However, it's potential utilization is much, much more diminished compared to a no-name state school.
This might change when (if) they acquire regional accreditation, but they've only just started the process. Thus, it could take upwards of 5 years.
Regionally accredited schools simply don't take credits from schools that aren't.
There are also students compiling lists of schools which will consider and/or accept UoPeople credits/degrees.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople/comments/g55smv/list_of_in...
The idea that UoPeople is some kind of academic dead-end is simply not accurate. It's not going to get as far as a degree from a no-name state uni on its own, but it can definitely be leveraged to further one's goals.
I am curious. Why do you think I'm deluding myself? What do I stand to gain?
I've already stated elsewhere that my pursuit of this degree is purely for the love of learning. I've also stated that I already have an existing bachelor's degree from an RA school. I even have grad school experience--again from an RA school. I don't need this degree for anything.
I don't benefit anything from deluding myself. However, I do think it's important for other students to have a realistic understanding of how they can benefit from UoPeople and what its limitations are.
By saying "credit don't actually transfer" you're spreading misinformation. They do. They have.
Will they transfer to most RA schools? Probably not. Will they transfer to some, including some prestigious schools? Yes. These are facts. And it helps provide a realistic perspective to potential and/or existing students.
ymmv.
And I don't know what you consider "prestigious", I don't consider WGU prestigious.
Tuition free, which it is.
https://www.uopeople.edu/tuition-free/what-is-tuition-free/
"UoPeople’s Tuition-Free Model is 100% real! We offer degree programs absolutely tuition-free, thanks to our generous donors who support our mission. To help support the university’s continued operation, UoPeople charges a $60 application fee, and an Assessment Fee per course completed ($100 for the undergraduate programs, and $200 for the graduate programs). That’s it. No annual enrollment fees, and no cost for course material. For those who cannot afford these fees, scholarships are available to help support their studies."
> advertises itself as accredited but isn't.
Nationally accredited, which it is. Here's what the US Department of Education says: "Accredited since (01/16/2014)"
https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/institution-profile/233675
> I don't consider WGU prestigious.
UC Berkeley is fairly prestigious, no?
https://www.ecampusnews.com/2016/04/22/uop-partners-with-uc-...
Sure, new account could be a shill. I understand the skepticism, but I think I've provided enough throughout my various comments here to demonstrate that I'm a student while also maintaining my privacy.
You don't have to agree, but at the very least you can stop spreading misinformation about the school.
It's not tuition free, it has "fees" that replace tuition, and its accreditation is worthless, and the school goes to great lengths not to make that clear to its applicants.
And your "UC Berkeley" statement says "will consider", not will admit and not will transfer. It's very very mealy mouthed in terms of whether anyone actually gets in.
You're the one with the incentive to spread misinformation, and that's exactly what you're doing.
What would my incentive be? I've got multiple actual accredited degrees I'm working on another. What does explaining what this school is actually doing benefit me in any way? "National accreditation" is essentially worthless. This is known in the academic community, it is less well known to the people institutions like this prey on. I personally know people who have been taken by these institutions and I don't like to see it happen to people.
All I'm doing is telling people the misinformation you're feeding them.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.
Report me, then.
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.
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.
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?'
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever hired someone and stopped to check if their college was accredited?
Don’t believe the people telling you you need accreditation!