8 ms·

Stanford doesn't need accreditation. Neither does Harvard. You're not seriously comparing the two, are you?

by jki275 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago
Yes? You said 'Nationally accredited. Not regionally accredited. Hence useless for academic purposes.' But, as Stanford and Harvard show us, being neither nationally nor regionally accredited does not make it useless for academic purposes. Saying they don't need accreditation - yeah that was my point.
- jki275 6y ago
  By stating this, you are claiming that this fly-by-night unknown is like Stanford and Harvard. Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are the standards, and have set those standards for (Harvard anyway) nearly 400 years. When this college has been around and is known as one of the most prestigious colleges on the planet for 400 years, then we can talk about it not needing accreditation. Until then, you're being disingenuous at best by pretending they exist in the same conversation.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don't think you understand. The reason this college is useless for academic purposes is nothing to do with its accreditation - it's to do with its reputation. We know accreditation is irrelevant, as other colleges do fine with out. You can be accredited and have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and have a reputation, or you can be accredited and not have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and not have a reputation. The two things are entirely independent. Almost nobody (notable exception probably the government) cares if your college is accredited or not. When you say you have a Stanford degree nobody goes 'wait is that accredited?'
    - jki275 6y ago
      You're making an argument from absurdity, and you're wrong. Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet. Stanford is regionally accredited by the way, I'm not sure why you keep arguing they're not (your confusion is probably that they dropped their ABET accreditation in CS which is not required for CS although some universities do maintain it). Actually, now that I went back and looked it up, even Harvard is accredited, as is every other ranked university I looked up -- Carnegie Mellon is accredited, Georgia Tech is accredited, MIT is accredited. The two things are entirely independent, you're correct -- but you're making an argument that isn't supportable in comparing the premiere universities on the planet who could, if they wanted, theoretically, eschew the concept of accreditation because they don't need to prove anything about their curriculum with a college that has nothing -- no accreditation, no reputation, nothing at all.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > and you're wrong ... even Harvard is accredited Lol you're the one who told me it wasn't! You said 'Neither does Harvard.' > Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet No, they don't need accreditation because nobody cares about accreditation.
        jki275 6y ago
        Please don't cut sections out of what I wrote and deceptively edit it to make it look like I said something entirely different. I said your argument is wrong and that Stanford, which you claimed was not accredited, is in fact accredited, and you are confused about what accreditation means, as ABET accreditation is not what we're talking about, but regional accreditation, which is the standard. Most CS programs are not ABET accredited and do not find it necessary. I had been told before that Harvard was not accredited and that was clearly incorrect, so I also corrected that in my comment with the information I found when I looked it up.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        Have you ever applied to a job and been asked if your college was accredited? Have you ever hired someone and stopped to check if their college was accredited?

Stanford doesn't need accreditation. Neither does Harvard. You're not seriously comparing the two, are you?

by jki275 6y ago

Stanford doesn't need accreditation. Neither does Harvard. You're not seriously comparing the two, are you?

Yes? You said 'Nationally accredited. Not regionally accredited. Hence useless for academic purposes.' But, as Stanford and Harvard show us, being neither nationally nor regionally accredited does not make it useless for academic purposes. Saying they don't need accreditation - yeah that was my point.

jki275 6y ago
By stating this, you are claiming that this fly-by-night unknown is like Stanford and Harvard. Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are the standards, and have set those standards for (Harvard anyway) nearly 400 years. When this college has been around and is known as one of the most prestigious colleges on the planet for 400 years, then we can talk about it not needing accreditation. Until then, you're being disingenuous at best by pretending they exist in the same conversation.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don't think you understand. The reason this college is useless for academic purposes is nothing to do with its accreditation - it's to do with its reputation. We know accreditation is irrelevant, as other colleges do fine with out. You can be accredited and have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and have a reputation, or you can be accredited and not have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and not have a reputation. The two things are entirely independent. Almost nobody (notable exception probably the government) cares if your college is accredited or not. When you say you have a Stanford degree nobody goes 'wait is that accredited?'
  - jki275 6y ago
    You're making an argument from absurdity, and you're wrong. Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet. Stanford is regionally accredited by the way, I'm not sure why you keep arguing they're not (your confusion is probably that they dropped their ABET accreditation in CS which is not required for CS although some universities do maintain it). Actually, now that I went back and looked it up, even Harvard is accredited, as is every other ranked university I looked up -- Carnegie Mellon is accredited, Georgia Tech is accredited, MIT is accredited. The two things are entirely independent, you're correct -- but you're making an argument that isn't supportable in comparing the premiere universities on the planet who could, if they wanted, theoretically, eschew the concept of accreditation because they don't need to prove anything about their curriculum with a college that has nothing -- no accreditation, no reputation, nothing at all.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > and you're wrong ... even Harvard is accredited Lol you're the one who told me it wasn't! You said 'Neither does Harvard.' > Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet No, they don't need accreditation because nobody cares about accreditation.
      - jki275 6y ago
        Please don't cut sections out of what I wrote and deceptively edit it to make it look like I said something entirely different. I said your argument is wrong and that Stanford, which you claimed was not accredited, is in fact accredited, and you are confused about what accreditation means, as ABET accreditation is not what we're talking about, but regional accreditation, which is the standard. Most CS programs are not ABET accredited and do not find it necessary. I had been told before that Harvard was not accredited and that was clearly incorrect, so I also corrected that in my comment with the information I found when I looked it up.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        Have you ever applied to a job and been asked if your college was accredited? Have you ever hired someone and stopped to check if their college was accredited?