Senate Hearing. Lt. Cmdr Gelzer who was a student for the investigation took a graduate course in Hazardous Waste Management, the entire course was this one open book exam. Her sworn testimony (Page 41) states :

"I had 3 hours to complete 100 questions, and I was able to answer most of them by simply looking up a key word in the index, turning to that section in the text, and finding the answer."

Yes, it was 2004 when the Senate Hearing thoroughly explored their business and credit-waiving practices. KWU self-reported the statistics on "life-experience" credit grants to all students.

I would be interested to know your evidence for the assertion that Kennedy Western made changes to these documented practices between 2004 and 2006 (or from 1984-2006 for that matter), I have never seen any I do know that as of 1/1/2007, they changed their name, dropped engineering and doctorate programs, and applied for accreditation shortly after.

192.236.23.180 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be from information provided by the University. I would add that many online education programs, including many which have accreditation do some degree of wavering.


 * And I would say that that statement before the US Senate was for the purpose of allowing employees of the US Government to allow funds be used to pay for their eduction. It had nothing to do with the legitimacy of KWU. Furthermore the entire hering was biased in that no representative from the University, nor any student or alumnus was permitted to give testimony and defend the University's reputation. For that reason I consider the entire Senate hering to be suspect. 99.141.63.144 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the reason for the Senate Hearings. Those witnesses were extremely biased against the schools being used as goats to prove up the points and get the approval of the public. I'll bet the Lt Commander was not of that rank for long after the hearings were concluded. She told the committee what they wanted to hear. Yes, the affair was one sided. Even Howard Hughes and Jimmy Hoffa had the opportunity to defend themselves before a Senate Committee. 65.25.24.243 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review the following Wikipedia policies, verifiability and reliable sources. These are the policies that define what information may be included in a Wikipedia article. It is important to note that things like whether or not WNU was invited to testify at the hearing is not part of Wikipedia policy. US Senate hearing testimony is verifiable when published and the US government is considered a reliable source. Wikipedia article content must be based on Wikipedia policy. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion page not the Wiki article. An opinion does not need to be verified or reliable. It is just a viewpoint. 65.25.24.243 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not intended to be for general discussions on Warren National University or government investigations involving WNU. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warren National University article." Because of that I apparently misinterrpretted your statements as being suggested changes to the content of the article. Sorry and regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

“I would add that many online education programs, including many which have accreditation do some degree of wavering.”

True, but it is tightly regulated, applies to a very, very small % of students, and the credit awards are small. KWU was awarding 33 – 60% to ALL students, and the testimony showed that they weren’t even bothering to check the claimed experience.

“I'll bet the Lt Commander was not of that rank for long after the hearings were concluded. She told the committee what they wanted to hear.”

Well, it was sworn testimony and documentation supported all of her statements. Where exactly does the implied perjury come in?

“And I would say that that statement before the US Senate was for the purpose of allowing employees of the US Government to allow funds be used to pay for their eduction. It had nothing to do with the legitimacy of KWU”

KWU was prominently featured in a Senate Hearing titled “Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations, Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills?”. Read that again and tell me how it doesn't cast doubt on the legitimacy of KWU.

Captinron (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again Captinron, I would state that this testimony is biased. A court decision against the state of Oregon went on to state that the word "Diploma Mill" may not be used to describe the status of the University. And finally, the fact that WNU is now a candidate for accredidation may further show that this institution is indeed legitimate. 99.150.98.147 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but almost everything stated above is incorrect. There was no court decision against the state of Oregon. There was no court decision at all in the case of KWU versus Oregon. WNU is NOT a candidate for accreditation. WNU has simply applied, becoming a candidate is 90% of the way to becoming accredited. WNU has not even started the journey but has only paid the entry fee to begin the journey to accreditation. Regarding your statement that sworn testimony is biased, that is an opinion stated as if it were a fact. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a matter of symantics I suppose. The Oregon settlement was out of court but the point is that the State of Oregon came to the conclusion that the term "Diploma Mill" would not apply to Warren, then known as Kennedy Western. As for being a "candidate", the fact is simple, Warren did apply and is conformming to the laws regarding the State of Wyoming. As for the GAO investigation, it is without dispute that there were no witnesses there to give testimony on behalf of the University, its staff, students or alumni. The witnesses in front of the assembly were never cross examined and all testimony was hostile towards the institution and its student body. For that reason it can be assumed to be indeed biased. This was not a judicial decission but a purely political one. You can call it an investigation into "Diploma Mills" or whatever (I would call the whole thing a witch hunt but thats just me.) But if this were to be cited in any court of law it would be challanged by any attorney. I stand behind my words. 99.150.98.147 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could enlighten me? I can't think of anything that is proven by Oregon agreeing not to call WNU a diploma mill anymore. Not when the fact remains that Oregon still officially considers WNU degrees substandard and unacceptable for employment by the state and restricted in private use within Oregon. WNU applying for accreditation is a bit like a drug addict entering a rehabiliation program to avoid prison. Applying is a good thing, but when you see the same old behaviors continuing, it causes one to doubt and question the successful conclusion of the process. Evidence was presented that KWU bestowed substandard degrees in the GAO investigation. KWU's own advertisements (which continue to at least a month or so a go) and responses to the investigation essentially admitted to bestowing substandard degrees. It is true that this evidence hasn't been presented in a court of law. It is also true that very little of what we would agree is true in general has ever been tested in a court of law. We only have sworn testimony and collaborating responses from KWU as to the truthfulness of the evidence. Some authorities had already concluded prior to the GAO investigation that KWU degrees were substandard so, the GAO investigation only seemed to further validate those conclusions. It appears that KWU bestowed substandard degrees. It appears that WNU is continuing many of the same substandard practices that it practiced in the past. Evidence that WNU bestows only academicly standard degrees seems to be lacking at this point. TallMagic (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was part of the agreement with the State of Oregon that the term "Diploma Mill" not be used. And that ridiculous statement comparing WNU to a drug addict? This is insulting to the students and alumni of Warren. The advertizing and claims made by WNU are no different from other distance learning facilities, many of which are accredited. The biased GAO investigation deals only with Government Employees and, inspite of claims by academic elitists means little outside that context. Substandard it completely in the eye of the beholder. Some authorities claim WNU is not as legitimate as some accedited institutions and others do not. Some state authorities will honor WNU and so will many private corporations. Others don't. 99.150.98.147 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. It seems to me that the ODA agreeing to not call WNU a diploma mill doesn't mean anything when the ODA has determined that KWU/WNU degrees are substandard and so the use is restricted within Oregon. You seem to disagree but haven't given an explanation as to what special meaning is gleaned from the ODA saying WNU is substandard but not calling WNU a diploma mill. I didn't compare WNU to a drug addict, I compared a drug addict enrolling in a drug rehab program in order to avoid prison to WNU applying for accreditation in order to not have to flee Wyoming as KWU fleed California, Hawaii, and Idaho in the past. See the American Central University article for an institution that is even further from standard compared to WNU that is another example of a Wyoming "drug addict that has enrolled in a rehab progam in order to avoid prison". I believe that you're mistaken when asserting that substandard is in the eye of the beholder. An academic credit is a well defined item. Bestowing degrees for less credit than what is standard is simply substandard. It is not subjective, it is not in the eye of the beholder, it is clear cut and quantitative. Allowing credit for life experience that isn't validated is another example of something that any objective person would recognize as being academically substandard. True that some people have accepted degrees from diploma mills. It is also true that some people believe that the world is flat. This seems to be a weak argument that the world actually is flat. I challenge you to provide real evidence that WNU bestows only standard degrees and I'll be happy to add the verifiable information to the article, reliable source not unsourced opinion. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot say what motivates WNU's decision to apply for accrediation. Obviously the university is for profit (as are many accredited institution}. But if you are to ask me what goes on in the board room of the administration of this institution I would say that I have no idea. Of cours WNU seeks to remain in Wyoming. But if you were to ask why they took so long to apply for this status you might get an answer like "Our university chose an unaccredited status because it allowed us the freedom to cater to special needs of our student body while keeping our programs affordable." Than again I have no idea. All I can say is that there is no proof that the administration acts in a nefarious manner so I can assume good faith. But to answer your question about the university being "substandard," my question to you is how do you define standard or substandard? What I do know is that some students consider the programs offered at WNU to be suitable to their needs and so do many employers. And some do not. 99.150.98.147 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the most recent application for accreditation was necessarily a nefarious act. I simply stated that based on history of the institution they appear to have acted in that manner in the past. I also admit that I'm skeptical about how serious WNU is about accreditation based on their continued advertising that they give generous credit for life experience. I do not define standard. All of the recognized accreditation agencies in the USA support the same standards regarding hours per credit and credits per degree. For example, a Bachelor's degree is 120 semester units or 180 quarter credits, IIRC. There are also standard classes required to get various kind of degrees. Just because some employers accept WNU degrees, it does not mean that WNU degrees are standard. That argument seems completely illogical to me. Studies indicate that most employers that accept unaccredited degrees do so because they do not understand accreditation or assumed that the degree was accredited. I ask again, what positive regarding WNU does it show when the ODA has determined that WNU degrees are substandard but they no longer call WNU a diploma mill? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, you earlier made the assertion that some state authorities honored WNU degrees. I previously assumed you meant that in some states unaccredited degrees are not restricted or illegal. If you actually meant that some states officially accept unaccredited degrees for employment then I would really be interested in any supporting evidence you have for this. If true it would be very surprising to me. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the title of this section and the first post in this section by Captinron. It states that KWU's own response was that, "In fact, documents produced by Kennedy-Western indicated that nearly half of all students in the Master’s program have received more than 55 percent credit for their experience”. Given that testimony is that KWU does not validate life experience claims, it essentially is self admitting that the degrees are grossly substandard. This is saying that a Masters degree at WNU is about half the work compared to standard. I believe that their Bachelor's program were even further from standard. If you couple that with the testimony that two classes were passed with only 16 hours of effort then half of standard would be a figure that is overly generous to WNU/KWU. True that some places might accept WNU degrees but I suspect that they are doing it out of ignorance. I also suspect that the the same employers would accept degrees from totally blatant diploma mills that require zero work before bestowing degrees. TallMagic (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Analogies to WVU article
A person that used to edit here but was banned for disruptive editting, liked to compare WNU to WVU, IIRC. In the news WVU has taken a large amount of heat for allegedly treating one specific person the way that this section says many if not most WNU degrees are treated. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/education/25west.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin This disruptive editor wanted to sweep KWU's checkered past under the rug and censor out the negative facts, like the GAO investigation. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should not be censored! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_University#Academic_Fraud. Although it is interesting that the term "Academic Fraud" can be used in the WVU article but is not a term that can be found in the WNU article so perhaps there's some mild censorship going on afterall? Opinions? TallMagic (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tallmagic, I think you are mistaken. That user referred to the University of Virginia, not the University of West Virginia.Taylor W. (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction on that point of WVU versus UofV. Any opinion on Wikipedia calling the WVU incident an academic fraud while the process exposed by the GAO investigation appears to be similar, if not worse, agree? The reason I say the GAO investigation appears to be a bigger problem is that it appears that the KWU practice was endemic to the KWU business operation. Life experience degrees have been vigorously defended and advertised by KWU/WNU. In contrast it appears that the WVU situation will likely lead to some resignations. Should the "GAO investigation" subsection name be changed to "Academic fraud"? TallMagic (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the WVU article and the "Academic fraud" titled section, I decided that a more correct title was "Allegations of academic fraud". The reason is that I feel that new title better complies with the wp:npov policy. So are there opinions on changing the subsection title from "GAO investigation" to "Allegations of academic fraud"? TallMagic (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject section of the WNU article is about the GAO investigation, isn't it? What would be the purpose of changing the name? --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, the section is about the GAO investigation. I think it can be reasonably argued that the relevance of the GAO investigation to WNU is that it contains allegations of academic fraud. Without getting into too much detail, the senator called KWU a diploma mill which is the same thing as alleging academic fraud. So, the question really is what subsection title is more relevant, "GAO investigation" or "Allegations of academic fraud" or ? I don't feel strongly either way and so was interested in other opinions. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads continue to roll at WVU. The latest is the top head. University Head Resigns After Degree Dispute The last sentence of the article says, "University officials have said a continuing internal audit by the business school indicates that as many as 70 or so students may have received degrees over the last decade despite insufficient credits." Wow 70 substandard degrees! That is pretty sad. TallMagic (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tall, maybe I am missing something but the article quoted deals with West Virginia University. What is the point of mentioning it here? 75.33.233.59 (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken from the above discussion, "In the news WVU has taken a large amount of heat for allegedly treating one specific person the way that this section says many if not most WNU degrees are treated." "Any opinion on Wikipedia calling the WVU incident an academic fraud while the process exposed by the GAO investigation appears to be similar, if not worse, agree? The reason I say the GAO investigation appears to be a bigger problem is that it appears that the KWU practice was endemic to the KWU business operation. Life experience degrees have been vigorously defended and advertised by KWU/WNU. In contrast it appears that the WVU situation will likely lead to some resignations. Should the "GAO investigation" subsection name be changed to "Academic fraud"?" "I think it can be reasonably argued that the relevance of the GAO investigation to WNU is that it contains allegations of academic fraud. Without getting into too much detail, the senator called KWU a diploma mill which is the same thing as alleging academic fraud. So, the question really is what subsection title is more relevant, "GAO investigation" or "Allegations of academic fraud" or ?" Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau
In my opinion, referring to a school as being a member of the BBB is silly. I consider it insulting to WNU that this section is even in the article. I understand that it is mostly the supporters of WNU that seem more likely to want the information in the article. With the current change where the BBB info is less complimentary, I'm wondering if we can come to a concensus that this section can be deleted from the article? TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That BBB factoid was originally added to the article by WNU supporters in an attempt to give WNU credibility. Why stop mentioning the BBB, now that the BBB has withdrawn its approval from WNU? This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional brochure. The BBB listing is a useful reference, as it is a rare third-party source of reliable current information on WNU. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just think that the BBB section/information is petty in an article on what is supposed to be an academic institution. Unaccredited institutions will sometimes try to confuse potential students into believing that a business license from the state or a BBB rating means the place is accredited. The BBB section in this article even uses the word accredited. Although, I agree that it can be difficult finding third-party reliable sources that will comment on unaccredited institutions. If WNU ever achieves accreditation then perhaps we should revisit this issue? TallMagic (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that BBB section uses the word "accreditation" is that BBB uses the word, which probably is one reason why WNU sought BBB affiliation. It is important to realize that not all "accreditation" is educational accreditation, but entities like WNU seem to take advantage of people who might not be aware of the differences between accredited fire departments or tree care companies (to name two examples) and accredited universities. I think that when an unaccredited education vendor claims "accreditation" from an entity that is not an educational accreditor (whether the the Commission on Fire Accreditation International, ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board, the Land Trust Accreditation Commission, Pet Sitters International, the BBB, or some other), it is helpful for Wikipedia to note the claim and provide externally sourced documentation on the meaning of the claimed "accreditation." In contrast, refusing to list those claims because we know they aren't meaningful may only lend spurious credibility to a promoter's claims that, by refusing to mention a school's accreditation by (for example) ISIPP or the BBB, Wikipedia is engaged in a conspiracy against educational innovators. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. It's always a distinct pleasure, Orlady. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)