European International University

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

If by "less-than-wonderful" one means an institution that is not part of the French public higher education system and whose programs are not listed on the RNCP, then I think that is a fair and reasonably precise description of EIU-Paris.

It holds a UAI registration with the French Ministry of National Education, is listed through the Rectorat de Paris, has institutional quality assurance through ASIC UK, and some of its business programs hold ACBSP accreditation. Institutions with this type of legal status sometimes partner with officially recognized universities. For example, IBES operates under a similar legal framework and offers programs in partnership with universities such as UCAM, VERN, and UTAMED, all of which are officially recognized within their respective higher education systems.

EIU has also partnered with officially recognized institutions in the past. For example, graduates of its institutional MBA were eligible for advanced standing at PPA Business School, with 50% transfer credit toward a PPA qualification. PPA Business School itself has a UAI, holds a contract with the French state as a Grande École (recognized by the French State), and offers RNCP-registered programs. 

That illustrates that a school's legal status and partnerships can be more nuanced than a simple "recognized" versus "unrecognized" distinction.
I think some criticism of EIU stems from the fact that it has not attained full French state recognition, which is a legitimate consideration. 

At the same time, discussions on education forums often become polarized, with some participants emphasizing every limitation while others emphasize every strength. By DegreeForum standards, 17 pages is almost a brief conversation. The ENEB threads have exceeded 400 pages, demonstrating that non-traditional educational pathways tend to generate recurring conversations rather than lasting consensus.

As for academic rigor, I can only speak from my own experience. Having completed UK Ofqual-regulated qualifications at Levels 4, 5, 6, and 7, as well as a UK BSc (Hons), multiple título propio degrees, an Italian Primo Livello Master, and in the process of completing a UK MBA, I found the EIU-Paris bachelor's-level coursework to be broadly comparable to UK Level 6 study and approaching the standard of my UK honours degree. Others may reach different conclusions, but that was my experience.

EIU-Paris does not claim to be perfect, nor do I believe it should be presented as something it is not. The key is to understand its institutional status, its strengths (including ASIC UK quality assurance, ACBSP-accredited business programs, UAI registration, listing through the Rectorat de Paris, favorable NACES-member evaluations, and documented acceptance by certain universities, government agencies, and private-sector employers), and its limitations, then determine whether it is appropriate for one's own goals. Prospective students should not assume universal recognition or acceptance, but neither should they dismiss the institution without examining the available evidence.

That said, if IEE was considered a sufficiently competent credential evaluator when its assessment helped someone use ENEB master's coursework to obtain transfer credit toward a University of the People MBA, why would its expertise suddenly be questioned when it evaluates EIU-Paris? That seems inconsistent.

IEE's wording regarding EIU may seem blunt, but it also appears to be carefully chosen. For example, if one looks up PPA Business School, its UAI registration specifically states: Contract: Recognized by the French State/ Contrat: Reconnu par l'Etat, whereas EIU's institutional description does not. 
https://www.education.gouv.fr/acce_publi...&uai_ndx=1

That distinction appears to be reflected in IEE's evaluation. In other words, IEE does not seem to be confusing a UAI registration with French state recognition; rather, it appears to be distinguishing between the two.

[eLearner]

1. The simplest way to test this claim is to write directly to the foreign credential evaluation agency and provide official evidence that EIU is not recognized as an accredited university by the French government.

2. Ask the agency to review the institution’s legal and academic status carefully, including the difference between having a UAI code as a registered private distance-learning establishment and having government-recognized or accredited degree programs. Once the evaluator understands this distinction, it is unlikely that the agency will continue issuing positive evaluations in the future.

3. A positive evaluation does not prove that EIU is accredited or officially recognized in the United States, France, or any other country. It only shows that a particular evaluator reached a positive conclusion. In my view, such results are more likely evidence of insufficient research, misunderstanding of the French system, or poor-quality credential evaluation than proof of formal recognition.

4. The fact that several evaluations were completed successfully does not change EIU’s official status in France. Private credential evaluators can make mistakes, especially when they confuse administrative registration, permission to operate, professional accreditation, and government recognition of academic degrees.

1. Not sure why someone would do that. But, that would likely get no reply at all. American FCEs are notoriously unresponsive to queries from non-customers, or they respond with useless boilerplate. They avoid "evaluating without official documentation (and pay)" at all costs.

The difference between "university" and "université " in France has been discussed. "University" as an English term has no meaning in France and is not legally protected. People in France automatically know that it is a private program and not a "Université" which is legally protected and means that a school is a public program. However, "university" does have a meaning internationally so that's likely why EIU went with it.

2. This has already been discussed, too. Your post assumes this is unknown, but I doubt this. FCEs take many... interesting stances on things. Many of them I disagree with, some of them being ridiculous. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this one, but it's clear that they are taking the school's official government registration and coding as enough because it is enough in many other countries. The argument can also be made that while EIU is not accredited by the French education ministry, there is still base-level oversight for every school who has successfully registered, so that bolsters their position.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just that it's a likely reason.

3. "A positive evaluation does not prove that EIU is accredited or officially recognized in the United States, France, or any other country. " - This is obvious and was never claimed or even applied.

4. "The fact that several evaluations were completed successfully does not change EIU’s official status in France." - This is obvious and was never claimed or even applied.

---

For clarification, this is NOT an equivalency to a Regionally accredited institution status. 
It is NOT for the ACBSP Accredited DBA, MBA, BBA programs. 
This is for their institutional degree with ASIC Premier Institution status and UAI registration only
Essentially similar to titulo propio in Spain - which is an unofficial degree issued by the authority of the academic institution -  acceptance varies depending on the situation, country, and evaluator.

IEE Wording:

US Equivalency: 
Bachelor of Business Administration Degree, Finance

Institution status: Accredited by the Accreditation Service for International Colleges (ASIC)*

Additional notes: Completion of this program grants access to graduate-level studies.
European International University is an Accreditation Service for 
International Colleges (ASIC) premier institution. ASIC is listed as an
international accreditation agency by the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA). However, this institution is not recognized or overseen
by the government agency tasked with ensuring quality and regulating
education in France. US colleges, universities, licensing boards and
employers may exercise their own judgment regarding accepting this
qualification

I think the reason they don't use "regional accreditation" in their evaluations is because, as you know, that term is in sunset mode in the United States as schools are now officially recognized as "institutionally accredited." So at this point, it would make sense that an American FCE would recognize a foreign school's degree as either non-equivalent, or equivalent to a U.S. degree rather than "Equivalent to U.S. regionally accredited."

In the end, EIU is helped by being officially registered with their country's government education department, accredited by ASIC, and being accredited by ACBSP even if it's not the named reason for why the degrees are passing—it doesn't hurt.

[Sagan]

One attends a university to get an education and a degree. Both may be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It is the latter I am focused on.

Relying on ASIC or that third-rate B-school accreditor is not only a joke, it is futile. Neither affects the degree-granting status of the school.

While it is possible to operate a legitimate academic effort under the provisions of France's laws that permit this thing to operate, it is not necessary. And that is the fatal flaw in any argument in its favor. One can bray constantly about the academic processes in use, but they are moot since the institutional recognition does not require them.

I hold a doctorate from a regionally accredited school in the U.S. I also hold a doctorate from a British university with a Royal Charter. It does not take 18 pages to defend either form of recognition. And that is the rub.

[NotJoeBiden]

One attends a university to get an education and a degree. Both may be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It is the latter I am focused on.

Relying on ASIC or that third-rate B-school accreditor is not only a joke, it is futile. Neither affects the degree-granting status of the school.

While it is possible to operate a legitimate academic effort under the provisions of France's laws that permit this thing to operate, it is not necessary. And that is the fatal flaw in any argument in its favor. One can bray constantly about the academic processes in use, but they are moot since the institutional recognition does not require them.

I hold a doctorate from a regionally accredited school in the U.S. I also hold a doctorate from a British university with a Royal Charter. It does not take 18 pages to defend either form of recognition. And that is the rub.

It doesn’t take 18 pages. Most of the material is repeated since you continue to claim this is an illegitimate degree despite repeated evidence to the contrary backed by France’s own legal charters and foreign evaluators. The same evaluators, mind you, that you would need to use for your UK degree if you ever wanted US equivalently.

[Sagan]

One attends a university to get an education and a degree. Both may be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It is the latter I am focused on.

Relying on ASIC or that third-rate B-school accreditor is not only a joke, it is futile. Neither affects the degree-granting status of the school.

While it is possible to operate a legitimate academic effort under the provisions of France's laws that permit this thing to operate, it is not necessary. And that is the fatal flaw in any argument in its favor. One can bray constantly about the academic processes in use, but they are moot since the institutional recognition does not require them.

I hold a doctorate from a regionally accredited school in the U.S. I also hold a doctorate from a British university with a Royal Charter. It does not take 18 pages to defend either form of recognition. And that is the rub.

It doesn’t take 18 pages. Most of the material is repeated since you continue to claim this is an illegitimate degree despite repeated evidence to the contrary backed by France’s own legal charters and foreign evaluators. The same evaluators, mind you, that you would need to use for your UK degree if you ever wanted US equivalently.

Where did I say "illegitimate"?

Generally speaking, these degrees will NOT pass a foreign degree evaluation. That there are anecdotes otherwise doesn't disprove that basic fact.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

One attends a university to get an education and a degree. Both may be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It is the latter I am focused on.

Relying on ASIC or that third-rate B-school accreditor is not only a joke, it is futile. Neither affects the degree-granting status of the school.

While it is possible to operate a legitimate academic effort under the provisions of France's laws that permit this thing to operate, it is not necessary. And that is the fatal flaw in any argument in its favor. One can bray constantly about the academic processes in use, but they are moot since the institutional recognition does not require them.

I hold a doctorate from a regionally accredited school in the U.S. I also hold a doctorate from a British university with a Royal Charter. It does not take 18 pages to defend either form of recognition. And that is the rub.

It doesn’t take 18 pages. Most of the material is repeated since you continue to claim this is an illegitimate degree despite repeated evidence to the contrary backed by France’s own legal charters and foreign evaluators. The same evaluators, mind you, that you would need to use for your UK degree if you ever wanted US equivalently.

Where did I say "illegitimate"?

Generally speaking, these degrees will NOT pass a foreign degree evaluation. That there are anecdotes otherwise doesn't disprove that basic fact.

I think Sagan has been quite harsh on EIU over time, but to his credit, he's also acknowledged quite a few things as new information has come to light. He's still skeptical and, in the words of Billy Joel, "probably will be for life.", and that's fair, but I don't think he's dismissing it outright anymore. Through dialogue, we've all learned something.

I just find it a bit ironic when someone helps keep a discussion alive by regularly critiquing it, and then complains that the discussion has become so long. That's almost the definition of a successful forum thread. 

[eLearner]

3. "A positive evaluation does not prove that EIU is accredited or officially recognized in the United States, France, or any other country. " - This is obvious and was never claimed or even applied.

4. "The fact that several evaluations were completed successfully does not change EIU’s official status in France." - This is obvious and was never claimed or even applied.

I meant implied, not "applied," smh, lol. But to add onto this, I don't think people get a foreign degree evaluation to somehow make right the accreditation reach of the foreign school. Rather, it's to show proof that the foreign program they took has some level of matching to their home country's degree offerings. A number of country's accreditation/qualification systems are so different and grant such different privileges based on the laws of those countries that trying to match everything based on a basic model is oversimplifying things. That oversimplification can reach such an extent that it's certain to discount the hard work of many students and downgrade the legitimacy of some legitimate foreign programs. In fact I know this happens because I've known people who have been screwed in just that manner.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

We could go on and on about how a UK university established by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament might still be considered inferior in certain respects to another university with additional accreditations such as AACSB, AMBA, or EQUIS. If we really want to scrutinize credentials, we can always find another standard by which to judge them.

I say that as someone who holds a BSc (Hons) and a Postgraduate Certificate, both from Royal Charter universities and I am currently finishing an MBA at another Royal Charter institution.

The truth is, I don't spend my life criticizing other people's educational journeys because, in my own experience, the thing that has mattered most has been performance. In my line of work, having a degree from a regionally accredited institution did not automatically determine whether someone would succeed. I've worked with exceptionally capable people with various educational backgrounds. People with degrees from Harvard, Oxford, Yale, or Cambridge can still struggle in roles that require resilience and the ability to deliver results.

At the end of the day, a degree can open a door, but it cannot walk through it for you. Character, competence, and performance ultimately speak much louder than the name printed on a diploma.

[Sagan]

"I don't think he's dismissing it outright anymore."

Of course I am. And for good reason. I have no interest in judging the efficacy of the education one might receive from this thing, but I definitely challenge the notion that a degree from here would not be problematic.

---

"If we really want to scrutinize credentials, we can always find another standard by which to judge them."

Absolutely false. That is not what is going on here. There might be a sliding scale among truly recognized universities, but there isn't when it comes to these less-than-wonderful things. It is black-and-white.

[PearsonOTHMQualifi7654]

"I don't think he's dismissing it outright anymore."

Of course I am. And for good reason. I have no interest in judging the efficacy of the education one might receive from this thing, but I definitely challenge the notion that a degree from here would not be problematic.

---

"If we really want to scrutinize credentials, we can always find another standard by which to judge them."

Absolutely false. That is not what is going on here. There might be a sliding scale among truly recognized universities, but there isn't when it comes to these less-than-wonderful things. It is black-and-white.

Thanks for your input. According to your logic, a Royal Charter university without additional accreditation would also be "inferior," which is demonstrably false. Unless you're prepared to argue that your own UK degree is inferior by your own standard, your position is internally inconsistent.

One cannot take that position seriously. As much as I appreciate skepticism and critical discussion, repeating assertions without engaging with the responses isn't particularly persuasive.

One is of course, entitled to their own opinion. Sagan considers EIU to be substandard, and that's his prerogative. At this point, however, we're simply repeating ourselves rather than advancing the discussion.

Thanks, and all the best.