Degree mills, under the guise of legitimate institutions, pose a significant threat to the integrity of higher education. These fraudulent entities offer diplomas and degrees in exchange for minimal effort or financial investment, undermining the value of genuine education. They operate in various forms, from promising degrees within days to awarding credentials based solely on life experience.
The proliferation of degree mills is not a recent phenomenon but dates back to the 19th century. The rise of education's value led to a demand for credentials, attracting fraudulent providers. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 further fueled this industry, prompting legislative measures to combat fraud, including accreditation requirements for federal aid eligibility.
Advancements in technology have facilitated the spread of degree mills, making it easier for them to operate online and evade detection. The anonymity of the internet allows these entities to perpetrate fraud across jurisdictions, complicating enforcement efforts.
Estimating the scale of the problem is challenging due to the clandestine nature of degree mills. While some sources suggest a billion-dollar industry, concrete data is scarce. Instances of individuals obtaining degrees from such mills are prevalent, undermining the credibility of legitimate education.
Degree mills not only devalue education but also pose risks to public safety, particularly in fields like healthcare and engineering. Individuals with fraudulent credentials jeopardize public trust and safety, underscoring the urgency to address this issue.
State laws govern the licensure of educational institutions, but enforcement varies, with some states providing minimal oversight. Federal initiatives like "Dipscam" in the past have targeted degree mills, but enforcement has waned over time.
Accredited institutions and recognized accreditors provide reliable benchmarks for legitimate education. Consulting databases maintained by authoritative bodies like the Department of Education and the Council for Educational Integrity can help verify the credibility of institutions and programs. Additionally, employers must exercise due diligence in verifying applicants' credentials to deter the market for bogus degrees.
Fighting degree mills requires a concerted effort from regulatory bodies, law enforcement, educational institutions, and employers. By promoting transparency, accountability, and rigorous standards, we can safeguard the value of education and protect individuals from falling victim to fraudulent practices. Vigilance and informed decision-making are essential in preserving the integrity of our educational system.
Standard I: Mission and Goals
The institution has a mission statement and related goals, approved by its governing board, that defines its purposes within the context of higher education.
Standard II: Ethics and Integrity
The institution complies with all applicable laws and rules of the government.
The institution abides with the Commission's, interregional, and institutional policies that are relevant.
The institution regularly assesses the effectiveness of its educational and other initiatives, making available the results of these evaluations.
Standard III: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience
Regardless of certificate or degree level, level of delivery, or mode of instruction, the institution's student learning programs and opportunities are distinguished by rigor, coherence, and proper assessment of student achievement throughout the educational offerings.
The institution has a core group of faculty members who are either full-time or part-time and who have sufficient responsibility for the institution in order to ensure the continuity and coherence of the institution's educational programs.
Standard IV: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement
The goals for academic and institutional effectiveness and improvement, student learning, and the outcomes of academic and institutional assessment are all incorporated into institutional planning.
The institution has financial resources, a funding base, and plans for financial growth that are sufficient to support its educational goals and programs and to guarantee financial stability, including those from any related entities (including without limitation systems, religious sponsorship, and corporate ownership). The institution has a track record of good financial management, has a current-year budget created, and goes through an annual external financial audit.
Standard V: Governance, Leadership, and Administration
The institution fully discloses any linked entities as well as its legally structured governance structure(s) (including without limitation systems, religious sponsorship, and corporate ownership). The governing body of the institution is in charge of upholding the institution's standards of excellence and moral character as well as its mission.
The majority of the members of the institution's governing board have no financial, familial, or other personal ties to the institution. The governing body abides by a conflict of interest policy that ensures that those interests are disclosed, that they don't affect the members' ability to act impartially, and that they don't take precedence over the institution's greater obligation to protect and ensure its academic and financial integrity. The district/system or other top executive officer of the institution may not also serve as chair of the governing body.
The institution and its governing body(ies) make accurate, fair, and thorough information about the institution and its operations openly available to the Commission. In addition to communicating any changes to the institution's accreditation status and agreeing to disclose information (including levels of governing body compensation, if any), the governing body or bodies make sure that the institution describes itself in terms that are comparable and consistent to all of its accrediting and regulatory agencies.
