Acacia University DBA

[Messdiener]

Yes, It really depends on the student needs and wants, if RA or NA is the deciding factor (for some, or not)...
For me, I would do UK Level 8 Diploma and ladder to a DBA for about the same price if it's at $12K instead.

Have you seen similar Level 7 & 8 Diploma pathways for other fields of study? Education? Psychology? etc.


I know some diplomas exist through OTHM and the like, but the top-up pathways seem to be few and far between, at least those publicly listed.

[bjcheung77]

Here's one for education, I wouldn't recommend going through the Level 8 UK and then top up with the university to finish unless it's cheaper, easier, faster than something offered at an RA institution. Here's an example for a $40K top up, when you can get the EDD from ACE.edu cheaper: https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/Thread-...#pid436228

[Sagan]

While there are attempts to blur--eliminate, even--the distinctions between regional accreditation and national accreditation, I'll believe it when I see it.

But the professional doctorate presents a unique case. It is not designed for entry into academia. (Nor are they designed to be pre-requisite degrees for further study.) Rather, graduates learn about their fields and contibute to them with work-based research designed to advance practice. Because they're flexible, low-cost, and professionally oriented, schools accredited by DEAC could be a very good option for someone wanting to become expert practitioners (and be recognized as such).

If you can be relatively sure that such a degree will meet your current and future needs (not always an easy thing to conclude), a professional doctorate from a DEAC-accredited school can certainly be a good option.

There really aren't reputational distinctions to be made between these schools, but there ARE differences in cost, learning methodology, content, support, and other areas. Take care not to commoditize the decision by fixating on costs. Although they're an important consideration, an even larger one is that the degree you earn will be part of your professional identity for the rest of your life. Choose wisely.

[SteveFoerster]

While there are attempts to blur--eliminate, even--the distinctions between regional accreditation and national accreditation, I'll believe it when I see it.

What distinctions do you think there are in 2025? ED doesn't recognize any, and three accreditors formerly in the regional category aren't even members of CHEA anymore. Who's left to delineate this sort of artificial pecking order?

[TINASAM]

As far as some higher education faculty jobs go, there are some ads that still specify "terminal degree from an RA institution". Otherwise, I don't see any job ads favoring RA over NA, just a degree in the topic they want.

[Sagan]

While there are attempts to blur--eliminate, even--the distinctions between regional accreditation and national accreditation, I'll believe it when I see it.

What distinctions do you think there are in 2025? ED doesn't recognize any, and three accreditors formerly in the regional category aren't even members of CHEA anymore. Who's left to delineate this sort of artificial pecking order?

That's fine, as far as it goes. But there is a difference between having a rule book, for example, and evidence that people are following it. Are schools with the old "RA" accreditation ignoring the old distinctions and embracing degrees--for admission and academic employment--from accreditors like DEAC? We know some employers do not make the distinction, of course, but we don't know to what extent. 

I think there is a long distance between saying it and doing it.

[SteveFoerster]

While there are attempts to blur--eliminate, even--the distinctions between regional accreditation and national accreditation, I'll believe it when I see it.

What distinctions do you think there are in 2025? ED doesn't recognize any, and three accreditors formerly in the regional category aren't even members of CHEA anymore. Who's left to delineate this sort of artificial pecking order?

That's fine, as far as it goes. But there is a difference between having a rule book, for example, and evidence that people are following it. Are schools with the old "RA" accreditation ignoring the old distinctions and embracing degrees--for admission and academic employment--from accreditors like DEAC? We know some employers do not make the distinction, of course, but we don't know to what extent. 

I think there is a long distance between saying it and doing it.

For one thing, there was never a rule book. The accreditors formerly known as regional didn't try to restrict the institutions they accredited from accepting credit in transfer from nationally accredited institutions, or from accepting their qualifications for eligibility into higher level programs.

For another, it's been over twenty years since Rich Douglas's study on this, so at this point no one can credibly claim to know. Back then the answer was that some regionally accredited institutions accepted transfer credit and credentials from nationally accredited institutions, while others didn't. My guess is that were the study replicated today that there would still be some that did and some that didn't, but that the ratio would have improved in favor of the "accepted" side. 

I actually wish that someone looking for a good dissertation topic for an EdD would do a follow up study along the same lines as Rich's. Some of the terminology would have to be updated, but the research questions could be functionally similar, and unlike a lot of dissertations one on that topic would be genuinely useful.

As for employers, that would be tougher to figure out because so many were unaware of the distinction between regional and national accreditation even when it still existed. I'm not sure how I would even try to design that study for today's employers.

[Sagan]

, it's been over twenty years since Rich Douglas's study on this, so at this point no one can credibly claim to know. Back then the answer was that some regionally accredited institutions accepted transfer credit and credentials from nationally accredited institutions, while others didn't. My guess is that were the study replicated today that there would still be some that did and some that didn't, but that the ratio would have improved in favor of the "accepted" side. 

That study didn't involve questions about what higher education institutions found acceptable. It was a study of HR professionals to determine (a) what distinctions they made around various forms of institutional recognition and (b) whether or not those distinctions would change once they were provided accurate information about each form of recognition.

I actually wish that someone looking for a good dissertation topic for an EdD would do a follow up study along the same lines as Rich's. Some of the terminology would have to be updated, but the research questions could be functionally similar, and unlike a lot of dissertations one on that topic would be genuinely useful.

As for employers, that would be tougher to figure out because so many were unaware of the distinction between regional and national accreditation even when it still existed. I'm not sure how I would even try to design that study for today's employers.

Probably not by category. But that other dissertation also asked the respondents about various schools (one from each category of recognition) as well. That could be replicated, and I think the answer would still be "it doesn't matter because we don't know what we're looking at, nor do we bother to check."

By the way, the school that came in first was a state university. The second? A raging diploma mill that sold diplomas from a PO box in Louisiana and advertised for years in the classified ads section of USA Today. Why? I think it was because the diploma mill SOUNDED good, evoking the term "state university" in its name. (Needless to say, it was not.) If you had someone's resume and didn't bother to look up the school, it sounded like a real state uni.

[SteveFoerster]

By the way, the school that came in first was a state university. The second? A raging diploma mill that sold diplomas from a PO box in Louisiana and advertised for years in the classified ads section of USA Today. Why? I think it was because the diploma mill SOUNDED good, evoking the term "state university" in its name. (Needless to say, it was not.) If you had someone's resume and didn't bother to look up the school, it sounded like a real state uni.

I think I know the one.

[FireMedic_Philosopher]

By the way, the school that came in first was a state university. The second? A raging diploma mill that sold diplomas from a PO box in Louisiana and advertised for years in the classified ads section of USA Today. Why? I think it was because the diploma mill SOUNDED good, evoking the term "state university" in its name. (Needless to say, it was not.) If you had someone's resume and didn't bother to look up the school, it sounded like a real state uni.

I think I know the one.

Breyer ?