Distance / Traditional school
S Cook
pretty much the same classes. I am working on a BS in business admin. One
option is totally distance (online) and the other is totally "in class".
How are online degrees being looked at in the workforce?
How satisfied are people completing a degree on line vs. in class?
Any other thoughts of wisdom??
I have completed my Associates which was traditional in class and now going
further.
Thanks for the feedback
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Marty S.
As an employer, I would be hesitant to hire someone with a college degree
earned exclusively on-line unless there were mitigating circumstances (i.e.,
the individual lived in remote Alaska or was unable to leave his/her house
for medical reasons). I think there is value in taking some courses
on-line, but in my opinion, a college education is more than just the sum of
the courses you take. It is the interaction with faculty. It is the
interaction with other students. It is the exchange of ideas and concepts
that don't make it to an on-line discussion.
On top of that, for better or worse, most employers and hiring officials are
not familar with the latest state-of-the-art distance education concepts and
methodologies. To most employers, on-line education is still foreign. If
there are two entry-level applicants -- one with traditional coursework and
one with distance coursework, I think the traditionally educated student
will get the position.
--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA
"S Cook" <sjc...@midmaine.com> wrote in message
news:3e7ef033$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Randy Harris
position on accreditation, all else being equal. The many RA only advocates
around this forum routinely insist that all that matters is regional
accreditation and little else. I have maintained that such a position,
while perhaps prevalent in the academic world, is not held widely in the
business world. Before selecting a school to complete my BS degree, I
informally interviewed a number of HR reps at several large companies. I
was told, almost universally, that they viewed any accreditation approved by
the USDOE equally. They however, viewed traditional school degrees
preferable to distance learning, while degree by exam (ala Excelsior) they
viewed as the least desirable. Around here, that is heresy.
--
Randy Harris
"Marty S." <SkoCo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:UC2dnZjMWLb...@comcast.com...
Rich Douglas
Generally, they don't.
I recommend you take the program that best fits your needs, schedule,
finances, study method preferences, and goals.
Good luck.
Rich Douglas
"S Cook" <sjc...@midmaine.com> wrote in message
news:3e7ef033$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Rich Douglas
influence over the type and quality of learning.
This kind of thinking displays the unsubstantiated bias against distance
learning we often see: people take distance learning courses and degrees
because they're easier, and the outcomes are not as good. Wrong on both
counts. Many studies have now shown no difference between the two learning
methods, and many students of distance learning programs report that the
method is more difficult than attending traditional classes.
The poster implies that online learning doesn't offer interaction with
faculty, yet most online courses are based on it!
Besides, how would you know how a person completed his/her degree, unless
that degree came from a school that offered only online degree programs?
Opinions are fine, but the available research draws an entirely different
picture.
Rich Douglas
"Marty S." <SkoCo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:UC2dnZjMWLb...@comcast.com...
Ralph Stavitz
I agree with you. Online courses today are much different than they used to
be. The course work is just as hard as the face-to-face classes. I teach
both online and in the traditional classes at my college, and both my
courses are the same.
Further, at my college, there is no difference made between the two. The
diploma one gets makes no mention that courses were taken online as opposed
to those in the traditional classroom and we are a fully accredited
university. I believe this is true for most colleges which offer online
courses.
My general advice to those considering online education; find a traditional
university or college that also offers a full degree completely online
rather than a school which offers only online courses.
Ralph Stavitz
"Rich Douglas" <hrpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5Qfa.5961$LH3.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Ralph Stavitz
I agree with you. Online courses today are much different than they used to
be. The course work is just as hard as the face-to-face classes. I teach
both online and in the traditional classes at my college, and both my
courses are the same.
Further, at my college, there is no difference made between the two. The
diploma one gets makes no mention that courses were taken online as opposed
to those in the traditional classroom and we are a fully accredited
university. I believe this is true for most colleges which offer online
courses.
My general advice to those considering online education; find a traditional
university or college that also offers a full degree completely online
rather than a school which offers only online courses.
Ralph Stavitz
"Rich Douglas" <hrpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5Qfa.5961$LH3.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Marty S.
in the past, and in the future, it is my opinion that a degree earned
on-line is not as enriching and well-rounded as one earned substantially in
person / on campus.
I agree that distance education now is substantially different than it was
10 years ago. It will be substantially different 10 years from now, too.
In business, there is a lot to be said for learning how to interact with
groups and among groups. Working in a classroom setting, in group labs,
discussion groups, and in seminars, is extremely useful in the business and
scientific fields. All things being equal in terms of book education, I'll
hire the person that is involved on campus in student groups & activities
since they are learning to interact with the world around them. Distance
education doesn't fulfill this attribute of higher education -- learning how
to interact.
That's just my opinion. I think distance education is useful for some
endevours, but not most.
--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA
"Rich Douglas" <hrpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5Qfa.5961$LH3.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Nick
Marty, this is once again your opinion. Remember that in a classroom
the students interact in a simulated environment. By distance learning
the student is actually in his/her work situation, and gets much better
and realistic interaction with peers and his/her managers than in the
simulated classroom environment. Learning to 'interact with the world
around them'??? Which world?
I agree that if a student is not working and just sitting at home while
doing a distance course, your point has some merit. You have to keep
in mind however that most of the online courses have an adult, working
professional as student that do not have the time to visit a campus.
It is not clear whether S Cook who started this discussion is only
interested in full time study, or perhaps studying while in a work
situation. My advise would be - if you are in a situation where you
can study full time (maybe you are still living with your parents?), go
to a traditional university and enjoy the campus life. If you do not
have a full time job, there is no point in studying on-line.
Nick
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
Nick------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=6
Henry
received your Bachelor's degree or any degree for that matter, all he/she
has to do is make a phone call.
When it's a buyers market, as the current employment environment certainly
is, and the HR department is sitting on 75 resumes, you better believe
they'll take the time to make the phone call.
I believe in this market that, all things equal on the resume, if it came
down to you and another candidate, HR will choose the candidate with a
traditional education versus an on-line education candidate.
My opinion.
"Rich Douglas" <hrpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s1Qfa.5918$LH3.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Rich Douglas
not yet published), they don't check. At least, not often enough. Or is
there some other reason for the $300-million-per-year diploma mill business?
Rich Douglas
"Henry" <He...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:DLLga.22680$pK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Henry
reason for Human Resource personnel to confirm and verify that the applicant
does indeed have the degree he/she says he/she has. In a very healthy
economy I'd say you would be right. Last time I checked, this economy wasn't
too healthy.
Again, it's a buyers market and the buyers can be very choosy.
Henry
"Rich Douglas" <hrpr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CgMga.21173$LH3.9...@news1.east.cox.net...
S Cook
> pretty much the same classes. I am working on a BS in business admin. One
> option is totally distance (online) and the other is totally "in class".
>
> How are online degrees being looked at in the workforce?
> How satisfied are people completing a degree on line vs. in class?
> Any other thoughts of wisdom??
>
>
> I have completed my Associates which was traditional in class and now going
> further.
>
> Thanks for the feedback
>
>
looking at is also a traditional school that offer a BS online as an
option. I do work Fulltime "Plus" some weeks. What I am looking for is
what others have experenced in the working world with other people
that have completed distance education. Areas like hiring after the
degrees are completed, and if other people were satisfied with thier
distance education.
Thanks for the feedback.
Scott
frank
and opinions, I would like to offer a differing opinion. I am currently
enrolled in a ABA approved law school, working towards an LL.M degree. The
instruction is 100% online.
I agree that there is no face-to-face interaction, but that is more than
made up for by the extensive interaction with faculty and students on
discussion boards, chat rooms, white board sessions where needed, etc.. In
addition, interacting in an environment where both the faculty and the
student body is truly international, with different backgrounds and
cultural/educational values is something you don't get in a normal classroom
environment.
I have done both - and very strongly feel that a well thought out and
organized on-line school can give you an excellent education.
Just my 2 cents worth - may only be worth a penny by now.
Marty S.
news:b6ah6t$bsp$1...@tilde.itg.ti.com...
> While I respect your right to operate your business based on your beliefs
> and opinions, I would like to offer a differing opinion. I am currently
> enrolled in a ABA approved law school, working towards an LL.M degree. The
> instruction is 100% online.
>
What ABA-accredited online law school do you attend? You didn't sign your
name, your school's name or location so it is difficult to know what you
mean. As far as I know, there aren't any law schools currently accredited
by the ABA. Below is a quote from an article concerning California's
Concord Law School, a subsidiary of Kaplan Higher Education.
"While the ABA seems unlikely to accredit full online education any
time soon, it recently decided to allow for partial credit for online
classes." http://www.legaled.com/respectability.htm
--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA
"frank" <fr...@laczko.org> wrote in message
news:b6ah6t$bsp$1...@tilde.itg.ti.com...
ATT
JD, they are California licensed like a number of other
distance/correspondance law schools in California.
There are, however, a number of ABA approved law schoold that offer an LL.M,
which is a graduate degree (Master of Law). I happen to be attending St.
Thomas University, but as I said, they are not the only one.
My point, however, was not about accreditation, but about the fact, that at
least in my opinion as a student who has attended both methods - the
quality of the education, including the scholastic and social interaction is
on par with any face to face experience.
Frank L.
Thomas Nixon
Marty S. wrote:
"frank" <fr...@laczko.org> wrote in message news:b6ah6t$bsp$1...@tilde.itg.ti.com...While I respect your right to operate your business based on your beliefs and opinions, I would like to offer a differing opinion. I am currently enrolled in a ABA approved law school, working towards an LL.M degree. The instruction is 100% online.What ABA-accredited online law school do you attend? You didn't sign your name, your school's name or location so it is difficult to know what you mean. As far as I know, there aren't any law schools currently accredited by the ABA. Below is a quote from an article concerning California's Concord Law School, a subsidiary of Kaplan Higher Education. "While the ABA seems unlikely to accredit full online education any time soon, it recently decided to allow for partial credit for online classes." http://www.legaled.com/respectability.htm -- Marty S. Baltimore, MD USA
Tom Nixon
--
Author, Bears' Guide to Earning High School Diplomas Nontraditionally
Ten Speed Press, July 2003
www.tomnixon.net
Penelope
I am new to this group. I became interested in this group because I am
currently perusing an online degree and everything is going great. I
wanted to let you all know that this is a great way to earn your
bachelor's and master's degree on line and at your own pace. If you
want more information about the school go to www.barrington.edu and
check it out.
John Bear
that use of a Barrington degree in that state is a criminal offense,
subjecting you to fine and imprisonment. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda
hakim_...@yahoo.com
I have just searched the archives of this newsgroup and found
literally HUNDREDS of mentionings of your and your postings to
alt.sex.prostitution.
Why has it taken until now to ad,it that you OWNED the building in
which this sordid facility existed?
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote in message news:<3E9ECF5F...@ursa.net>...
hakim_malik20
steal my identity and make me look like an idiot.. Sorry Mr. Bear. In
the future i will have the guts to be a real man.
hakim_...@yahoo.com
How exquisitely interesting!
I make an observation that you appear to have acted strangely in
regards to an alleged brothel operating in a building you own; 6923
Stockton Avenue (near San Pablo Avenue) in El Cerrito which you were
promoting by posting messages in alt.sex.prostitution and my account
at Google is immediately hacked; well cloned actually; and bogus
messages appear as if posted by me:
A quick search of Google archives shows that this is not the first
time that you have used hackers to try to silence those who would
doubt your honesty.
hakim_...@yahoo.com (hakim_...@yahoo.com) wrote in message news:<23740c02.03041...@posting.google.com>...
John Bear
including police reports and newspaper articles, if you will provide the name and
address to which I should mail it.
John Bear
John Bear
hakim_malik20 wrote:
> What a buffon I am.
Do you identify with Buffon's Needle, then? I've always enjoyed that
proof.
John Bear
"hakim_...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> My Dear Dr John Bear,
>
> How exquisitely interesting!
>
> I make an observation that you appear to have acted strangely in
> regards to an alleged brothel operating in a building you own
Oh, not, not "alleged." The police, thankfully, closed them down in May 2002. I couldn't have been happier. Now the tenant is
the Meher Baba Study Group of Northern California. What are you going to make of *that* one?
SUNNY
Generally speaking, most individuals who were home schooled have a
greatly superior education. This is all relative to learning styles and
ability; however, individuals who participate in a classroom setting
miss out on many things for many reasons. Some may feel intimidated by
other students more intellectual than themselves and not participate as
completely as they would if it were just their instructor and
themselves. Others more advanced get tired or bored at the pace they
must keep because of students not as progressed as they are. Look at
all of the problems in schooling or any type of educational
environment, there are too many social issues at hand in a group
setting for anyone to fully take advantage of the information being
taught. The only thing that the traditional classroom offers that
online or distance learning does not is social interaction, which is
actually cumbersome to the learning process. If you want to learn
something distance is better, personally focused, if you want social
interaction then get a life outside of your studies. To say that
distance learning is in anyway inferior is absurd, it has been studied
and proven that smaller classrooms with less social interaction
provides an atmosphere much more conducive to learning. Why? Because
there is less pressure from peers, more personal interaction with the
professor. Simply put, distance learning is superior.
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
SUNNY------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNNY's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=136
james1
S Cook wrote:
> *Looking for feedback. I am currently looking at 2 colleges that
> offer
> pretty much the same classes. I am working on a BS in business admin.
> One
> option is totally distance (online) and the other is totally "in
> class".
>
> How are online degrees being looked at in the workforce?
> How satisfied are people completing a degree on line vs. in class?
> Any other thoughts of wisdom??
>
>
> I have completed my Associates which was traditional in class and now
> going
> further.
>
> Thanks for the feedback
>
>
>
>
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Do some research and ask around carefully before choosing, Peterson's
Guide To Four Year Colleges gives a lot of information about distance
and residential schools. The better distance learning schools are
harder to get into and require more new work than the easiest distance
schools. Any school,either distance or residential that is easy to get
into and is very liberal on testing for credit or on transfer credit
will not be of the same value as the more restrictive ones. Read a lot
and ask a lot of questions.
Good luck!!!
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
james1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
james1's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=101
Dennis Ruhl
SUNNY wrote:
> *Generally speaking, most individuals who were home schooled have a
> greatly superior education. *
Bull
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
Dennis Ruhl------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Ruhl's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=70
Thomas Nixon
Dennis Ruhl wrote:
SUNNY wrote:*Generally speaking, most individuals who were home schooled have a greatly superior education. *Bull
Now, notice I didn't say that public schools are bad. Quite the contrary. When they do studies of parent satisfaction, most parents are quite satisfied with their own child's school, but are quite sure that all the other schools are quite bad. Quite silly, in other words.
Tom
----
Author, "Bears' Guide to Earning High School Diplomas Nontraditionally"
Some 1
> statement. I should mention that I'm in
> public education.
So, Tom... Would you agree that the school system should be eliminated
and students sent back to their parents for education? Do you think that
most parents, even fortified with online resources, could (or would)
accomplish that task?
My point is that a few highly motivated and well-prepared parents might
teach their kids better than the schools, but the great bulk of parents
aren't that highly motivated, don't have the education themselves and
have other commitments like jobs.
Some 1
> who were home schooled have a greatly
> superior education.
I agree with Dennis in not believing this.
Homeschooling probably works well in cases where parents are highly
motivated and well prepared. But if you tried to scale that up to the
general public, I think that most families couldn't support it
adaquately.
But this is about distance learning on the university level, isn't it?
> The only thing that the traditional
> classroom offers that online or distance
> learning does not is social interaction,
> which is actually cumbersome to the
> learning process.
You have never taken a lab class have you?
> Why? Because there is less pressure
> from peers, more personal interaction
> with the professor. Simply put, distance
> learning is superior.
My experience, having taken both distance larning and on-campus courses,
is that I had more interaction with my professor in class. I could also
benefit from watching his/her exchanges with all the other students.
Finally, I got a tremendous amount out of discussions with those other
students, both in and out of class.
Thomas Nixon
We now know so much about the efficacy of 1:1 tutoring. This is a tremendous teaching situation. If a parent couldn't end up doing a good job (almost by default), they probably shouldn't be homeschooling.
And, what you have stated above, is not what has been said in this thread. You've introduced the concept of "most parents." If it was I must have missed it. From my reading, no one had advocated for the elimination of public education in this thread. And if someone did, that would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
Tom
james1
SUNNY wrote:
> *Generally speaking, most individuals who were home schooled have a
> greatly superior education. This is all relative to learning styles
> and ability; however, individuals who participate in a classroom
> setting miss out on many things for many reasons. Some may feel
> intimidated by other students more intellectual than themselves and
> not participate as completely as they would if it were just their
> instructor and themselves. Others more advanced get tired or bored at
> the pace they must keep because of students not as progressed as they
> are. Look at all of the problems in schooling or any type of
> educational environment, there are too many social issues at hand in
> a group setting for anyone to fully take advantage of the information
> that online or distance learning does not is social interaction,
> learn something distance is better, personally focused, if you want
> social interaction then get a life outside of your studies. To say
> that distance learning is in anyway inferior is absurd, it has been
> studied and proven that smaller classrooms with less social
> interaction provides an atmosphere much more conducive to learning.
> interaction with the professor. Simply put, distance learning is
I agree with much of what you've said. There are many positive aspects
to home schooling. My son took that route and I'm well pleased with the
knowledge and progress he made. He just received his diploma from James
Madison High School. Until the 8th grade his program was pure home
schooling, but for High School I decided to use JMHS. I got him started
attending church, especially Sunday School, so that he would have more
social contacts. I would point out the weaknesses of distance
education. The pressure and social positioning, wrong though it may be,
is part of the real world. All those pushy, loud mouth
bores,bullies,aggressive opinionated pompous jerks, are out there in
the world, and you must be prepared for them and the competition.
Especially in the business fields are the back stabbing plotters. When
you attend a school you will meet all types of people, for good or ill.
There are many times in life when it's nice to have personal contacts.
Several jobs, over the years, have been offered to me by contacts from
school, and I've helped friends with jobs also. It's hard to go to a
school reunion or go to homecoming with distance education, but
everything considered I still believe that distance education has many
positive results. Home schooling is a useful and positive path, but
it's not the only one, and maybe not even the best. It's one I chose
for my son and to a certain extent myself. Each family or individual
has to weigh the pluses and minuses and make the choices best for them.
I don't think that one size fits all.
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
Some 1
> And, what you have stated above, is not
> what has been said in this thread.
> You've introduced the concept of "most
> parents." If it was I must have missed it.
I was referring to the remark of Sunny's that Dennis had disagreed with:
> Generally speaking, most individuals
> who were home schooled have a greatly
> superior education.
I was interpreting "generally speaking, most" to imply "most".
My point is that this thing doesn't seem to be scaleable. It might work
reasonably well for a small highly motivated group of parents who are
eager and prepared to teach their own kids. But it probably can't be
expanded into a conclusion that homeschooling is generally superior,
which seems to have been the original assertion.
james1
oko wrote:
> *Employers don't care as long as the school is regionally accredited.
> The most important thing is the individual holding the qualification
> being able to perform the job commensurate with the qualification. *
I don't agree that employers don't care. Some care very much where and
how a diploma was earned, and some colleges care also. I'm dealing with
a situation right now with the admissions dept. of a college that cares
very much. We've been jumping through hoops and providing more
information. One person said the school wasn't accredited. I showed her
on the transcript where it listed the RA & DETC accreditors. She called
her boss who looked at it and said,"This isn't a transcript it's a
receipt," I was too stunned to even believe what I heard. These two
must have used Trinity University for their education. I appealed to
the department head and supplied them with documents and a written
statement. I don't have great expectations from these boobs. The dept.
head, a Dr. ---- may be a bit above the two we met. He's supposed to
call me back today with a decision. If it's bad I'll appeal to the
review committee. No, not everyone accepts RA accreditation as the
final word. You may, as have we, have to defend the choice of distance
education.
oko
Employers don't care as long as the school is regionally accredited.
The most important thing is the individual holding the qualification
being able to perform the job commensurate with the qualification.
S Cook wrote:
> *Looking for feedback. I am currently looking at 2 colleges that
> offer
> pretty much the same classes. I am working on a BS in business admin.
> One
> option is totally distance (online) and the other is totally "in
> class".
>
> How are online degrees being looked at in the workforce?
> How satisfied are people completing a degree on line vs. in class?
> Any other thoughts of wisdom??
>
>
> I have completed my Associates which was traditional in class and now
> going
> further.
>
> Thanks for the feedback
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- *
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
oko------------------------------------------------------------------------
oko's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=141
james1
Some 1 wrote:
> --------------------------------------------
> Home schooling or any version of distance education may be better or
> worse than residential schooling, depending on the procedures used,
> and the acceptance of its results by the desired employers or higher
> schools. One never knows what is acceptable until the resume or
> application is on the table. I love home schooling and distance
> education, but the day of full acceptance by the work and residential
> school community hasn't arrived yet,unfortunately. I don't regret any
> efforts that I've made on this path, but do regret some of the
> ignorance I've encountered by some public officials and admissions
> employees. It's a war that will be won, but when, who knows???
> James1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =90 *
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
Rose Bear
Generally speaking, online degrees tend to be viewed in the professional
world as superior to mere residential classes. Simply put, an
individual with an in-class degree is generally viewed by employers as
an individual who extended his/her childhood by four years and knows
nothing. An individual who completed an online degree is generally
viewed as more motivated. In the academic world, department chairs at
traditional doctoral programs will even not know that there exist such
things as online degrees. Department chairs at traditional programs
also do stupid things like insist that they wouldn't accept degrees by
examination or insist that you couldn't do a dissertation-only
doctorate at our university, not even realizing that this is exactly
what happens at places like Oxford and Cambridge.
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
Rose Bear------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bear's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=189
Airborne_Ranger
Generally speaking, online degrees tend to be viewed in the professional
world as superior to mere residential classes.
Rose Bear <Rose.Be...@email.onlinecollege.info> wrote in message news:<Rose.Be...@email.onlinecollege.info>...
chris
Well I suspect that the difference between distance and residential
degrees is hardly known within the professional world. What impresses
people is the fact that you earn a degree while still working full time.
The venue in which the degree was earned is probably of lesser
importance. When I got my MS in clinical psychology the first question my
HR director asked was "Is it accredited?" The second comment was "Ohhhh
and you did it while working here full time!!?"
In article <7e2d1aad.03080...@posting.google.com>,
savage...@yahoo.com says...
John Bear
> REALLY.....?
>
> Generally speaking, online degrees tend to be viewed in the professional
> world as superior to mere residential classes.
The only research I know about that addressed this exact question (there well may have been others) was the Sosdian & Sharp
study, years ago, for the National Institute of Education. They asked the HR people at 81 companies about acceptance of
distance vs. residential degrees. (They were only asking about the schools now called Excelsior, Edison, and Charter Oak).
My strong recollection is that not only did not of the respondents say that residential was better, but a subset said
distance was better, since it showed that the employee was capable of independent study and unguided work.
It is possible that things have changed in a world with vastly more bad and fake schools. If it hasn't been re-done, that
would make a swell Master's project.
carrie
Take a look at the following site. You can request complimentary
information from each distance learning program to find out more about
each program.
'Distance Learning Programs'
(http://www.distance-learning-programs.info/)
Also, if you click on the "Resource" link at the bottom of the page you
will a few interesting articles on distance learning.
Carrie
You can find a few good programs at 'Online Degree Programs'
(http://www.online-degree-programs.info/)
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
carrie------------------------------------------------------------------------
carrie's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=383
Rich Douglas
them (Kennedy-Western) is not recognized as a university, despite being
permitted to operate by the state of Wyoming. (It is actually in
California, where it is not approved to operate). Kennedy-Western is not
accredited by any recognized agency.
--
Rich Douglas
BA (Sociology), The University of the State of New York
BS (Business), The University of the State of New York
MBA, National University
Ph.D. (Nontraditional Higher Education), Union Institute and University
"carrie" <carrie...@email.onlinecollege.info> wrote in message
news:carrie...@email.onlinecollege.info...
madalaine
I'd like to add a perspective as well...as someone who earned her BS
online through St Mary of the Woods in Indiana and who is earning her
MS in Adult Ed through Indiana University-Purdue University
Indianapolis via distance ed, I am having no problems with employers.
BUT that is because these are traditionally respected schools.
If you go to U of Phoenix or Capella, which are accredited, employers
know these as online schools and for better or worse, they are
skeptical.
I am running into the problem that I want to get a PhD in Educational
Technology, but I have been basically told I will never get into a
respected university (as it stands now) because the educators, which
deal with online education every day, still think the only way to get a
PhD is to play college kid for a few years.
For those of us with families and financial commitment, it makes no
sense. One school (which I will not name) told me that the f2f sessions
(in this case 2 semesters on campus) were so that we could be
introduced into "scholarliness" Whaaaat? What about the scholars doing
their research out in the field with the rest of us poor working
slobs... and is it not a bit hypocritical that these traditional
schools would offer BS and MS degrees online can't continue to back up
distance ed into the ultimate education.
Ok... I will get off my soap box now :)
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
madalaine------------------------------------------------------------------------
madalaine's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=462
Richard Kanarek
Thanks for taking the time to post.
There are foreign, research-based graduate degrees that are quite
amenable to acquisition by distance means. (UNISA, (www.unisa.ac.za)
is prominent in this field, and is extremely economical by American
standards.) Perhaps you need to give the institutions you consulted an
"ultimate education" by taking your business elsewhere?
Cordially,
Richard Kanarek
IUGrad
I returned to school at age 44 in the only way that fit my needs and
that of my family. Though Indiana University's Independent Study
Program. I spent months researching my options in 1998 - when on-line
was not ubiquitous as it is now.
I thought then, as I do now, the point of an education -- is to be
exposed to ideas - to learn to critically think and to be able to apply
the knowledge and skills to life -- work life -- all life.
I wasn't interested in a business degree - but if I were I would
consider Univ of Phoenix as much as a traditional university's distance
offering. I would research it.
Employers always discriminate in some fashion -- whether obvious or
not. They discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender. They might
pick the Harvard Business MBA instead of the Baylor University MBA.
They might discriminate based on fraternity or sorority affiliation.
It's endless the ways people discriminate. One cannot let what one
particular employer does cause you to lose sight of what you wish to
accomplish.
I would also add that while on-line is the term most often used here,
not every Indepedent Study program has always been "on-line". Many
traditional universities have offered at a distance programs that were
paper based for years. Indiana University and Texas Tech come to
mind.
I received a quality education from IU - both an Associate of General
Studies and Bachelor of General Studies. I worked hard every minute
for every grade point and I took, Astronomy, Geology, Geography,
History, Religion, Literature, Public Speaking and Anthropology just to
name a few courses. I was taught by the same professors who teach the
same classes on -campus.
This is something new -- but traditional brick and mortar will not be
the only way for the future.
I didn't work for the goal just for a specific job -- I wanted an
education and I think that is an important goal to keep in mind.
If the only consideration is job-related -- then I can't imagine why
University of Phoenix or other on-line or distance programs that are
accredited shouldn't be considered.
Distance Learning is not going to create neuro-surgeons, but it does
broaden the options to create educated individuals who can then make
many kinds of options for their futures... jobs, graduate school, etc.
---
View this thread: http://www.online-college.info/article369.html
IUGrad------------------------------------------------------------------------
IUGrad's Profile: http://www.online-college.info/forum/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=372
Concord_...@yahoo.com
(Address Removed)
(City, State and Zip Code Removed)
(Telephone Number Removed)
September 20, 2003
Honorable
United States
Secretary of Education
Roderick R. Paige
United States Department of Education
Office of Post Secondary Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Kenneth Marcus,
Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
United States Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights
3030 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20202
Gary Jackson
Western Division, Seattle Office
915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
Seattle, Washington 98174-1099
RE: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear All:
On August 20, 2003, as per Steve Cramolini, I requested an appeal and
review of the Seattle OCR Office's handling of my complaints. In
particular, I identified issues such as how the investigator had
refused to accept the January 11, 2002, letter Kaplan (Concord School
of Law) wrote identifying the reasons for my 12 month suspension, as
proof of retaliation.
Today, I received a letter date September 16, 2003, from Gary Jackson
closing OCR No. 09022116. In his letter he fails to discuss the
January 11, 2002, letter, my retaliation claim, and/or my August 2003
requests for review of the Seattle handling of the retaliation claim.
Interestingly, I spoke with the Seattle Office on September 20, 2003,
but wasn't informed of the closure. That is, it appears that the
"closure letter" was rushed out after I filed a new retaliation
complaint on September 16, 2003. In short, we had discussion about the
new retaliation complaint but nothing concerning an expect closing of
the investigation.
As a Freedom of Information Act Request, please forward to me copies
of the documents/information OCR identifies in its September 16, 2003,
closure letter. That is, all tangible records OCR identifies as having
been provided by Kaplan/Concord School of Law, and a part of the
investigative file.
Thank you
s/
(Name Removed)
> I. Introduction:
>
> Concord's own writing is undisputed proof of retaliation, i.e.,
> suspension without cause immediately following January 6, 2002, filing
> of (name removed)'s supplement to his previous discrimination
> complaints.
>
> On January 11, 2002, Cassandra Colchagoff, Associate Dean, Concord
> School of Law wrote the following explaining her reasoning for a 12
> month retaliatory suspension:
>
> "After our first contact, you placed several postings to the Student
> Discussion Boards that question whether there are, in fact, other
> upper level students at Concord and course curriculum. You also stated
> that Concord had failed to provide you with your course and final exam
> grades, when that was untrue. Most glaringly, you disrupted students
> engaged in their studies in the concord Chat Rooms with messages
> stating 'important Message -- Concord is a Sham' suggesting that
> Concord's FYLSE results were inaccurate and that there were no upper
> level students. These clearly go to your allegations to me that we
> were engaged in fraud and misrepresentation of the school and, in
> fact, had fabricated our third and fourth year students."
>
> II. Issue:
>
> In order to succeed on a claim of discriminatory retaliation, a
> complainant must demonstrate that: "(1) [he] engaged in conduct
> protected by Title VII; (2) the law school took adverse action against
> [him]; and (3) a causal link exists between [his] protected conduct
> and the law school's adverse action."
>
> III. Conclusion:
>
> Once Kaplan had notice of (name removed)'s January 6, 2002, filing of
> a supplement to his discrimination complaint (engagement in protected
> Title VII activity), it had a legal duty. The appropriate response
> should have been tailored to redress fully the specific problems he
> alleged in his Title VII complaint. The responsive action should have
> been reasonably calculated to prevent recurrence and ensure that his
> participation or benefits wouldn't be restricted.
>
> However, as per Cassandra Colchagoff's July 11, 2002, own admission,
> the online law school took immediate adverse action against me.
> Therefore, such is an admitted causal link between (name removed)'s
> protected conduct on January 6, 2002, and the law school's immediate
> adverse action.
>
> IV. Statement of the Facts:
>
> (A) On January 5, 2002, (name removed) posted the following inquiry on
> a public "Student to Student Only" bulletin board.
>
> "Did any 4th year (2002) student have Evidence last year. I just
> completed the course but did so without a group chat. The Concord
> Model says that there will be "professor-led" chats. I am also not
> aware of any other student who was enrolled in the Evidence Course. If
> there was in fact a third year group of students (last year), what
> happened to the Evidence chats? Concord says it has a 4th year class
> that just started in 2002. How come I couldn't find any other students
> during the 3rd year Evidence course? I also notice names of students
> listed as enrolled in my other courses, but never witnessed the
> students participate in any group chats. I would hate to think that
> some Concord students are really not participating as required by
> others. When I first came to Concord the Administration expressed a
> concern that Concord wasn't prepared to offer the 3rd year courses I
> needed. It said it could only offer me Evidence. Concord just recently
> posted a news report that it will have its first 4th year group of
> student this year (2002). It also qualified that the 4th year group
> will do work-study in 2002. Where was this group of students during
> the Evidence course last year (2001)? Lastly, I did notice that the
> Evidence final was scheduled for December 10, 2002. Most interesting,
> my Evidence final wasn't held until December 20, 2001. If you had 3rd
> year Evidence last year (2001) and/or took the final on December 10th
> or December 20th please let me know A.S.A.P.: (email address removed).
> The school refused to explain why despite several questions I directed
> specifically to Cassandra Colchagoff, Associate Dean, and/or submitted
> as per an administration question. Reasonable law schools wouldn't
> hesitate to specifically explain apparent absentee students and/or
> unequal treatment."
>
> (B) On January 6, 2002, (name removed) posted a reply acknowledging
> unequal instruction with an Evidence course, i.e., Mr. (name removed)
> identified that he received "professor-led group chats" for the course
> twice a month during 2001.
>
> (C) On January 6, 2002, (name removed) supplement his discrimination
> complaint against Concord, adding new information, i.e., alleging a
> denial of "professor-led group chats" for the third year Evidence
> course during 2001.
>
> (D) At approximately 12 noon on January 8, 2002, (name removed) posted
> the following inquiry on a public "Student to Student Only" bulletin
> board.
>
> "Concord's written policy mandates that students are to receive their
> grades and test results within 21 days. The administration has
> withheld my grades and test results for more than 21 days without
> explaining why. If there are any other students having such a problem
> with the administration, please advise. I think something appears
> inappropriate when a law school does not want you to know your grade
> and/or refuses to return your test results without explaining.
> Further, I am scheduled for a 4th year. Concord provided me a contract
> (study plan) that was approved by the State Bar of California.
> However, it appears Concord doesn't have the courses it told me it
> would have when I enrolled under the study plan. That is, courses I
> need for graduation. If there are other 4th year students enrolled,
> please share the specific 4th year courses your are taking during
> 2002."
>
> (E) Immediately, the online law school removed all of (name removed)'s
> postings and took away his password, denying any further access to the
> school.
>
> (F) Later that day (January 8, 2002) at approximately 3:33 p.m., (name
> removed) complained to Cassandra Colchagoff, Associate Dean,
>
> "I still have yet to receive his grades and test results."
>
> V. Discussion:
>
> The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ...
> abridging the freedom of speech..." Like the speech of ordinary
> citizens, student speech has First Amendment protection.
>
> First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special
> characteristics of the school environment, are available to students.
> It can hardly be argued that students shed their constitutional rights
> to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has
> been the unmistakable holding of the Supreme Court for almost 50
> years.
>
> The United States Supreme Court reminds us of the importance of
> protecting fundamental freedoms in schools:
>
> The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more
> vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is
> peculiarly the marketplace of ideas. The Nation's future depends upon
> leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas
> which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than
> through any kind of authoritative selection. Among the freedoms
> protected in schools is freedom of speech.
>
> The First Amendment ensures that individuals may speak freely about
> important issues in their lives without fear of reprisal. Generally,
> school officials may not punish someone for expressing their views,
> even if that expression is controversial, offensive, or even repugnant
>
> For a law school to justify prohibition of a particular expression of
> opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by
> something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and
> unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. This has
> become the grounding point for Constitutional analysis of school
> speech: whether or not the speech was actually or potentially,
> materially and substantially disruptive to the work of the school, and
> whether or not it interfered with the rights of other students.
>
> Students cannot constitutionally be disciplined "merely for expressing
> their personal views on the school premises ... unless school
> authorities have reason to believe that such expression will
> "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon
> the rights of other students.
>
> Student-initiated hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of
> political views, or other similarly protected speech that occurs on
> school property, must be tolerated unless substantially disruptive or
> interfering.
>
> A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite
> dispute. It may indeed serve its high purpose when it induces a
> condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they
> are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and
> challenging... . There is no room under our Constitution for a more
> restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of
> ideas.
>
> Any word spoken, in class, in a student chat room, or other, that
> deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or
> cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk;
> and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this
> kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of
> the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this
> relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
>
> It is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is
> the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor
> of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often
> disputatious society. Prohibition of expression of one particular
> opinion, without evidence that prohibition is necessary to avoid
> material and substantial interference in school, is not
> constitutionally permissible
>
> School officials "must demonstrate a substantial basis for their
> conclusion" that expression "would result in significant harm to some
> students." This has been described as the reasonable forecast test.
>
> That is, there is a clear burden on school officials who would seek to
> restrict student expression: they would be required to establish that
> the speech in question would create a material and substantial
> interference with the educational environment or the rights of others.
> If the school cannot provide such evidence, the school officials acted
> out of "undifferentiated fear or apprehension."
>
> School officials have a burden of showing that the speech caused a
> disruption. Speech does not disrupt where an administration has no
> difficulty in keeping the things under control. Even if students'
> reaction to speech may fairly be characterized as rowdy but, it was
> hardly disruptive. The mere fact that some members of the school
> community considered the speech to be inappropriate does not
> necessarily mean it was disruptive of the educational process. Such
> would lead to a heckler's veto, allowing the elimination of certain
> messages or even viewpoints
>
> The standard is material disruption, not inappropriateness. Only when
> school officials can reasonably forecast that the expression will
> create a substantial disruption of the school environment should they
> be allowed to censor individual student expression. Freedom of
> expression is not left to the aesthetic tastes and sensibilities of
> school officials. It is arguably the most important building block in
> a democracy. A law school cannot teach the importance of the First
> Amendment and simultaneously not follow it.
>
> Opportunities for expression and debate of ideas in a law school
> setting not only protect the free expression rights of students, but
> also provide a more robust educational environment that leads to
> better educated students. Law schools aggressively educate students on
> issues of civil debate and ways in which divergent, emotional ideas
> can be expressed. When objectionable speech occurs on campus, the
> resolution should not focus on silencing the student, but on educating
> the offended about appropriate responses.
>
> A large part of American public life includes the opportunity to
> offend and be offended. Just as one person's terrorist is another's
> freedom fighter, one person's vulgar and offensive speech is another's
> political opus. Schools are precisely the places where these realities
> need to be fleshed out, where students have the opportunity to engage
> in civic behavior, even when unseemly.
>
>
> > > COMPLAINT AGAINST CONCORD SCHOOL OF LAW
> > >
> > > 1. The Washington Post, Kaplan, Inc., and Concord School of Law
> > > having knowingly misrepresented U.S. Department of Education
> > > recognition of the Distance Education Training Council's
> > > accreditation. That is, they advertised the DETC accreditation as:
> > >
> > > A. DOE's recognition of their authority to grant a Juris Doctorate
> > > degree;
> > >
> > > B. Compliance with DOE's nondiscriminatory regulations as per DETC
> > > accredition. That is, an assurance of nondiscrimination and a written
> > > policy for discrimination complaints; and,
> > >
> > > C. The online law school didn't investigate my discrimination
> > > complaints and knowingly obstructed DETC's investigation as per an
> > > intentional false writting dated May 2, 2002. DOE (John Barth) said on
> > > May 8, 2003, he cannot investigate because DOE didn't recognize DETC
> > > ability to authorize accreditation of Juris Doctorate degress until
> > > July 10, 2002. DOE (John Barth) also said that it he cannot
> > > investigate the online law school's May 2, 2002, intentional
> > > misrepresentation discovered in the attachment John Barth forwarded
> > > with his May 8, 2003, correspondence.
> > >
> > > 2. The Washington Post, Kaplan Inc., and Concord School of Law
> > > knowingly misrepresented to consumers and investors that more than
> > > 1000 students participate actively in a "highly interactive" online
> > > campus. However, I searched during the 2001 academic year and could
> > > only find aproximately 25-40 first and second year students.
> > >
> > > A. The online law school advertised that it provides class rosters to
> > > facilitate interaction. I was denied the class roster.
> > >
> > > B. The online law school advertised that it provides "Live
> > > professor-led group chats." I was denied the group chat for the only
> > > third year course (Evidence) it advised as being available for the
> > > 2001 academic year.
> > >
> > > C. As recent as February 21, 2002, Dean William I. Weston admitted
> > > that there were only five fourth year students. Prior to that an
> > > alleged fourth year student, (name removed)acknowledged on January 6,
> > > 2002, that there was only 4 or 5 fourth year students. The online law
> > > school's official publication, Concord Reporter 8, in November 2001,
> > > named only 4 fourth year students. Somehow 10 students graduated in
> > > November 2002, despite California Law, Rule VII, section 4 of the
> > > Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California mandating
> > > students in correspondence schools "must have received passing grades
> > > in courses requiring not less than 48 nor more than 52 consecutive
> > > weeks" to obtain credit for an academic year of legal education.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, some of the ten 2002 graduates appear to have since
> > > been added to the early edition of Concord Reporters. That is, the
> > > online law school now (after my complaint), attempts to list recent
> > > pictures of alleged students as part of early editions of the school
> > > publication.
> > >
> > > 3. The Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education, and
> > > the Office of Civil Rights have turned a "blind eye" to the internet
> > > fraud and "diploma mill" operation. The Department of Justice and
> > > Government Accounting Office have been advised.
> > >
> > > (name removed)
> > > (address removed)
> > > (city and zip code removed)
> > > (telephone # removed)
> > >
> > > July 14, 2003
> > >
> > > Daniel Weiss
> > > Via: Daniel...@mail.house.gov
> > >
> > > Gary Jackson, Director
> > > United States Department of Education
> > > Office of Civil Rights
> > > Western Division, Seattle Office
> > > 915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
> > > Seattle, Washington 98174-1099
> > >
> > > U.S. Department of Justice
> > > Ask...@usdoj.gov
> > > 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
> > > Washington, DC 20530-0001
> > >
> > > Government Accounting Office
> > > frau...@gao.gov
> > >
> > > RE: Kaplan OCR Reference No. 0902216
> > >
> > > Dear All:
> > >
> > > In reply to Daniel Weiss most recent email the following is provided.
> > >
> > > In short, I participated with the first online distance education law
> > > school during the 2001 academic year. I first filed complaints
> > > beginning in January 2002. I also filed a complaint with the OCR San
> > > Francisco Office on May 30, 2002. For unexplained reasons, the case
> > > was given to the OCR Seattle office in June 2002.
> > >
> > > By email on June 11, 2002, Mr. Dunne of the San Francisco office
> > > specifically explained to Ms. Shelton of the Seattle office that the
> > > Postsecondary Education Participant System identified "Kaplan, Inc.,"
> > > Concord School of Law's parent corporation, as a participant of
> > > programs authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
> > > Interestingly, the Seattle office originally closed the case advising
> > > that it did not have jurisdiction over Kaplan, Inc.
> > >
> > > In February 2003, the Seattle office finally issued a letter "notice
> > > of four allegations" that attempted to limit the scope of the
> > > allegations to things it appears they believed Kaplan, Inc. could
> > > defend against.
> > >
> > > In April 2003, the Seattle office issued another letter announcing
> > > Kaplan's defense but refused to disclose any supporting documentation
> > > (verified answer, sworn statements, etc.). The Seattle office refused
> > > to disclose what information: witnesses, documents, sworn statements,
> > > and the like was used to establish Kaplan's response.
> > >
> > > The response the Seattle office announced was flawed and not supported
> > > by the information in the record (documents the DOE had already
> > > obtained). The response appeard to suggest an admission of the four
> > > allegations. The Seattle office refused to issue a findings based on
> > > the insufficient response. Interestingly, from June 2002 to April
> > > 2003, the Seattle office had refrained from calling the process "an
> > > investigation."
> > >
> > > In May 2003, the Seattle office finally decided to conduct "an
> > > investigation" of the allegations. Because the investigation file
> > > already supported a findings against Kaplan, Inc., in regard to the
> > > "four allegations" announced in February 2003, the Seattle office now
> > > said it wanted to investigate those things it had excluded previously.
> > > It appears the Seattle office was now helping to search for an
> > > alternative defense for the online law school.
> > >
> > > My complaint charges "absentee" students, fraud, obstruction, and the
> > > like. Responsible individuals and entities have disobey the law
> > > attempting to "cover-up" their disobedience through semantics and
> > > strained, unilateral, self-serving interpretations of their own
> > > duties.
> > >
> > > It appears that various investigators have committed fraud on the
> > > Secretary of Education and others by failing to disclose "apparent
> > > false information" it received from Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of
> > > Law.)
> > >
> > > It appears that those responsible are consciously abdicating their
> > > enforcement duties to further political efforts to relax distance
> > > education guidelines.
> > >
> > > Providing third parties copies of evidence submitted to federal
> > > authorities is my attempt to create a public record of the apparent
> > > corruption.
> > >
> > > s/
> > > (name removed)
> > >
> > >
> > > EXHIBIT "D"
> > > (name removed)
> > > (address removed)
> > > (city and zip code removed)
> > > (telephone # removed)
> > >
> > > May 27, 2003
> > >
> > > Monique Malson, Esq.
> > > United States Department of Education
> > > Office of Civil Rights
> > > Western Division, Seattle Office
> > > 915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
> > > Seattle, Washington 98174-1099
> > >
> > > RE: Kaplan OCR Reference No. 0902216
> > >
> > > Ms. Malson:
> > >
> > > I. Introduction:
> > >
> > > Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
> > > regulations, no individual may be excluded from participation in, be
> > > denied the benefit of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination on
> > > the ground of race, color or national origin. In addition, the
> > > existence of a racially hostile environment that is created,
> > > encouraged, accepted, tolerated or left uncorrected by a recipient of
> > > federal funds, and/or its agents and employees also constitutes
> > > different treatment on the basis of race in violation of Title VI.
> > >
> > > OCR has institution-wide jurisdiction over Kaplan, Inc., a recipient
> > > of federal funds. Because Kaplan receives federal funds, Title VI
> > > requirements apply to all of the academic and extracurricular programs
> > > of the institution, whether conducted in facilities of the recipient
> > > or elsewhere. Title VI covers all of the uses of property that Kaplan,
> > > Inc. owns and all of the activities that it sponsors. Title VI covers
> > > all of these operations, whether the individual involved in a given
> > > activity are students, faculty, employees, or other participants or
> > > outsiders.
> > >
> > > II. Different Treatment:
> > >
> > > OCR first must apply a standard different treatment analysis to
> > > allegations involving racial incidents perpetrated by representatives
> > > of recipients. Under this analysis, Kaplan, Inc. violates Title VI if
> > > one of its agents or employees, acting within the scope of his or her
> > > official duties, has treated a student differently on the basis of
> > > race, color, or national origin in the context of an educational
> > > program or activity without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason so
> > > as to interfere with or limit the ability of the student to
> > > participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges
> > > provided. Such incidents can constitute violations of Title VI even if
> > > they do not constitute "harassment," so long as they constitute
> > > different treatment by agents or employees that interferes with the
> > > ability of a student to participate in or benefit from the recipient's
> > > programs or activities.
> > >
> > > A. Did an official or representative of a recipient treat someone
> > > differently in a way that interfered with or limited the ability of a
> > > student to participate in or benefit from a program or activity of the
> > > recipient? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)
> > >
> > > Allegation: The Chats
> > >
> > > Ms. Malson says: "The information presented by Concord is that chats
> > > were held in your Evidence course, and that there is no record of your
> > > attending Evidence course chats. Concord does not have information
> > > identifying why you did not attend the chats. Their belief, offered in
> > > response to the allegation, is that you may not have seen the schedule
> > > of the chats or the reminders on your homepage because of the way
> > > information was processed by their online system."
> > >
> > > The Evidence course Syllabus provided by the school is undisputed
> > > evidence as to what was advised as late as the 8th month of a 12 month
> > > academic program. Interestingly, the Syllabus does not list the
> > > "signature aspect" of the Kaplan model "live professor-led group
> > > chats" scheduled during the 2001 academic year.
> > >
> > > The record further demonstrates that the Associate Dean of
> > > Administration admits reviewing my actual participation weekly, but
> > > somehow Kaplan now says that it didn't know I wasn't a part of any
> > > "live professor-led group chats." That is, the only available means to
> > > witness the first group of graduates being held to the same academic
> > > standard, somehow wasn't provided and no legitimate business reason
> > > has been provided.
> > >
> > > Allegation: The Roster
> > >
> > > Kaplan admits that I didn't receive any information concerning any
> > > other third year student. The record demonstrates that the roster was
> > > advertised as a tool provided to every student to facilitate its
> > > "highly interaction" online campus.
> > >
> > > Allegation: The Fourth-Year Planning Meeting
> > >
> > > Ms. Malson says: "The information presented by Concord is that
> > > students on track to graduate in October 2002 were invited to the
> > > planning meeting, and that they also invited a small cohort of
> > > students on track to graduate in January 2003. Assuming that you had
> > > successfully completed two years of law school at Concord, you could
> > > have graduated in January 2003." (Please note the law school
> > > graduation actually took place in 2002.) Therefore, Kaplan admits
> > > their failure to comply with both the written procedure and the
> > > California State Bar's evaluation that I was a Third year law student.
> > >
> > > According to Kaplan's written procedure, the only factor determining
> > > "on track" to graduate is the State Bar of California's evaluation.
> > > (Please note my complaint includes allegation of a hostile
> > > environment, i.e., Kaplan arbitrarily graded quizzes, essays, and
> > > final exams because of my race to prevented me from participating with
> > > the first graduating group of students.) Kaplan's admission that it
> > > knowingly failed to invite me to the two fourth year planning meeting,
> > > before finals were held and graded, proves the law school had no
> > > intention of allowing me to continue.
> > >
> > > Allegation: The LEEP Program
> > >
> > > Ms. Malson says: "The information presented by Concord is that the
> > > LEEP program is available to students at least a 2.5 GPA, who have
> > > completed courses in legal writing and professional responsibility.
> > > Students meeting these requirements are usually 4th year students at
> > > Concord, because legal writing and professional responsibility are
> > > offered in Concord's third year curriculum.
> > >
> > > However, I had successfully completed a legal research and writing
> > > course at (name removed) School of Law. Further, according to the
> > > information submitted is the claim that Kaplan advised me in the Fall
> > > of 2000 "they didn't have any third and fourth year courses ready."
> > > (See January 5, 2002, Posting on Public Student Bulletin Board. See
> > > also Declaration of attorney (name removed)) Therefore, according to
> > > this new information, Kaplan now appears to admit that it also
> > > discriminated against me by specifically denying the third year
> > > courses it says were allegedly available and provided to non-blacks in
> > > 2001 as a prerequisite for LEEP. (I requested that my complaint be
> > > supplemented to included this recent admission.)
> > >
> > > B. Did the different treatment occur in the course of authorized or
> > > assigned duties or responsibilities of the agent or employee?
> > > (Suggested Answer: Yes.)
> > >
> > > Kaplan's (Concord School of Law) administrative office admits it
> > > failed to provide the advertised Roster, an invitation to the two
> > > fourth-year planning sessions, and prerequisite course for the LEEP
> > > program. The Evidence course Syllabus provided by the school is
> > > undisputed evidence as to what was advised as late as the 8th month of
> > > a 12 month academic program. The Syllabus doesn't list "live
> > > professor-led group chats" scheduled during the 2001 academic year.
> > >
> > > C. Was the different treatment based on race, color, or national
> > > origin? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)
> > >
> > > In the record is information proving Matt McClenahan communicated by
> > > telephone twice, his belief that the administrative office had changed
> > > its mind (concerning my acceptance) because of race and transfer
> > > status. (See Declaration Two of (name removed).) Further, I sought
> > > legal advice immediately following Matt McClenahan's admission of
> > > racial animus. (See Declaration of attorney (name removed)). Race
> > > based questions during (name removed)'s interview further proves
> > > racial animus. (See Declaration of (name removed).)
> > >
> > >
> > > D. Did the context or circumstances of the incident provide a
> > > legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual basis for the different
> > > treatment? (Suggested Answer: No)
> > >
> > > Kaplan's response communicated by Monique Malson on April 4, 2003,
> > > appears to be an admission to three of four allegations. The response
> > > concerning the chats follows its pattern of knowingly misrepresenting
> > > information in an attempt to obstruct any investigation of this issue.
> > > That is, Kaplan knowingly represented to BPPVE and others false
> > > information to suggest an alleged "probation" and "Educational
> > > Contract" being implemented. However, in their letter dated May 2,
> > > 2002, (just discovered), Concord School of Law admitted to DETC, on
> > > page 2 subpart "K," that no Educational Contract was implemented.
> > >
> > > The May 2, 2002, letter additionally identified Kaplan knowingly
> > > misleading the DETC at page 5 paragraph 3, with the following:
> > >
> > > "Following receipt of his report card, (name removed) was repeatedly
> > > informed of his rights to review exams.... He has not requested such a
> > > review.... Had (name removed) asked for an opportunity to review the
> > > multiple-choice test at a location more convenient to him, concord
> > > would have considered such request. No such request was ever made.
> > > Students are always allowed to review their essay exams with their
> > > professors. (name removed) was informed of his right to such a review
> > > and the method to request one but never submitted such a request."
> > >
> > > III. Hostile Environment:
> > >
> > > A violation of Title VI may also be found if a recipient has created
> > > or is responsible for a racially hostile environment, i.e., harassing
> > > conduct that is sufficiently severe, pervasive or persistent so as to
> > > interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in
> > > or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a
> > > recipient. A recipient has subjected an individual to different
> > > treatment on the basis of race if it has effectively caused,
> > > encouraged, accepted, tolerated or failed to correct a racially
> > > hostile environment of which it has actual or constructive notice.
> > > Under this analysis, an alleged harasser need not be an agent or
> > > employee of the recipient, because this theory of liability under
> > > Title VI is premised on a recipient's general duty to provide a
> > > nondiscriminatory educational environment.
> > >
> > > A. Did a racially hostile environment exist? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)
> > >
> > > Kaplan accepted me for an October 2000 start. However, Matt
> > > McClenahan, Kaplan's Director of Enrollment, would later call and
> > > during a "confidential styled" telephone call, announced that Kaplan
> > > had changed its mind because of "race (black) and transfer status."
> > > Matt McClenahan specifically said that "he had to convinced the Kaplan
> > > Administration that denial at that point would have been
> > > discrimination." (See Declaration Two of (name removed). See also
> > > Declaration of attorney (name removed).)
> > >
> > > Weeks later, Matt would call again and attempt to explain an
> > > unreasonable delay in preparing the "Study Plan" required for the
> > > State Bar of California's evaluation of prior years of law as follows:
> > > "I had to rush together a third year Evidence course because we don't
> > > have any third and fourth year courses." (See Declaration of attorney
> > > (name removed).) I would have to again forced the issue concerning my
> > > start in January 2001. Although the study plan had been submitted to
> > > the State Bar of California, there was further unexplained resistance
> > > to allow me to start.
> > >
> > > An educational institution has a duty to provide a nondiscriminatory
> > > environment that is conducive to learning. The signal Kaplan sent is
> > > clearly the existence of an identifiable bigoted resistance to African
> > > Americans. The particular characteristics and circumstances during the
> > > enrollment process was sufficiently severe that it would have
> > > adversely affected the enjoyment of some aspects of the educational
> > > program by a reasonable person, of the same age and race, under
> > > similar circumstances.
> > >
> > > B. Did Kaplan have actual or constructive notice? (Suggested Answer:
> > > Yes.)
> > >
> > > A racially hostile environment requiring appropriate responsive action
> > > clearly resulted from the explicitly racial conduct involving the
> > > enrollment process. That is, Kaplan had actual notice of the hostile
> > > environment and was required to take appropriate action. The record
> > > substantiates that Matt McClenahan acknowledged corrective action was
> > > necessary. (See Declaration Two of (name removed). See also
> > > Declaration of attorney (name removed).)
> > >
> > > Because the law school's administrative office, an agent or employees,
> > > was acting within the scope of their official duties (had actual or
> > > apparent authority over me), they should be considered to have been
> > > acting in an agency capacity and the Kaplan should be deemed to have
> > > had constructive notce of the harassment.
> > >
> > > C. Did Kaplan "fail" to respond adequately?
> > >
> > > Once Kaplan had notice, it had a legal duty to take responsible steps
> > > to eliminate it. The appropriate response should have been tailored to
> > > redress fully the specific problems experienced at the institution.
> > > Further, the responsive action should have been reasonably calculated
> > > to prevent recurrence and ensure that my participation or benefits
> > > wouldn't be restricted.
> > >
> > > However, the harassment and discrimination continued.
> > >
> > > 1. I was denied the "Live Evidence professor-led group chats."
> > >
> > > 2. I was forced from the "student lounge" public chat room by (name
> > > removed) and (name removed).
> > >
> > > 3. Kaplan arbitrarily graded quizzes, essays, and final exams because
> > > of my race to prevented me from participating with the first
> > > graduating group of students.
> > >
> > > 4. My home page was blocked the first couple weeks in October 2001
> > > (period when I was attempting to move ahead with modules). It appears
> > > that the Associated Dean of Administration was retaliating against me
> > > because I had filed an appeal/complaint concerning grading of essay
> > > assignments in September 2001.
> > >
> > > 5. Westlaw (Law School's Library) was denied just before the December
> > > 3rd Module 25 deadline.
> > >
> > > 6. My Internet service provider "athome" was unexpectedly shut down
> > > (without advance notice) by a California judge on November 30th;
> > >
> > > 7. My passwords for the final exams wouldn't work.
> > >
> > > 8. The testing software froze during the middle of the civil procedure
> > > test.
> > >
> > > 9. No start time was provided for the evidence final exam until just a
> > > couple of hours before the test.
> > >
> > > 10. They failed to invite me to the two fourth-year planning
> > > conferences and/or allow me to participate with the LEEP program.
> > >
> > > 12. I didn't receive enrollment information for the 2002 academic
> > > year.
> > >
> > > 13. Grades were withheld until after the start of the 2002 academic
> > > year.
> > >
> > > 14. Final exam results (what was marked correct and incorrect) were
> > > only available for 90 days at Kaplan's California offices.
> > >
> > > 15. I was denied the written grievance procedure and the law school
> > > knowingly misrepresented information to BPPVE (Educational Contract
> > > implemented), DETC (No Request for Review of Exam Scores) and DOE
> > > (Live Evidence professor-led group chats provided) to obstruct
> > > investigation of my complaints.
> > >
> > > IV. Other:
> > >
> > > A. "It is Kaplan's position that they were not informed of any
> > > concerns ... until after the end of your academic year."
> > >
> > > The record clearly substantiates that I did not discover (name
> > > removed)'s admission that he had Evidence "live professor-led group
> > > chats" twice a month, until January 6, 2001. The record further
> > > demonstrates that I immediately communicated (name removed)'s
> > > information to Kaplan as a supplement to my discrimination complaint.
> > > Most importantly, because the Evidence Syllabus did not list "live
> > > professor-led group chats" there wasn't a need to suspect anything
> > > other until (name removed)'s admission.
> > >
> > > In short, based on the Director of Enrollment's information in the
> > > Fall of 2000, "Kaplan didn't have third and fourth year courses and
> > > they had to rush the Evidence course into place for my enrollment."
> > > This suggested that I was Kaplan's only third year student in 2001.
> > > This appeared to be a reasonable explanation as to why the Evidence
> > > Syllabus didn't list "live professor-led group chats" and why I had
> > > not received a roster of third year students.
> > >
> > > B. "You were placed in a particular cohort of second-year students
> > > because the majority of your courses were in Kaplan's second year
> > > curriculum."
> > >
> > > Kaplan had in place a procedure for transfer students. The procedure
> > > in place in the Fall of 2000 used specific language mandating the
> > > "California State Bar's evaluation of my years of law study." This was
> > > the only factor used to determine my third year of study at Kaplan.
> > >
> > > Transfer and Tuition Credit Policies
> > > ... Transfer credits for the Juris Doctor Program are subject
> > > to an evaluation rendered by the State Bar of California, which
> > > translates classes into "law study years earned." (Emphasis added
> > > because the California bar only evaluated years of study in 2000-2001
> > > and not "half-years.)"
> > >
> > > Kaplan mandated that I use this procedure. The "third year of study
> > > determination" concluded by the California State Bar was immediately
> > > communicated to Kaplan. Kaplan even acknowledged in writing their
> > > receipt of the "third year of study determination." In addition,
> > > Kaplan never disputed the determination.
> > >
> > > Additionally Kaplan (Concord School of law) fallaciously suggesting
> > > academic delinquencies is further disproved by the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Information on file with the United States Department of Education
> > > substantiates that Martha Siegel, Dean of Students, advised to ignore
> > > Cassandra's Colchagoff's the Associate Dean of Administration's
> > > unreasonableness.
> > >
> > > 2. Various correspondence (emails) in the investigation file
> > > substantiates that the Dean Siegel had accepted information provided
> > > on September 22, 2001, explaining a slower study pace.
> > >
> > > 3. Dean Siegel specifically said "go for it" in response to the
> > > communicated slower study pace.
> > >
> > > 4. Dean Siegel explained Ms. Colchagoff's proposed Educational
> > > Contract as unreasonable (possibly because I had filed a complaint a
> > > few days before that).
> > >
> > > 5. Dean Siegel specifically explained that "Kaplan's/Concord's policy
> > > only required that 24 modules were completed before finals." That is,
> > > she said not to worry about Ms. Colchagoff just complete 24 modules
> > > before finals.
> > >
> > > As provided above, there is unequivocal proof that Cassandra
> > > Colchagoff knowingly hindered the pace of moving ahead with modules:
> > >
> > > 1. In early October 2001, Ms. Colchagoff (Kaplan/Concord
> > > Administration) maliciously blocked access to assignments. Complaints
> > > were filed with the Dean of Students and Ms. Colchagoff was forced to
> > > remove the block.
> > >
> > > 2. One week before the mandated Module 24 deadline, Kaplan/Concord
> > > maliciously caused (and/or was indifferent to) its law library to be
> > > taken away.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, a California Judge unexpectedly shutdown "athome," my
> > > Internet services, on November 30, 2001, three days before the Module
> > > 24 deadline.
> > >
> > > V. Conclusion:
> > >
> > > There are just too many failures on the part of Kaplan. The litany of
> > > mishaps cannot be coincidental....
> > >
> > > Why did they knowingly mislead DETC about my requests for review of my
> > > final exam results (what was marked correct and what was marked
> > > incorrect)?
> > >
> > > Why did they fail to provide review of the final exams results?
> > >
> > > Would review of the final exams results prove arbitrary grading and
> > > race discrimination?
> > >
> > > Why did they knowingly mislead BBPVE about an alleged implementation
> > > of Cassandra Colchagoff's unreasonable "Educational Contract?"
> > >
> > > Why did they knowingly mislead DOE concerning the "live Evidence
> > > professor-led group chats."
> > >
> > > Clearly there is a pattern established here demonstrating Kaplan's
> > > deliberate attempt to hide information concerning this investigation.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > (name removed)
> > >
> > > > Since February 2002, the Seattle OCR office has refused to disclose
> > > > what information: witnesses, documents, sworn statements, and the like
> > > > Kaplan has provided as a response.
> > > >
> > > > Please help by contacting:
> > > >
> > > > Steve Cramolini and Ken Marcus (Ms. Malson's, Ms. Rubin's and Mr.
> > > > Jackson's supervisors)at (202) 205-9556.
> > > >
> > > > Sally Stroup and Bob Lewis (John Barth and Kay Gilcher's supervisors)
> > > > at (202) 505-7750
> > > >
> > > > Contact the Secretary of Education, Roderick R. Paige, at (202)
> > > > 401-3000, and vis-a-vis, JoAnn Ryan, Staff Director at (202
> > > > 401-3082.
> > > >
> > > > You can also contact DOE by sending an email:
> > > >
> > > > Steve.C...@ed.gov (202) 205-9556
> > > >
> > > > Kenneth...@ed.gov (202) 205-9556
> > > >
> > > > Gary.J...@ed.gov (206) 202-7884
> > > >
> > > > Joan....@ed.gov (206) 202-7892
> > > >
> > > > Monique...@ed.gov (206) 202-4781
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John Barth (202) 219-7018
> > > >
> > > > Kay Gilcher (202) 502-7693
> > > >