Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 12 April 2008

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Accreditation claim

I'm moving the following material here for discussion. I'm unable to find this claim on the Warnborough web site:

* List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning (WCUK claims accreditation by an organisation on this list: the International Accreditation and Recognition Council.)

It will be good to research the ISO claim, which is currently the emphasis on their website. TimidGuy 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The ISO standard is purely awarded for Administration performance, in this the Warnborough have managed to produce adequate admin processes to convince ISO Inspectors that their admin structure meets the standards required. ISO is not accreditation.Degreemill 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ISO's own materials make a point of the fact that ISO certification is not accreditation, and strongly discourage use of the term "accreditation". ISO only uses the term "accreditation" to designate ISO certification bodies that are themselves authorized to grant ISO certification in specified business sectors. See p. 5 Warnborough is not authorized to grant ISO certification. Thus, its use of the term "accredited" in connection with its ISO certification is contrary to ISO's own policies and guidelines.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The IARC accreditation claim isn't hard to find, just google for "Warnborough IARC" and you'll find several links from Warnborough domains. Here are some supporting the claim:

• http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/general/accreditation.aspx
• http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/advice/faq.aspx
• IARC site: http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx

The statement should be restored in the article, with citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the sentence that Orlady put in earlier. TimidGuy (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sentence said:

Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the ] (IARC),<ref> (accessed January 25, 2008)</ref> which is ]. (Displayed as Additionally, Warnborough is listed as "recognized" by and a member of the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC), which is not a recognized education accreditation organization.)

--Orlady (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it in, but then reverted back. Seems like we need a better source to discredit IARC, since Misplaced Pages isn't considered a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orlady. I didn't quite understand your edit summary. I do now see, though, that iARC lists both Warnborough Ireland and Warnborough UK. There is no stigma being associated with IARC. What I think we need to do is simply say that the Warnborough UK web site says that it's accredited by IARC and then note the information from the IARC web site that says that it's not a replacement for national accreditation but an adjunct to it. I don't see any point in using Misplaced Pages as a source here, especially since it represents IARC as not being a recognized accrediting institution -- something that IARC doesn't itself claim. TimidGuy (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, I hope you will respond here. I think that the current version is problematic. For one thing, IARC doesn't claim to be an accreditation association. It seems odd to say that it's not recognized for something it doesn't even claim. And again, in this context Misplaced Pages is being used as the source. Also, the problem isn't Warnborough's association with IARC, which is in itself commendable. The problem which I think you have identified, and which isn't made clear in the article, is that Warnborough is seemingly misrepresenting IARC as an accrediting body. We could fix this by using wording suggested above.

On a related note, maybe we should put ISO under a separate subhead, since it too is not an accrediting body. In addition to the Accreditation subhead, we could maybe add a subhead that says "ISO certification." TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I still haven't been able to search Lexis/Nexis. I did try a number of other indexes. EBSCO turned up a few articles related to a situation in which a Warnborough degree was not being accepted in Australia. But there just hasn't been much written about Warnborough. We really need a source about Warnborough 1973-95 and a source that talks about Warnborough 1997-present in a general way. The BBC program is problematic because it's sensationalized and has factual errors. And it's not that recent. Will keep looking. And at some point soon we can check to see about using the database for information about Warnborough registrations. TimidGuy 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The history period betwen 1973 and 1995 is fairly vague, they had an office in Seattle for student recruitment, which I think was prety successful. Mainly because they have attached the title 'Oxford'. This led to the claim of misrepresentation which was confirmd by Oxfrd University.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4D71239F93BA35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DB1F3AF934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

which leads to http://www.waucglobalaccreditation.org/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E1DC1239F934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

Warnborough College Seattle. Small office for student recruitment?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDA1F3AF934A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

Duped by Warnborough

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D91531F931A35753C1A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/O/Oxford%20University

After 1995 they downsized to an office in London and oeprated as follows Warnborough College, Friars House, SE1 8HB London, England. http://www.sprachkurse-weltweit.de/language-courses/english/s-london.htm

Subsequently John Bear visited the 'one room office' in London and was informed the the Warnborugh University Page 223 refers http://books.google.com/books?id=k67XC_7y5xEC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=julian+ng+warnborough&source=web&ots=PSW-guUmat&sig=GklIXHvKHHcjWQDRR56Q18gv8o4#PPA223,M1

Likewise http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000101301c.htm quote... And Warnborough University has a lovely Web site and an .edu address, which is supposed to be reassuring, but I went there two years ago and found that it was a one-room office in London with no degree-granting authority." (Julian Ng, vice president for administration at Warnborough, took issue with Mr. Bear's characterization. Mr. Ng said that the university had other facilities in London and that its degree-granting authority came from its charter, which was issued in Ireland. However, the United Kingdom's education department does not recognize the university.)

I think this episode should be added in the timeline as the London address is where the main players decamped prior to moving to CanterburyDegreemill 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. I'm fairly familiar with these sources and had added a couple to the article. What would be nice to have would be something prior to 1995, when Warnborough exclusively offered opportunities to study abroad and was apparently quite successful at that, with many satisfied students. It only seems fair to include that -- since it comprises a substantial part of Warnborough's history. All I've found so far is a mention in the NY Times in an article about opportunities to take summer school abroad. TimidGuy 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that they did have quite a few satisfied students in the early days and according to this http://www.ed-oha.org/cases/1995-164st.html they did have accreditation of which I quote "During the course of the hearing, Warnborough did not dispute the fact that it is not currently authorized to issue degrees in Great Britain, although it did present some evidence to the effect that it had previously been authorized by the District of Columbia to confer such degrees between 1988 and 1991. ( http://www.k12.dc.us/dcsea/certification/ ) Although apparently conceding that it is not currently authorized to grant degrees, College's counsel, at the hearing, attempted to explain that the College's renewal Application for Institutional Eligibility, dated June 13, 1994, which claimed that the college issued degrees in graduate, bachelor, and associate degree programs, was not misleading. He pointed to a note on the application which referred to an attachment which stated that such degrees were actually awarded by Greenwich College, ( possibly http://www.greenwichcollege.co.uk/ )with which the College had an agreement."

So that looks like they did manage to get some accreditation but also managed to lose it. you have also remember that in the early days there was no internet and so 'degree mill type scam' news did not travel as fast. Also as we are dealing with 1973 - 1995 then archived material is going to be somewhat lacking on the internet.

I think it is better to create a timeline of all events up to date, take it as granted that up to 1994-1995 they did not have too many problems until the misrepresentation case whereupon everything imploded as Oxford University etc., woke up, leading to the slow process in USA, UK, Ireland and Australia to close off avenues nationally for the Warnborough College - University and then College again.

I also think that students nowadays are a bit more careful about taking up degree courses and that the internet has had the effect of givng those students enough knowledge to opt to follow a degree course with a proper institution with accreditation or a charter.Degreemill 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is what I regard as the "big picture" re Warborough in its various incarnations. I recognize that much of this is not stuff that can go in a Misplaced Pages article, because it won't show up in news articles or journals. In 1973 the Tempest-Moggs start up Warnborough House College in a residential area of North Oxford, and pitch the idea of a study abroad program in Oxford to college an university administrators in the US. The colleges then themselves recruit students to check out the program for them. Warnborough arranges for moonlighting dons and grad students to hold tutorials, and starts buying up/renting other houses in the neighborhood to house the students. So long as the colleges accept the credits when the students return to the US, everything is fine. Well - not quite fine. Two problems: First, Warnborough is quite fuzzy about what it really is, and a few colleges, after evaluating the reports back from the initial students, see a significant gap between the representations and reality: i.e. no full time faculty, no library, classroom facilities or lectures, no connection to Oxford University, not a real degree-granting college or university etc... They approve the transfer of credits for the original students (they have little choice in the matter as they were the ones, not the students, who decided to participate in the program sight unseen) but quietly, and privately decide that they will not approve further study abroad at Warnborough. None of this is going to show up in public reports, because the colleges themselves are embarassed to have been duped. Second, the idea of turning a quiet, residential neighborhood into student housing garners more than a little opposition in the neighborhood. As an aside, quite a bit of the opposition seemed rooted in prejuduce: "How dare those Australian sheep farmers move into our neighborhood..." More seriously, but for the claim to be a college, the conversion of these residential properties into the equivalent of rental flats or rooming houses would not have been permitted under local zoning and land use laws. A lot of the locals are convinced at the time that the college is basically a front for an improper real estate investment venture seeking to circumvent those laws.

But, other US colleges decide that they will continue to approve Warnborough credits for transfer and Warnborough manages to expand. It does so aggressively The Tempest Moggs set up a holding company to purchase the Boars Hill properties and Warnborough relocates there in 1976. It creates a dizzying array of subsidiaries and affiliates all around the world. Sometime thereafter, it starts offering not just "study abroad", but unaccredited graduate degrees. It opens a campus in Australia for a similar study abroad program in the mid 1980's. With pretenses of being a real college, it starts attracting negative attention, including the BBC Radio-4 report questioning the rigor of its classes and the validity of its graduate degrees. Soon thereafter, it creates yet another affiliate corporation in Washington DC, and apparently manages to get, for a 3-year period from 1988 to 1991, authority to issue degrees in DC. The timing suggests that this was provisional or temporary authority that expired or lapsed and that renewal either wasn't sought or was denied. Throughout, Warnborough continues to mispresent its connection to Oxford University, and objections from the University become frequent and vocal. But, at least the old neighbors in the Warnborough Road area are happy that Warnborough and the Tempest Moggs have decamped to other quarters.

Things come to an abrupt end when Warnborough decides to start offering bachelors degrees, and tries to enroll US undergraduates for a four-year degree program, rather than just study abroad, again misrepresenting both its connection to Oxford University and its degree-granting authority. This triggers the abrupt withdrawal of the duped undergrads, complaints in Washington State and the investigation at the US DoE that result in findings that (i) Warnborough misrepresented its relationship to the University; (ii) Warnborough misrepresented that it had authority to grant degrees; and (iii) that Warnborough violated the refund policies of the DOE and its own refund policies, all resulting in termination of the eligibility of its students to participate in federally-financed student loans and grants.

Warnborough goes bankrupt, leaving numerous creditors around Oxford (and, presumably the world) but re-emerges within months with a new business model, offering bogus degrees by distance learning. Now the targeted market has shifted from students in the US principally to third-world students in Asia and Africa. The offerings have all the classic marks of a degree mill, including the open willingness to substitute "live experience" for academic credit. Eventually, it again starts opening "campuses", including in Canterbury and London, but also in various locations in SE Asia, and arranging "affiliations" with various organizations of questionable provenance and other unaccredited educational institutions. It again gets into trouble with government authorities in the UK and Ireland who object to the unauthorized use of the term "university" in the name, and garners more negative media attention over the offering of unaccrdited degrees and questionable courses. And in a repeat performance of the mispresentation of the connections to Oxford, it garners its most recent negative publicity over giving the false impression that it is connected with All Hallows.

What we have here is a consistent pattern of misrepresentation for more than 35 years by the same people operating under a dizzying shell-game of corporations around the world. There is undoubtedly some educational value in at least some of the programs they have provided over that period. The problem is that what they are offering, and what they are providing, are two vastly different things.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon citations

Note: Before recent edits, had two citations to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. One was the current list of unaccredited schools, while the other was an archived list from 2005 containing the following text regarding Warnborough College: "Not a degree-granting institution. Appearance on UK registry of training providers does not confer or represent authorization to issue degrees." Regarding Warnborough University, it said: "ODA has no evidence that this is a genuine Irish postsecondary institution. Accordingly, its degrees are considered invalid for use in Oregon." Similar information appears on the current list, but I don't want to forget this history, which may be useful at some future time. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, just today I came across this article, added the archive cite, then merged it with ODA's list of unaccredited schools when I noticed they were similar. If you want to revert my edits, I don't mind. I wasn't aware of previous edits to mine though. -Amatulic (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year each. I may have been the cause of the ODA update, mainly because I worked myself up into a frenzy causing me to write lots of emails to make certain authorities aware of the Warnboroughs' current siutation. I do understand that Misplaced Pages has to have unbiased and cited articles but I feel these guys in Canterbury UK do more damage than even we can imagine, and that the authorities seem to turn an almost blind eye. The reason being is that they have been in existence prior to certain laws and statutes and therefore almost untouchable. An examples is the domain registry for edu names, any organisation registered prior to a certain which I think is 1995 then despite their (Warnborough) being unaccredited, unrecognised and unable to legally issue degrees in UK or Ireland, they are still legally entitled to hold the edu domain name. Ergo they have the facade of being legitimate by default.Degreemill (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence recently added, it may be redundant. The article already said that Warnborough isn't a chartered university in the UK, which means that it's not recognized by the UK education officials. Regarding the Oregon citations, I would be inclined to agree with the edit and to only reference the current web site, given that the situation of the institutions listed may change. A good compromise regarding the latter, is, as Orlady had done, to note the historical info here. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IARC

Hi, Orlady. What's the point of adding IARC? It seems kind of odd to say that IARC lists Warnborough and then to say that IARC is bogus. Seems like this would only be relevant if Warnborough was claiming IARC as a credential. Are they? Otherwise, it seems pointless. What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The IARC website that lists the two Warnborough Colleges as members is one of the few independent sources of current information cited in the article. I thought that was a good thing. Far be it from me to be able to explain why Warnborough doesn't advertise its membership in this organization, but this is an article about Warnborough, not just about information that Warnborough chooses to disseminate about itself. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they realized that IARC wasn't credible and chose not to use this credential -- especially now that they're apparently intent on becoming a chartered Irish university. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) It seems like the main this is to state clearly that neither institution is chartered, and seems like the article does that. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

Hi, Orlady. Some nice changes. I'm glad you sourced the accreditation application to the Irish Independent article -- something I'd been planning to do. Also, nice cleanup by Djegan.

It seems, though, that the article now says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think that's a bit of overkill. Also, I don't think we should have the quote. And why quote one side but then not quote the refutation? TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling a complete and accurate story about this institution is not a matter of giving "equal time" to positive and negative viewpoints.

The somewhat mealy-mouthed statement "Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland" is not nearly as informative (or factual) as "Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI)." Furthermore, I believe that unique information value is added by the sourced quotation from a NQAI official who said: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless." That's trimmed down from what was in the Irish Independent article, but I believe it would be irresponsible for the article to quote the second part of that without including the first part (which you may see as redundant) to provide context for his opinion.

You may notice that I removed the statement that All Hallows had cancelled the rental contract because Warnborough is "not chartered". I did not find that argument in the article, but did find a more complicated story about the misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind." To correctly represent the situation, I felt it was important to provide that detail.

Thanks to your efforts, I believe the article gives Warnborough ample "benefit of the doubt" throughout.

--Orlady (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As for "quoting the refutation", I think there would be value in adding a quotation from Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. However, given the nature of his comments, they belong in a discussion of Warnborough's academic program, not in a discussion of accreditation. Since there's not section on academics, there was no convenient place to insert his comments. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no complaint regarding the way you reworded the sentence that you noted above; nice job.

Here's the redundancy:

• 1. Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland or the U.K.,
• 2. and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.
• 3. Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI).
• 4. In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body.

It says four times that Warnborough isn't accredited. I think a first step would be to merge points 1-4. I would do that by merging point 3 into points 1 & 2 and deleting the quote. If we can agree on this, then we can discuss the quote about "worthless degree." TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not redundancy, that's standard paragraph writing (as I was taught in the various schools I attended), with a topic sentence followed by additional details. Here's how I "diagram" the paragraph:

• Topic sentence of paragraph, introducing and summarizing the points to follow:

• Warnborough does not currently have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in Ireland or the U.K., and does not offer recognized Irish or British degrees.

• Additional details about status in Ireland (amplifying upon topic sentence):

• Warnborough has applied for recognition in Ireland through the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC).
• However, Warnborough courses are not recognised by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI). In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent: "Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body. The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless."

• Ideally, at this point there would also be some specific details about the approval situation in the U.K.
• Additional details about how the school's status affects its acceptance around the world (these points don't completely fit in this paragraph, but I don't think they should be moved to a separate paragraph):

• Warnborough degrees are not accepted in Texas, Oregon, or Australia.
• According to the Warnborough web site, over 200 colleges and universities have accepted transfer credit from Warnborough College.

IMO, the paragraph should be expanded (particularly by adding sourced details about the situation in the U.K.) rather than compressed. Compressing all of the information into the topic sentence (and making the reader go to references to try to find out what the article is talking about) would eviscerate the paragraph.

--Orlady (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's hard for you to imagine what I have in mind. I'll go ahead and edit it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits. I feel like i made no substantial change in the accreditation paragraph but was able to eliminate redundancy. I deleted material in the previous paragraph that I hadn't yet discussed here. In my mind, it wasn't appropriate encyclopedia style -- which is to find a source and summarize the point it makes. It's not like journalism, where you make the point and then back it up with a quote. I think your summary of the reason why All Hallows won't renew is fine. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you revised the beginning of the accreditation paragraph. Nice wording! --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I restored the two items that you removed:

• Changing "The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" to " qualifications on offer are effectively worthless" garbled the sentence. An ungarbled version with the same meaning would say "The qualifications on offer are effectively worthless." However, that still takes the statement out of context. Out of context, is it unclear why they are "worthless." With the previous sentence included, it is clear that he was saying only that the lack of accreditation makes the qualification "effectively worthless"; he was not making any statement about the quality of the education.
• I also restored the statement in the previous paragraph, in which the vice president of All Hallows said that his institution had "no involvement of any kind in the academic programmes or arrangements of Warnborough College" and had asked Warnborough to remove from its website all images of All Hallows and references to plans for seminars and graduation ceremonies at the All Hallows campus. As I stated in comments above, I felt that in order to correctly represent the situation, it was important to provide that detail about the alleged misrepresentation of the relationship, plus the nonjudgmental statement about "no involvement of any kind."

--Orlady (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Glad you liked the change.

I have a number of concerns about the quotes, related to policy and to encyclopedia style. But since it could take days or weeks to work through the issues, do an RfC, mediation, etc., maybe we can short circuit the process. I think I can write a few sentences that will address issues related to the "worthless" quote and that I think will satisfy both our concerns. Hope to do that tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes -- I thought we were having an amicable discussion and here you are discussing RfC and mediation! Let's not go there. IMHO, the most useful thing that could be done right now would be to add a section about the university's educational program(s) (what a novel thing to discuss in an article about an educational institution, eh?), including (but not limited to) information about the comments of Dr Gabriel Byrne, the member of the adjunct faculty at the Smurfit Business School in UCD who has been a consultant for Warnborough in Ireland. Since you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for Warnborough, I've been assuming that you could find some useful information sources about academic offerings, faculty, etc. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... After writing that, I visited the Warnborough websites. They have extensive information about the educational program, faculty, etc. -- information I had not seen before. There's plenty of material to use in expanding the article. I must tell you, though, that warning sirens go off in my head when I see a school offer a Ph.D. in Metaphysics. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. What I meant to say is that I'd like to avoid long explanations of what I see are breeches of policy and encyclopedia style (and possibly any dispute resolution) by doing as I did yesterday and simply writing something that I hope will satisfy both of us. I don't have a special regard for Warnborough but do have a sense of fairness. Will give it a go tomorrow. Good idea about adding content. And I do intend to address your point below. TimidGuy (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yatscombe Hall

The article indicates that Yatscombe Hall was repossessed in June 1996, but there was no previous discussion of this building, nor an indication as to what it was. (I say "was" because it was destroyed by fire in 2003.) It appears to me that Yatscombe was one of the several buildings that Warnborough occupied on an 11-acre site in Oxford. (For example, see 'Village for elderly' planned for Boars Hill.) Presumably, the whole campus was repossessed, but I can't see the reference cited (which is an October 1996 article in The Times). What does it say? --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all it says: "Forced to move into a church hall in June when 19th-century Yatscombe Hall was repossessed, the college closed entirely two months later." No mention of other buildings. TimidGuy (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Considering that we don't have any context for that information (that is, whether Yatscombe was their only building at that point, whether other property was also repossessed, etc.), I think it best to delete the reference to Yatscombe Hall and property repossession entirely. (I've done that.) --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the Yatscombe Hall, Boars Hill section. This section really does depict the ensuing scenarios and evolutions of the Warnborough. Remember it is from Yatscombe Hall where the Warnborough remove to London and thence to Canterbury / Ireland. It is integral.Degreemill (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-accredited courses in lead

On the one hand, I like this wording and feel like it's a good choice. On the other, I wonder if it's completely accurate, since I believe they offer certifications, which are in a sense accredited. But I say that we leave it like this for now. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The current language is very similar to the language used for most other unaccredited schools around the world. (Compare Warren National University, Vision International University, Rushmore University, and Golden State Baptist College, to name just a few.) I removed your statement that it has applied for accreditation from the lead, because I think we have reliably sourced information for this only for Ireland (and this type of detail is typically not included in the leads for other unaccredited institutions). Also, I revised the first sentence to replace the location "a number of" with "several" and to acknowledge that the various "Warnboroughs" are related institutions. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Looks good. Nice writing. We should consider adding again the information about applying for accreditation and simply stipulating Warnborough College ireland.TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. wonderful works guys!.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Important note to consider, the Irish newspaper states that Warnborough will not be holding a Graduation Ceremony within All Hallows, Ireland in August 2008. My point about 'trading off' has been proven totally there. I fully expect they will hold the graduation ceremony in Canterbury Cathedrals' Chapter House, UK. Assuming do they hold a ceremony in UK and issue degrees in UK to students then they utterly breach UK laws. They have now run out of places to hide the issue of degrees and the Warnborough are probably about to shoot themselves in the foot once again. Watch this space.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To plagarise the lovely book 'House of Cards' you may think I had something to do with the Ireland debacle by emailing the Irish Independent, All Hallows and the Irish Ministry of Education.. but I couldn't possibly comment.Degreemill (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Degreemill. I wonder whether it's illegal, as you say. Quoting from a newspaper article about Warnborough that appeared the Australian: "They are allowed to operate by the authorities as long as they do not pretend to be accredited British institutions or spark consumer legal actions." In fact, if they want to eventually be accredited, they must first offer degrees. That's the way it works, as I understand. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timidguy, I understand what you mean, but in UK/Ireland accreditation is different to being a Chartered Institution and thereby being authorised by the Royal Charter (UK) to issue degrees. They can have as many course that maybe the study equivalant to a degree as they wish, they can apply to any relevant bodies to obtain accreditation of those courses, but they cannot legally issue a degree in the Warnborough name without holding a Royal Charter in UK or a similar charter elsewhere. The issuing a piece of paper porporting to be a 'degree' under the Warnborough title is the illegal act because they are not Chartered to issue degrees. See somewhere in this discussion about Education Acts (UK).

The usual procedure in their case would to apply for accreditation of a course with a recognised and degree issuing authority and market the said course under the aegis of that degree issuing authority. For example, they could run a Business Studies course and have the resultant degree issued by the University of Kent. They would be able, I presume, to have the Warnborough title included as the course provider on the diploma. Alternatively to become Chartered and therefore be authorised to issue a degree diploma, they would need to apply to the UK Privy Council.

I agree with you that you have to have a degree course to see if it works, but procedures laid out by law have to be followed or else life gets pretty bad. So why do they continually put themselves through all this when if they followed the legitimate route they would in all probability have been be a prestigeous global educational institution.Degreemill (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timidguy, this page on Misplaced Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Educational_accreditation actually states the situation regarding UK and degree issuing better my rants, you need to scroll down to the UK section, I notice that this Misplaced Pages page is already in the main article. Plus I cannot see any mention of their short courses, all of which are perfectly legal to sell. I think for balance the existence of these course needs to be shown.Degreemill (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. Yes, the short courses should probably be added and could be sourced to their web site. We can't say anything about illegality unless we have a source saying they're doing something illegal. TimidGuy (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) The Misplaced Pages article you cite seems to say the same thing as the article in the Australian -- it's only illegal if an institution misrepresents their offering as a U.K. degree or uses "University" in its name. Maybe we should be cautious about discussing this here on the Talk page. We need to stick to sources. TimidGuy (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources saying that they're doing something illegal,I reckon that won't be long in coming, maybe sooner maybe later. Meantime you are as ever quite right.Degreemill (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced material

I went ahead and deleted unsourced material added by an anonymous editor, per WP:NOR. It's important that everything in Misplaced Pages be sourced, especially regarding a controversial topic. I do have a couple newspaper stories from the 1970s that have a small amount of detail that I"ll add as I have time. TimidGuy (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this deleted unsourced content, especially as my initial input was all unsourced, what was the content?Degreemill (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Warnborough_College&diff=195827673&oldid=195122516 for details. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleted material is very interesting indeed perhaps the anonymous editor could supply sourcesDegreemill (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who added the deleted information. The information is, as you can probably guess, from personal experience when I spent a semester at what was then called "Warnborough House College" in the Spring of 1974. I tried to stick to the facts as I recall them, rather than add any opinions. But, I see that would qualify as "original research" not permited in Misplaced Pages. I have some thoughts as how to dig up source material, but given the dates involved, I don't think that any of it would be online. There are certainly newspaper articles from the time period, on microfilm, as well as Oxfordshire Real Estate records. Assuming someone had the time and inclination to look them up, how would one go about referencing it here?

At least as to the name, if you Google "Warnborough House College" you will see several references to people who cite it on their resumes, as well as a listing showing that name in correspondence between Warnborough House College and Terry Sanford, former President of Duke University See: http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/rbmscl/uapressanford/inv/ The correspondence itself, however is not available online. As to Daryl T-M, his involvement is well documented in the various Warnborough Web sites, as well as past versions in Archive.org, so I would think that could go back in.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining, "216 etc." Print publications are welcome as sources in Misplaced Pages, so if you find something in print and can cite title, author, date, publisher, and page number(s) (the usual details for a bibliographic citation), the information can be added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Daryl Tempest-Mogg, I've run across his name on some websites, but with insufficient detail or context to be useful in an article. With your knowledge of the situation, maybe you can pull together sources that tell the story. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • There is an article from the London Telegraph, October 25, 1996, reproduced in a newsgroup post See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education.distance/browse_thread/thread/a0790fa40f85c118/a78416d36c9bb446?hl=en&lnk=st&q=warnborough#a78416d36c9bb446

It confirms several of the facts in my post: That the college was originally founded in 1973 on Warnborough Road; that it moved to Boars Hill later (in 1976 - which I did not know), that the sole directors were Brendan, Daryl and Ethel Tempest-Mogg; that Brendan T-M was a former Hertford College student. It also contains additional details on the 1995-1996 lawsuits and bankrupcy.

Does that help as source material?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff, I hope that this can be built upon and included within the main article. Excellent workDegreemill (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to cite a newsgroup, since they're not considered reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. Certainly the article itself could be cited, with accurate bibliographical information, but one should probably look at the original to make sure it's accurately reproduced. The focus of the article seems to be the events in 1995, which is already covered here. We have to be cautious about giving that undue weight. Some details may be useful. TimidGuy (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages definitely can't cite the newsgroup. However, if someone can track down the London Telegraph of October 25, 1996, to verify the article, some of the information in that article could be useful in the Misplaced Pages article. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a search for the article in the Telegraph for that date in 1996, the problem is that it is not archived. I guess this is due to the date being kind of early internet days.Degreemill (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see this content remain within the discussion area, obviously it cannot go into the main article unless an acceptable source other than the newsgroup can be found. However, we are all working with this research for this Warnborough article, so lets not delete but try to tease out further nuggets from such information.Degreemill (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Here's another article, from Cherwell, Michaelmas 1996, Vol 4 (October 31, 1996) Cherwell is the Oxford University Student Newspaper. It's mostly about the 1995-96 lawsuits. See: http://web.archive.org/web/19970211160251/cherwell.ospl.co.uk/archive/Michaelmas1996/Issue4/news/header5.html The current web site "Cherwell 24" only archives the print paper back through 2003, but www.Archive.org has back issues to 1996. Clearly, sourcing the early 70's material is going to require going to a real live library as it all predated the Interwebs.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216 etc., good work on the links, I think you are right, 1996 is effectively the start of the 'interweb' and I guess where we hit the wall.Degreemill (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw do not have the Telegraph back that far, but they do have The Times back fairly far...which turned up something from 1987 that is interesting. See my latest add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.197.218 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment added above, I think sources that support statements for inclusion into a main article have to be easily available to interested readers and not induce a payment to get that information from information provider service companties. Also 216 etc, perhaps you would be also advantageous to register with Misplaced Pages and obtain a nickname for adding comments. Updated to correct my Englsh....Degreemill (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I understand the concern, but checking the Misplaced Pages Verifyability Rules, a mainstream newspaper like The Times is an acceptable source. The fact that back issues before the mid-1990's aren't generally available online for free, and that resort must be made to microfilm records or a subscription service shouldn't disqualify the source. Millions of Wiki readers have access to the subscription services, and anyone within driving distance of a large enough library can check the microfilm records. There is a lot of information thats not online that's perfectly verifiable the old fashioned way. See also Misplaced Pages "Ignore all Rules" Rule. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now checked the Telegraph on microfilm. The newsgroup post cited above accurately quotes the original article, so I have added some of that information in a couple spots. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216, good workDegreemill (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

216, I agree that if it's available via a library, it can go in.

I have a copy of the Times article from 1987. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. There is simply zero information to back up the allegation. An unsupported statement like that doesn't merit inclusion, especially given the extreme claim. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • My own view is that the Times article qualifies as a reliable source to verify (i) that there was an investigative report on BBC-4 and (ii) what the report alleged. As I understand it, a story by Waite on BBC 4 is comparable a story by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. The fact that the report was made is in and itself newsworthy, even if one disagreed with the conclusions or felt they were controversial. The main point is that Warnborough was bathed in controversy long before 1995. I'm still hopeful of verifying more information from the 1970's when it first started up. In the meantime, if TPTB decide to delete the entry, I won't get worked up over it. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we should delete it for now, since there's no way to hear the original and to see what the evidence was. I have a few articles from 1974 -- I'll look to see if there's something that can be included. TimidGuy (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Timidguy is correct, the internet relies on its quality of being 'instant', also Misplaced Pages main reference articles need 'easy to access' references for supporting that chunk of information in a specific section. However the information that 216 etc., added was, for myself, quite jaw dropping and certainly filled in gaps to my working knowledge of the Warnborough University/College. I ask that a new section in the discussion section be created to portray 216s' editorials, this is because the section 'deleted unsourced material' is not apt bearing in mind the expansion of information following sight of 216s' editing. Additionally making a new section would allow any additional information to be added under the correct discusssion heading leading to consideration for inclusion into the main article. I don't want to start fiddling with the discussion page because I am scared of destroying some important work by accident. ThanksDegreemill (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another BBC report was formerly cited in Warnborough University, with text as follows: On November 26, 2000 the ] aired a news report on ] and "degrees for cash" in the United Kingdom. The report summarized the history of Warnborough, which was initially established in the 1970s as '''Warnborough College Oxford''' but was closed down after a United States government lawsuit. It was later reopened as Warnborough University under an Irish charter, and was operating under that name in 2000. However, a Warnborough official told a reporter that the school did not then have a physical presence in Ireland.<ref name="BBC">, November 26, 2000; the discussion of Warnborough begins at about 10 minutes into the broadcast</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • That makes for an interesting situation. The Nov 26 2000 BBC report was available online, but isn't any longer. Even the archive.org file appears to have disappeared. The 1987 BCC report was never available online. Transcripts are apparently not available for either. The first report were sufficiently noteworthy that it gets summarized in The Times, and about the same time the second one comes out there is an article to similar effect in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a respected educational journal. But, any reference to two news reports by a respected news source, making essentially the same allegations about the same group of people offering bogus graduate degrees without accreditation that that the Irish press is now making, one 21 years ago, and the other 8 years ago gets deleted. Should the references to the 60 Minutes Audi reports on sudden acceleration be deleted? They're not online, and it doesn't appear that you can get a transcript, even from Lexis/Nexis. And, those reports, unlike the BBC reports here, were demonstrably false. Let me suggest a solution: What if we add a sentence saying that the current reports that Warnborough is awarding decrees that have been alleged to be worthless because Warnborough lacks accreditation for high fees to unsuspecting foreign students misled about Warnborough's connection (or lack thereof) to famous universities echo allegations made in 2000 about the current Irish-based Warnborough University/College and in 1987 about the former Warnborough College in Oxford, citing the Times and the Chronicle and explaining about the now deleted 2000 BBC Report in the footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your suggestion may violate the policy of no original research. The 2000 BBC report didn't accuse Warnborough of selling degrees. It mostly repeated information that's already in the article about the 1995 events. In fact, in it's sensationalized style, the reporter went on site and tried to buy a degree but they wouldn't sell one. The report also had factual errors, for example saying that the U.S. government shut down Warnborough in 1995. TimidGuy (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maine

We really need to be careful here. That was simply a list of unaccredited schools. Unlike the other instances, it didn't say that the degrees aren't accepted. Please understand that two aren't the same. One of my degrees was from an institution that wasn't accredited but it was accepted by the graduate school that I applied to. Also please understand that accreditation isn't like licensure. One can legitimately offer unaccredited degrees. In the U.S. the only way to gain accreditation is to first offer degrees. Then after you have a track record, you can apply for accreditation. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the USA the system for degree issuing seems different to UK,(The Irish authorities have made their opinion on the Warnborough quite clear)I want to clarify the degree issuing situation in UK as it is obviously totally different to your example in the USA and the Warnborough are now based solely in the United Kingdom.

This link clearly clarifies the situation in UK, this is the Education Reform Act 1996 and read sections 214 and 215, these clearly relate to the Warnborough if they were to issue a degree in UK. https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880040_en_20#pt4-pb4-l1g213

Also quite interesting is this link regarding USA Degree Mills, it also states how toothless the UK authorities are in acting against institutions who bread the Education Reform Act 1996 and issue degrees in UK.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=207868&sectioncode=26

Degreemill (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Read the second citation in the footnote, which is the Maine Statute. A degree from an unaccredited school (including Warnborough) is a "false academic degree". It is illegal in Maine to use a "false academic degree" to obtain employment, to obtain a promotion or higher compensation, to obtain admission to an institution of higher education, or to use in a business, trade, profession or occupation.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some text to the Maine "ref" to clarify the situation. The law does restrict the use of unaccredited degrees, and the state does list Warnborough as an unaccredited institution. Some would say that adding 2+2 to get 4 in this situation (in order to say that Warnborough degrees are restricted) is original research; I don't see it that way, but I think it might be appropriate to modify the wording of the article to (1) identify Maine as a place where unaccredited degrees are illegal to use and (2) state that Maine lists Warnborough as not accredited. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I think that is appropriate. I don't view it as original research, as the Maine Dept of Education put all the information together on its website on unaccredited institutions and diploma mills, with the clear intent that everyone understand that it is illegal to use any degrees from anyone on the list in Maine. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think even Orlady's suggestion may be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Please be cautious. I don't see where it says unaccredited degrees are illegal to use. We can't assume that an unaccredited degree is a false academic degree. For example, the Oregon listing includes a number of unaccredited schools whose degrees are accepted in Oregon. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Maine statute defines "False academic degree" to mean "a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, course work or academic credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or course work that results in the issuance of an associate or more advanced degree by an institution that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning." It defines "Duly authorized institution of higher learning" to mean "an institution that: A. Has accreditation recognized by the United States Secretary of Education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; B. Has an authorization to operate under the laws of this State; or C. Does not operate in this State and is: (1) Licensed by the appropriate agency of another state; and (2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States Secretary of Education." The statute further provides: "A person may not use a false academic degree: A. To obtain employment; B. To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment; C. To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or D. In connection with any business, trade, profession or occupation. A person who violates this subsection commits a Class D crime." --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think in the USA the use of an unaccredited degree is rather at the owners risk, and perhaps it is acceptable for an Institution to offer an unaccredited degree, but I bet that the Institution has to clearly state that it is an unaccredited degree to all their students. However if or when the Warnborough issue a degree and that degree is issued in UK or Ireland under the Warnborough title, then they act illegally. The UK law is clear and concise.Degreemill (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Maine statute is quite clear about prohibiting use of degrees from unaccredited institutions. Look at the definition of "false academic degree". The Oregon website explains the very limited instances in which degrees from certain listed unaccredited colleges can be used Also, the Oregon website http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx lists a number of states, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Maine and New Jersey, in which the use of degrees from unaccredited institutions is broadly prohibited or limited, and other states, including Michigan and Indiana, where the use of such degrees is more narrowly limited. I don't think that there can be any question about use of Warnborough's degrees being proscribed in Oregon, Michigan or Maine, where it is specifically scheduled on the State Government Web Sites. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Item C2 in the Maine statute says and I quote 'An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States Secretary of Education.' Does this mean that if (a big if) the Warnborough are being truthful about their HETAC (Ireland) Accreditation Application then their unaccredited degrees are valid and allowable?Degreemill (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The short answer is no. The US Secretary of Education's list of recognized accrediting bodies is limited to accrediting bodies in the US. The way the statute is written, if a school had a currently-active application to one of those accrediting bodies in the US, it would be a "duly authorized institution..." But, having a pending application to a foreign accrediting body recognized by the foreign equivalent of the US SoE does not fall within the definition. As an aside, the Independent article suggests that there may not be an "active" application to HETAC, in that there are some preliminary evaluations that HETAC needs to undertake before it begins to consider any of Warnborough Ireland's programmes, but I don't pretend to understand the internal workings of HETAC. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

216 etc., thanks for clarifying that point, the HETAC application seems to be at the early stages as HETAC are forming a committee regarding the Quality Assurance systems of the Warnborough. See here http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20for%20awards%20of%20professional%20bodies.pdf Section 2 applies.Degreemill (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the research. I still think we may be skirting the proscription against original research. We aren't really supposed to do this sort of legal work ourselves and then draw a conclusion. Would anyone mind if I got the opinion of an experienced Admin? TimidGuy (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and invited Dreadstar, an Admin who's looked in on this discussion in the past. Will be interesting to get feedback from an outside party. Don't know if he's around these days, though. TimidGuy (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea and I will await his deliberations eagerly.Degreemill (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For this article, IMO, the primary issue should be whether the detail about Maine's laws belongs in this article. I think not -- the article is about Warnborough, not Maine. Information about the legal treatment of unaccredited degrees in different jurisdictions properly belongs in linked articles such as Educational accreditation and Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. HOWEVER, this article needs to include a general statement to the effect that it is illegal to use unaccredited degrees in some jurisdictions. UNFORTUNATELY, statements such as the one I just described get expunged from Misplaced Pages articles about unaccredited institutions (for being weasel-worded and/or unsourced, not to mention being perceived as defamatory by defenders of specific institutions) unless they specify the names of the jurisdictions and provide sources. That leads to including these mini-essays on the legality of unaccredited degrees in articles such as this one. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeping certification

Degreemill has said that Warnborough's short courses are excellent. I see here that they offer certified bookkeeping courses. Seems like we could add this. TimidGuy (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, their short courses are pretty good and good value too, the courses derive from the ACS people http://www.acsedu.co.uk/Courses/Default.aspx ACS also act as affiliates for the Warnborough degree courses and the Warnbrough Pre-Med course http://www.acsedu.co.uk/Info/About-Us/Affiliates.aspx The Warnborough Pre-Med would need its own section..Degreemill (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could draft some text for the short courses and ACS affiliation? And Pre-Med? TimidGuy (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure can, I will do this later and I promise not to make it into a 'mini essay'.Degreemill (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Important update. see here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/ and direct quote..' BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONS) IN BUSINESS Warnborough College will offer tuition support for the University of London BSc (Hons) degree in Business for external students from April 2008. Full-time classes will be held in Canterbury, Kent. Details coming soon.' This is excellent news, this means that perhaps someone from the Warnborough has read this discussion page and has taken note and acted properly becasue thier tutoring faculty would be able to run this with ease and maybe produce impressive results for students.Degreemill (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

However the Warnborough are not listed on the University of London web site as a Learning Centre/Partner http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/onlinesearch/institutions/index.jspDegreemill (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The short courses cover a wide range of learnable skills, the list appears here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/ The course derive from ACS Distance Education http://www.acsedu.co.uk/ In essence these courses are inexpensive and I think for the knowledge contained, of value to any person wishing to learn a new skill for a hobby or upgrade their career skills.

Warnborough Pre-Med, the best link for this is here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/courses/premeddl.aspx I am not sure as to the accreditation of this course nor am I sure which Caribbean University a student who completes this course can gain access to. I recall they were working with the Saba University as noted here http://www.studyinbritain.com/programs.aspx?id=1150 Digression.. Saba do check out as legitimate as per http://www.saba.edu/home_charter.php but no mention of the Warnborough. Whether the Warnborough Pre-Med has any beneficial relevance as taught as a 'home study' is a mote point, perhaps it contains a load of theory and prehaps one can practise on ones self.Degreemill (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IARC sentences

I've twice pointed out that it doesn't make sense to say that IARC isn't a recognized accrediting association because it makes no such claim. So why insert that yet again without addressing this point? You could say that about any organization, for example Harvard: Harvard University is not a recognized accrediting association. It's true. But Harvard doesn't claim to be. Same with IARC. The wording is misleading and stigmatizes the association with IARC. It's not a stigma, it's commendable. I thought that my version worked well, not stigmatizing yet quoting the site so that it's clear that it's not an accrediting body. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The article isn't about what IARC claims, its about what Warnborough claims. It's true that IARC doesn't claim to be a recognized accrediting association. It's also true that Warnborough's lists its recognition by and membership in IARC (like its ISO certification) under "accredition", and Warnborough's website claims that IARC membership is not merely equivalent to, but better than accreditation. One can attempt to be "neutral" by delining to opine as to whether Warnborough is being deliberately misleading about its lack of accreditation. But to point out that, like ISO certification, IARC recognition is not accreditation because IARC is not, and does not claim to be a recognized accrediting association is factual, neutral and complete. I think that your objection, therefore, is misplaced.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "decline to opine." I made exactly the same point in a thread above. And if you look at the revision that I worked on (if you know how to follow the edit history), it was dealing with exactly this. But then Orlady inserted her/his own earlier version. If you read the discussion above, you'll see my suggested solution. Which was to note that Warnborough makes the claim and then simply quote the IARC web site. That way one is dealing with the situation yet doesn't unfairly stigmatize IARC. TimidGuy (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The International Accreditation & Recognition Council (IARC) are interesting but maybe they deserve their own article, however where the Warnborough are concerned they clearly state that the IARC have accredited they institution. See here http://www.warnborough.ac.uk/advice/faq.aspx and I quote

Q. How does recognition of the school compare with other colleges?

A. We are internationally recognised by the International Accreditation and Recognition Council (IARC), and in many respects we are more widely recognised, due to the fact that we have been established and trained students for so long. In addition to IARC accreditation, Warnborough also has UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service) certification for ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 2700:2005 as well as Investor in People status.

The Warnborough are using them as a statement of accreditation, which after looking at the IARC web site they, as members, are prefectly entitled to do. As to it being a misleading statement, well, people can look at the Warnboroughs' history for that answer in the main article.17:09, 14 March 2008Degreemill (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like we're agreed, then, that it's misleading to say that IARC isn't a recognized accrediting body since it doesn't claim to be. As there's been no objection, I'll rewrite those sentences according my suggestion above.TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Transfer credit agreements

I was looking at the Dept of Education judgment and feel like we may have taken this information on transfer credit agreements out of context. As I understand it, the specific context was the eligibility of Warnborough's students to receive U.S. financial aid. There are a number of ways that this eligibility can be granted. One is if the school is accredited, which Warnborough wasn't. An optional way is if the institution has transfer credit agreements in place, in a sense piggybacking on accreditation of other schools. Warnborough didn't have current transfer agreements in place. But this doesn't mean that Warnborough's credits couldn't be transferred. I don't think transfer agreements are common, and I don't think transfer credit is contingent on having such agreements in place. It sounds to me like this is a specific mechanism for acquiring eligibility, but is not typically the basis for credit transfer. In my own experience, one of the universities I attended wasn't accredited at the time, but students were able to transfer credits. And the university didn't have transfer agreements with those schools. In fact it would seem difficult logistically to secure such agreements with every institution of higher education around the country. If no one objects, I will clarify this and move it to an appropriate location in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your comment, I think that many colleges that offer less than a full degree program have "transfer credit agreements" with one or more specific schools. They are usually called "articulation agreements." Typically the agreements specify which classes are eligible for transfer. For example, I recently added a list of articulation agreements to Roane State Community College, a fully accredited 2-year college that encourages its students to transfer to a 4-year college. An example of unaccredited school that apparently has articulation arrangements with accredited schools that accept its credits is Elim Bible Institute. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady is correct. It would be common in the US to have an agreement between a community college and one or more 4-year institutions for transfer of credits from a particular course of study to a corresponding bachelor's degree program. That it the kind of agreement that the DOE was looking for from Warnborough in order to be eligible for participation in Title IV. It wasn't that all of Warnborough's credits werent't freely transferrable everywhere, rather that Warnborough didn't have any then-current agreement with even one elibible US college for transfer of any of its credits. DOE found that the evidence Warnborough presented was "totally unpersuasive": the agreements which it presented were out of date or even unsigned; some of the colleges it claimed to have agreements with disclaimed any current arrangement with Warnborough; and probably most embarrassing, it presented a student who testified that his Warnborough credits were accepted by NYU, but a check of his transcript showed that in fact they were not accepted by NYU. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Here's my response to Orlady, which I believe also addresses the above comments:

Thanks, Orlady. My point was that they are generally not necessary. That is, most colleges and universities don't have them and that they aren't necessary in order to transfer credits. This lack of current articulation agreements is relevant to the 1996 decision on eligibility. But I don't think it should be used to suggest that Warnborough credits can't be transferred unless there is such an agreement. We've taken this information out of its proper context. My guess is that the reason the schools you cite have these articulation agreements is the very reason that Warnborough should have had them -- to be eligible for financial aid. TimidGuy (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another reason to have them. Students want to know when then enroll at a non-degree granting institution that their credits are going to be transferrable to somewhere that has degree-granting authority. If you can't promise that, students need to know it upfront. It was a remarkable (and uncharacteristic) bit of candor for Warnborough to start warning prospective students in 1997 that they were responsible for obtaining prior approval from their colleges for transfer of Warnborough credits - and it is not suprising that, in light of that candor, the attempt to re-start study abroad programs for US students in London, Oxford and Sydney (to say nothing of the delightfully over-ambitious "Warnborough at Sea") were unsuccessful and soon abandoned.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, TimidGuy, I believe your guess regarding my examples is wrong:

• Roane State students are fully eligible for U.S. financial aid because the school is fully accredited. Roane State's articulation agreements ensure that students will get full credit when they transfer (if they took the classes specified in the relevant agreement).
• Elim students are not eligible for U.S. financial aid because their religious school is unaccredited and lacks state approval. Elim's arrangements with other schools allow its students to use their 3 years at Elim toward a degree.

As I see it, if Warnborough had had an articulation agreement with just one U.S. institution, the court might have been more kindly disposed toward Warnborough.

--Orlady (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. These are good points. But my point is that in order to use this information in the context it's used here, I would think we would need to show that it's not possible to transfer credit in the absence of such agreements. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way out of this. The bit about Warnborough credits being accepted by 200+ US colleges appears to be a relic of the original Misplaced Pages article submitted by its IT Coordinator in March '07. It was something that Warnborough used to tout in its online and written materials to bolster its bona fides, but no longer does. Other than the stuff about the iffy Carribean med schools, I see no suggestion in any of the current materials that that any of its credits would be accepted for transfer elsewhere. Maybe the discussion of transfer of credits under the "accreditation" topic (i.e. the three sentences beginning with "According to past Warnborough web sites..." through "...and for transfer of credits." should simply be deleted. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear 216 etc., do you think you could expand the 'Warnborough at Sea'. I haven't stopped laughing at this. Knowing those people as I do, I think it is hilarious.Degreemill (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to "Warnborough at Sea" I can't imagine why this didn't fly....or float, not to mix our metaphors too much. http://web.archive.org/web/19970611225353/www.warnborough.edu/spirit.htm216.157.197.218 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 216. Good suggestion. I've deleted those sentences. TimidGuy (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 216 etc., thanks for the link, I think it is really hilarious. Wasn't there a book and film about the 'Admiral Cretin'. At least with boat they wouldn't have had any problems with accreditation. Any sight of a problem and 'weigh anchor' and away. Thanks for the best laugh I have had for a while.Degreemill (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian Diploma Mill Connection

I started a couple of paragraphs, complete with citation, that got lost. Here's the short version. When the State of Washington sues Warnborough, Warnborough tells the Seattle Times that it is going to move its admissions office to Hawaii, and that it is also going to set up a new corporation there and get authority for that corporation to issue degrees. In October 1995, a new corporation is filed in Hawaii. That corporation is involuntarily dissolved three years later for failure to file any annual reports. The address that Warnborough lists in Hawaii as its office is a maildrop/phone service used by a number of notorious diploma mills, mostly now defunct.

Another nice bit: The DC corporation that Warnborough formed in 1983 (and which apparently held degree granting authority from 1988-91) was named "Warnborough College, The American College in Oxford" The DC online records don't tell you when that company was resolved.

Don't know if any of this can go in a Wiki article, but it's interesting.

216.157.197.218 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough's Misplaced Pages Rebuttal Page

Isn't this cute? Warnborough has a whole, hidden page dedicated to rebutting all the nasty true stuff in the Misplaced Pages article! http://www.warnborough.edu/wikipedia.html 216.157.197.218 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this web page http://www.warnborough.edu/wikipedia.html has not been updated for a while as it still mentions their premises at All Hallows. This page does show very accurately the deluded thinking processes behind the Warnborough people. I reckon someone could gain a decent PhD on these guys. Perhaps the Warnborough rebuttal page should be in the main article as any editing from the Warnborough IP address was been blocked a while back.Degreemill (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

At least one person already has. BD T-M's 1980 EdD thesis at GWU was entitled "A case study of warnborough college : the american college in oxford. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/25257702 (note - you know its a serious thesis by the colon in the title) I recall reading some years ago a "review" of the thesis a few years ago by an academic who had ordered a microfiche copy from GWU. He savaged it as unjointed ramblings that consisted of criticising Warnborough's other admistrators and waxing rhapsodic about his mother (no, I'm not kidding!) with no research value whatsoever and certainly unworthy of a doctoral thesis. The person reviewing it concluded that it could not possibly have passed the thesis review process, and speculated that BD T-M's EdD is a ABD. The review is buried somewhere on the web. If I can find it again, I'll post a link. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Review" of Brendan Tempest-Mogg's EdD thesis is here.http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?t=19718216.157.197.218 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowww. Better than any comedy movie. A true classicDegreemill (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

216 and Degreemill, please attend to the guideline regarding the use of Talk pages. You're not supposed to use this page to trash the subject. You shouldn't be speculating about violations of the law. You shouldn't be posting comments from Internet forums. Here are some of the relevant points:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

It would probably be appropriate to delete some of your comments. Note in particular that Talk pages should adhere to the same guidelines as the articles themselves, which disallow referencing forum postings, And in particular, the Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons clearly disallows poorly sourced criticism. This policy also applies to the Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the apparent lack of context and the tendency to banter, but there are two - or maybe three - serious points here. First, as evidenced by the long discussion above regarding the relationship between Warnborough College IE and Warnborough College UK, I am pondering whether the main article should have an addition regarding the complicated corporate history of Warnborough. News reports previously cited have noted "Oxford International Eduational Enterprises, Ltd", the Washington DC corporation, the Hawaii corporation, an unidentified Canadian corporation, and the current Irish and UK corporations. I have been able to confirm information on many of these from primary sources, which solves the undue weight issue that is frequently raised. That the Hawaiian corporation was operating out of the same maildrop as used by a number of diploma mills subsequently sued and shut down by the state raises a red flag.

I'm considering adding a sentence on the "Warnborough at Sea" proposal in connection with the reincarnation of Warnborough in London. But, since it obviously got nowhere, it may not be worthy of mention. Thoughts?

There is a serious point about the EdD dissertation, but adding it to the article would require confirmation of the forum posting by reading it. According to the posting, Warnborough's president was writing in 1980 at George Washington University that obtaining accreditation had to be a priority. Three years later, Warnborough incorporates in DC, and five years after that, obtains degree-granting authority which is then lost for reasons unknown in 1991. Nearly 30 years have passed since Warnborough's president argued that obtaining accreditation has to be a priority, 12 years have passed since Warnborough was reconstitued as an Irish corporation, and only now it is taking preliminary steps to obtain accreditation in Ireland, arguing to the Irish press that its a lengthy process?

There is also a serious point to the Wikepedia Rebuttal. I would like to propose adding a new section: controversies relating to Warnborough, which would include the two BBC reports, the lawsuits by the State of Washington, students, and the stripping of Title IV eligibility, the fake lecturer in China, etc... balanced by Warnborough's responses, including the hidden page that used to be linked on its main page. Thoughts?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this sounds like a violation of WP:OR. Also, the BBC reports aren't available. The article already talks at length about the 1995 situation, and any more would likely violate WP:UNDUE. You may want to read through WP:NPOV. We can't simply make this an article about the controversies. It has to be balanced. Also, note that primary sources aren't generally used as sources in Misplaced Pages, per WP:NOR. Also, I again advise you regarding speculation. It's not up to us to raise red flags. The Misplaced Pages rebuttal was written in response to an old version of the Warnborough University article in Misplaced Pages. Most of the issues in the Misplaced Pages rebuttal have been addressed, which is likely why it's no longer linked on their site. Frankly it's starting to feel like you're an aggressive WP:Single purpose account. I suggest you spend a bit more time in Misplaced Pages and familiarize yourself with the policies and broaden your experience here. The current article is now relatively balanced, and the major controversies are clearly represented. I've searched Lexis/Nexis and am familiar with most of the reportage. Anything beyond what's in the article is going likely be bordering original research, which is disallowed. TimidGuy (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, no offense intended. You've done some great research and some good work, especially for a new editor. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfection?

Not sure how to make a new section in the contents, but I think the main article is perfect.Degreemill (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Archive References Disabled via robot.txt

Warnborough has added a robot.txt, disabling access to past Warnborough web pages by the Internet Archive. It appears, however, that the one reference to a past Warnborough.edu page in footnote 7 to the main article still works; other references on the Talk page do not. Losing links on the Talk page isn't a big deal, but - assuming the footnote 7 reference also becomes disabled, and there is no other easily-accessed verifiable source material - how does that affect the article?

216.157.197.218 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20001208074900/www.warnborough.ac.uk/history.html works fine for me. Anyway, a source is still valid even if it's not currently available on the Internet. To quote Template:Uw-deadlink:

Please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible."

--Orlady (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We may not be able to use these earlier versions of their web site as source material if it's not available any longer. I don't see how we could find a substitute link, since the Wayback Machine was the only source for this.

And while I'm here . . . I was a little disappointed that JzG (aka Guy) deleted material sourced to their current web site as "fluff." I wouldn't object to deleting ISO and other material such as being able to begin a course of study at the beginning of every month, but I think it would be appropriate to describe Warnborough's offerings -- as does every other college and university Misplaced Pages page. TimidGuy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to fret about losing Internet Archive sources, since the only such source cited in the article is still functioning. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Orlady is quite right, we can hardly expect the Warnborough guys to allow access to their own material held on their own web space which supports the content of the main article. Overall the correct and proper image is being portrayed in the main article of the Warnborough, I doubt if there is any more historical evidence that can be included with sources as required. Timidguys comment regarding their courses is right too, however I thought their offerings had been included in the main article too.Degreemill (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that once the content is in the Internet Archive, disabling robots.txt won't affect that content but will disallow future iterations of the site to be recorded. Thanks, Degreemill, I may go ahead and restore a bit of information about their offerings, including the certified bookkeeping courses. I'm pleased you like the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to guess. If you add a robots.txt archive to exclude Internet Archive, it not only stops crawling the site in the future, it also removes any existing files from the Wayback Machine. It is odd, in light of that, that footnote 7 still works.

Re Warnborough's offerings, I see no harm in restoring a brief summary of what they provide, minus the "fluff". Notwithstanding that the information would be self-sourced, it seems only fair that an article on any college would indicate what degrees/programs/certificates/etc it offers.

Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.iso.org/iso/publicizing2005-en.pdf