4 ms·

I'm going to argue this from the point of law, rather than the relative value of faked degrees, and if the university system has any merit by itself. From the

I'm going to argue this from the point of law, rather than the relative value of faked degrees, and if the university system has any merit by itself. From the article, it appears like there are no laws saying you can't make an unaccredited university, and start issuing degrees. I may be wrong, but the charges seem to point that way. The charges against him in the article were: * Conspiracy to commit {wire,mail} fraud * Bribing foreign officials Conspiracy is what federal prosecutors go with when there's no actual crime committed, since it doesn't actually require a crime for a successful prosecution (only that several people intended to do something illegal). It's used as a stopgap to "get the bad guys", even when law isn't really there to support it. [for reference, check out the book '3 Felonies a Day']. The bribing of foreign officials obviously isn't directly related to the "fake" university. So we go a step further, and look into if it even should be illegal. If I set up cschneid's Drive Through University, I will obviously never get accredited by a proper agency. But I'd probably argue that cschneid's Drive Through U should have free speech to print up paper saying people passed it's program, and have a degree showing that. No matter how bad that program is. It still should be illegal to lie about accreditation status, or similar (but that falls under existing misrepresentation and fraud laws). I'd say that this argument is parellel to the Underwriter's Laboratory. The government does not mandate or require any electronics manufacturer to get certified by UL (afaik). But many environments require a UL seal to use any electronics, one example being the dorm I lived in. So it's a certification of quality, in the same way a university degree is a certification of quality for a person (by a 3rd party). Presumably, I'd be able to start my cschneid's laboratory, and certify whoever pays me for my logo. Why is that significantly different from a diploma mill? I personally have a university degree, from an accredited school. But I dislike people taking social solutions (look up the degree & university in a database, say it's accredited), backed by existing laws (fraud, etc), and then turn it into a new set of laws, that restrict free speech. I think to sum up, if I want to hand out bad diplomas, that should be fine, as long as I'm truthful about it. Existing laws cover this environment well, and printing paper should not be an illegal act without an intent to defraud.

imgabe 17y ago
The government doesn't directly require a UL label, but the National Electric Code (which is produced by an independent organiztion, the NFPA) does. The NEC is adopted as law by most jurisdictions, so not complying with it means you won't get a building permit. Hence, in a roundabout way, it is required by law. As it stands, you're free to manufacture something without a UL label, but it won't be able to be installed in any building where the plans have to go through a permit process, so you'd have a hard time selling it to anyone. I didn't read anything in the article propose laws that would make unaccredited degrees illegal. What they said was there should be stricter standards for accreditation, overseen by the government. Right now some accreditation authorities are just organizations made up of a group of diploma-mill like universities who all agree to accredit each other. For engineering positions in the US government, they usually require that your school be specifically accredited by ABET, which is legitimate. I remember them conducting inspections at my school while I was there to determine that our engineering labs met their requirements.
- cschneid 17y ago
  Thanks for the info on UL, I forgot about the in-wall parts of things, and was focusing on toasters and such. Basically, I'm saying that the government should stay out of it, unless it's actual fraud. It bothers me that it's a monopoly on the specific form of speech saying "this is a good school" and "this is a diploma". I'm really coming from the stance of a wanna-be libertarian, I understand that the government must do things, but where possible, I think social and private-sector answers are more flexible, and less agressive towards various rights. It just bothers me that I can't setup a legit-but-not-accredited school and issue diplomas without somebody potentially trying to come and get me, or prosecute me for wire fraud.

imgabe 17y ago

The government doesn't directly require a UL label, but the National Electric Code (which is produced by an independent organiztion, the NFPA) does. The NEC is adopted as law by most jurisdictions, so not complying with it means you won't get a building permit. Hence, in a roundabout way, it is required by law. As it stands, you're free to manufacture something without a UL label, but it won't be able to be installed in any building where the plans have to go through a permit process, so you'd have a hard time selling it to anyone. I didn't read anything in the article propose laws that would make unaccredited degrees illegal. What they said was there should be stricter standards for accreditation, overseen by the government. Right now some accreditation authorities are just organizations made up of a group of diploma-mill like universities who all agree to accredit each other. For engineering positions in the US government, they usually require that your school be specifically accredited by ABET, which is legitimate. I remember them conducting inspections at my school while I was there to determine that our engineering labs met their requirements.

cschneid 17y ago
Thanks for the info on UL, I forgot about the in-wall parts of things, and was focusing on toasters and such. Basically, I'm saying that the government should stay out of it, unless it's actual fraud. It bothers me that it's a monopoly on the specific form of speech saying "this is a good school" and "this is a diploma". I'm really coming from the stance of a wanna-be libertarian, I understand that the government must do things, but where possible, I think social and private-sector answers are more flexible, and less agressive towards various rights. It just bothers me that I can't setup a legit-but-not-accredited school and issue diplomas without somebody potentially trying to come and get me, or prosecute me for wire fraud.