![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While checking Orladys last input I have detected several things in this delicate section. Please help on this in order to keep the reliability of the sources. There is no mention of Bircham in the two accreditations exposed: Academy for the Promotion of International Culture and Scientific Exchange and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. I have changed for others. These are not actually accreditations but memberships but they may be interpreted as accreditations and it is important to explain that neither of these sounding names nor any others from the Bircham list is from a recognized accreditation agency. I think we should not enter into the importance or relevancy of each of these references provided by Bircham. The Educational Quality Accreditation is not a past claim. It is a current one. The IAU is not a list of accredited schools but of recognized or official schools. We should be precise with the terms in the statements. Finally I included a reference about the non formal education registration of Bircham and provided more direct links to the statement posted in the article. Shoovrow ( talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
CHANGE 1 - Added section on Consumer Protection
Consumer protection is relevant in case of an institution that is not accredited. The seal is granted by the Government of Spain and according to the Spain laws the public should be informed about it. http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P Read more WP:IRS and if you have concerns use WP:BRD and discuss on talk
CHANGE 2 - Section of Non-degree training and courses
It is Authorized Provider of Continuing Education Units. Wikipedia & IACET Ref to CEUs added WP:IRS Grundvigt course is not distance learning WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Posted literally as shown. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk
CHANGE 3 - Criticism and controversy (First Paragragph)
Added description posted by the Oregon ODA referring to both Bircham and Oxford.
CHANGE 4 - Criticism and controversy (Last Paragragph)
Link to any 2008 article not found. Link to an article that reads "This article has been unpublished." Refer to what is published and to Wikipedia Policy. See WP:IRS WP:BRD and discuss on talk. Do not use links leading to not supporting statements. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Criticism and controversy - Changes in first paragraph
I do not agree with the idea that consumer protection is misleading or can be confused with accreditation. They are two quite different concepts. In fact, it is quite relevant to the public to learn where they could place any complaints in case they have a problem with Bircham. There is nothing in the text that is misleading to what this seal actually is. Moreover the Spanish Law says that the public should be informed abut consumer protection complaints. Of course, this obligation does not extend to Wikipedia, but it shows how the public can be protected from any consumer abuse or fraud. This is important in the case of an unaccredited institution.
Criticism and controversy - Adding a second paragraph
Oregon ODA. I do not understand why the statement about Bircham in the Oregon ODA is the less relevant point of this article and it is systematicaly discarded. In fact the definition of Bircham from the ODA is the most relevant reference that can be provided in this paragraph and should be included, as well as the other references such Oxford.
Criticism and controversy - Changes in last paragraph
Now that the original 2008 article has been sourced in an archive, we should explain why we use an archive link and not the actual newspaper article that clearly states that the article is deleted. That's added to this paragraph as well as fixing the links that were not working. This will explain why the original article is not sourced here.
Shoovrow ( talk) 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1. Article interest? I encountered this article some months ago. Its negative tone attracted my attention. Then I checked some of the links and started to find out that some of them were not really based reliable sources or working links. I proposed some changes based on reliable sources and I got a warning from an editor inviting me to step out of this article editing. This warning actually pushed further my interest into this article. I was also called puppet of some kind and even suggested for blocking. The more walls the more I wanted to find what is behind here. As far as I have seen, there are some editors who seem to control anything about this article. I have seen the systematic blocking of users that provided interesting reliable links (for anybody who took the time to read them). Is it possible for some editors to create a "control" consortium of an article at Wikipedia? Maybe I am naive on my interpretation, but I would like to learn more about the Wiki editing and administration.
2. Edit war. I have been said to participate into an edit war. I am sorry if I give this impression to anybody. I just do not want to be pushed away without proper reasoning and arguments. I do not believe that this wonderful Wikipedia project should be the place talking good or bad about anyone or anything. We should just stick to the facts that best inform the public. I truly think that this article has improved after my contributions. Still there are things I do not understand. I have taken my time to think about them before getting back to this. These are the following:
3. ODA statements The statement that ODA describes Bircham as a "F" Foreign Degree Supplier (Suppliers that appear to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.) This definition is relevant in a paragraph that is based on statements from the Oregon Department of Education. This statement should be included as well. It is actually the most relevant and updated one. Previous reference to this links just refers to the foreign countries where this institution is based. Consequently I think that this statement from the ODA should be included. WP:Lead
Later the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization [1] described Bircham as a Foreign Degree Supplier that appears to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.. The ODA also informs that Bircham has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".
4. Consumer protection This institution is unaccredited. This is clear through the article. The public should be informed that there are ways to protect their rights and money in case they get into any trouble with an unaccredited institution based in Spain. I have never understood this consumer protection as any kind of approval, accreditation or publicity, nor talking good or bad, but just referring to a relevant information for the public. I think the explanation was clear: "Since 2005, BIU holds the consumer protection seal of the National Consumer Institute (Instituto National del Consumo) within Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs. According to this National Consumer Institute, organizations displaying this symbol have agreed to arbitration of any consumer complaints that should arise against them." I do not want to enter any edit warring, but I think that this should be considered an inserted. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again I have reverted another editor's addition of a paragraph about a consumer protection measure that Bircham has subscribed to in Spain. This is an appropriate protection for a consumer who has paid for something that he did not receive -- for example, the consumer paid for a new table and chairs, but the store did not deliver them. This is not a quality assurance measure for education. Indeed, I believe this is a good example of the essentially meaningless pieces of official-looking documentation that diploma mills often provide. (For example, this document states: "Diploma mills routinely offer the possibility of having an Apostille attached to a perfectly valid notarized copy of the diploma, thus creating the appearance of an official ... diploma.")
For information on the type of quality assurance process that is supported by governments and higher education officials, read "Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area - 3rd edition (2009)". It is available for downloading in 12 languages at http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso -- you can read whichever language you prefer.
That report explains that quality assurance at the institution level must address many items. Here is an abbreviated version of the list:
The report also has criteria for external quality assurance agencies in higher education. Here is a shortened version of that list:
As you can see, this is far more complicated than providing for mediation if a student thinks the university has cheated him. Including information about that kind of process in this article is misleading, since it does not supply the information or the assurances that students and society need to have when judging higher education. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:C Deleted references to Publication subject to copyrights permission. Since 2009, John Bear guides copyrights and contents belong to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House (world's largest trade book publisher). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Speed_Press Any citacion to these books must have permission. Wikipedia:Non-free_content These material is not in the public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization alerts the public that Oxford International University has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".[26]" what does OIU have to do with BIU? It looks like possible vandalism. Kdammers ( talk) 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
BIU got the Online Trust Seal. See listing and entry. I also added the reference to the previous Consumer Protection Ref they got in 2005 as stated by the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce, as it seem to make sense in this paragraph. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see that there is a misleading understanding of the ONLINE TRUST SEAL in Bircham. It is not "having secure servers and not giving away credit cards" as Orlady states. Somebody with Spanish Language proficiency should read the website. Just using a Google translator is not helping much to illuminate a mind. I will try to clarify for you: 1. Online trust seal ensures the ethical approach of the institution to its consumers. Applicants must meet certain regulations to qualify for this seal and also assume the compromise to engage in a set arbitrage in case of any conflict. It is never an educational quality seal and I can not see how it can be understood that way. http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/ 2. This organization is privately managed but Government participated http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/asociaciones-participantes-2/ 3. This organization is the only one authorized by law and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to ensure the ethics of companies engaged in online sales. http://www.confianzaonline.es/sello-de-confianza/que-es/ http://www.consumo-inc.es/Distintivo/queEs.htm Based on the above, I have to say that removing "Online Trust Seal" is a mistake. It is a reliable source, it links directly to Bircham and it contributes to the definition of the nature of the institution because it demonstrates a real interest for consumer well being and ethical behavior. This input was inserted in the Controversy section. I can not see how this can create any confusion with the clearly stated sections about the unaccredited status of Bircham. Finally I have to say that users not fluent in Spanish or English should be looking at references in their languages. How international users may understand this entry is just speculation in my point of view. http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/entidades-adheridas/# http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/ficha-entidad-asociada/?cod=1645&lang_view=es&letra=b
On an additional note, I also want to remark my disagreement with the removal of the Mexican Government web directory. This is not any directory. It is the Mexican Government web directory and it has its relevancy. The reference of the Local newspaper posted in the article is actually much less relevant than the Mexican Government Directory. The article in that newspaper does not mention Bircham, except in a listing of institutions apparently committing academic fraud that even includes the Spain Government and Official UNED (this can tell you how serious the article is). This article was a sensationalist outburst based on a note issued by the Mexican Ministry of Education that clearly explains that the institutions offering distance learning are not officially recognized in Mexico. It then lists 11 institutions that they know operate in Mexico. Check the link http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf This was the source of the article for the inclusion of the "academic fraud accusation", just because some of the institutions in the list did commit that fraud (read the article - it does not mention Bircham, but other institutions, yes). The inclusion in the Mexican Government Directory is the results of BIU having demonstrated that it is fit to be included there. I suggest that this paragraph is rewritten considering the most reliable sources from the Mexican Government itself: http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf http://directorio.gob.mx/www.php?categoria=757
Finally I want to explain that the reference to Oxford from the ODA was never removed, but changed to the place where it makes more sense in the section about history of the institution.
I ask the community of editors to reconsider that the proposed changes were actually contributing to the article and based on relevant and reliable sources. Do undo your "undo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.83.176 ( talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to the Mexican web directory, there is no indication in that directory that there is any significance to listings there. The website makes no claims regarding its nongovernmental contents (as translated by Google, it says "directorio.gob.mx is the portal that brings together sites of all institutions and agencies of the Federal Public Administration to be able to link to them in an agile and dynamic. You will also find sites that are not part of the Government related to national affairs and may be of interest."). Also, Bircham is not the only distance education provider listed, as the directory also lists a "University of Futbol" [1]. The fact that Bircham got itself listed in that web directory is an isolated (and out-of-context) fact of unknown significance (and possibly no significance) that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am deleting it from the article again. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should provide information about all aspects that define the item. Consumer Protection is an important part of any non accredited university. Just as an example, The State of Hawaii monitors unaccredited institutions through its Consumer Protection Department and it is this department the one that authorizes any unaccredited institution activity in Hawaii. So the relevance of any State or Government related reference can not be just ignored. The Online Trust seal mentioned is not about technical or financial issues (red the web). It is not a security certificate for online payment. It is the guarantee that the institution has gone through a review, that meets all regulations in Spain pertaining consumer interactions and that complies with the ethical standards set forth by the organization. Bircham activity is education provider, but above all Bircham is also a Spanish Institution subject to Spanish Laws and this is intrinsic to its definition. Many aspects of Bircham as an education provider are more that clearly expressed in the article. Quackwatch is the opinion of a single person who has the personal project of watching what he does not agree with. That may be a relevant link, but it is quite less relevant than an institutional one such the Online Trust seal. This reference has to be included as part of the definition of this institution. It creates a difference with other institutions and such difference need to be explained and added to the definition of Bircham.
The Mexican web directory is a web published by the Mexican Government to inform users about many different issues. The significance of this is implicit in the fact that the web is managed by the Mexican Government and it publishes all information that they consider relevant for the public. Editors should be proficient in Spanish Language before judging by intuition or automatic translation.
Based on these two premises I have included new entries to the article that I belive are correct and relevant to the purpose of this encyclopedia. I restored them for past edits I found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.203.154 ( talk) 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Issues of agencies and activities for recognition and accreditation from the part of BIU are mentioned in this section already. Their recent claim about seals should also be clarified in the same way. Otherwise, the rest of the unaccreditating organizations' names and facts will also be misfits for this section. Shoovrow ( talk) 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been reading this interesting discussion. As far as I can see the point here is that Consumer Protection may be confused with some kind of accreditation, which is not. It is clear that the accreditation process itself is ensuring the consumer protection. It is also clear than in cases of unaccredited institutions such protection does not usually exist. I have checked the documents disregarded by Nuujinn. 1. This is a legitimate letter from the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. Editors should read more carefully. It is never said that it is just the US Chamber of Commerce, which should not have much to say about a Spanish document. This document then is something to be considered. 2. Looking similar to a BBB membership may be a too quick look at things. Even then BBB is considered a good reference from the US government and DOE. In fact there are not unaccredited institution belonging to the BBB, so this event is significant in itself. These facts do contribute to the definition of the profile offered by Bircham. I guess the whole issue should be settled by adding the simple explanation that the mentioned Consumer Seals do not contribute to educational accreditation of the institution. http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/10.pdf http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_29343796_1_1_1_1,00.html http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/regulation/documents/consumer-protection.pdf http://www.detc.org/corporate/faq.html http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/udgi/regulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.73.143 ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This statement about the Mexico SEP refers to the actual source published by the SEP. The previous article now sourced via wayback machine does not mention Bircham along the article but displays a list copied from the actual SEP note. This note refers to the lack of recognition of the mentioned 11 institutions. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill#Mexico explains how some of the listed institutions are accredited. I think the link to the SEP source is more reliable and truthful than the obsolete and imprecise article mentioned.
I also added the links of the different BIU webs in different languages. I do not consider this to be advertising. The advertising argument must be a joke. Do you really think that anybody reading this article would consider anything with this institution? The links were originally included and accepted by the Wikipedia editors community after the through review they usually conduct on this article. Bircham refers to itself as an international institution and the reliable source that proves this fact are the different and independent websites in each language.
Finally I want to remark that if wikipedia is English source based as stated then to reference should be accepted in any other language than English. This is not the case in this article. References are provided in other languages than English when the editors consider it serves their purpose. Policy should be consistent and serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.26.36 ( talk) 09:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted the same way that the articles for other schools has been deleted or not created such Ambassador University Corporation, American Century University, Atlantic International University and many others from the list of unaccredited institutions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education. I just took some examples from the "A" in the alphabetical list. An encyclopedia should a place for knowledge not a random list of companies. Or if decided to include such institutions it should be comprehensive and include all the schools from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.110 ( talk) 12:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
As I am sure many of you are aware, a number of improvements can be made to this article to ensure it is accurate.
The introduction to the article can be supported by the following reference to the Spain Business website, the official website of Spain's Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Can more of the following content from the Spain Business website be used in the introduction to the article?
BIRCHAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION OF DISTANCE LEARNING HIGHER EDUCATION THAT OFFERS ADULT DEGREE PROGRAMS AT PROFESSIONAL, UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVELS THROUGH SOUND UPDATED CURRICULA AND AN INNOVATIVE DISTANCE LEARNING METHOD OF INSTRUCTION.
Spain Business:
http://www.us.spainbusiness.com/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html
In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Bircham International University is my client. I hope to work with other editors to ensure that this Wikipedia article is accurate. Please contact me on my
Talk Page if you have any questions
Vivj2012 (
talk)
11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Using whois shows that spainbusiness.com is (apparently) registered by es:Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior, and Google translate claims "It is a Spanish public company, state level, which aims to promote the internationalization of Spanish companies". A public company with the aim of promoting something is not generally useful as a reliable source for contentious material. Regardless of the technicalities, the wording of the source is obviously authored by someone wanting to promote the subject of this article (and there are lots of websites that will display material provided by an organization). Editors do not have to prove that is the case. On the contrary, per WP:REDFLAG, if Bircham is what the source claims, there will be several other sources that verify those claims. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Orlady/Johnuniq, thanks for getting back to me and clarifying the above. It's good to get feedback on this. As I've mentioned there are a number of other issues that need to be reviewed, so I'll add these below. Vivj2012 ( talk) 15:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
John Bear recently published a statement on the
Degree Info and
DegreeDiscussion websites regarding the listing of Bircham International University in his book Bear’s Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. Following the publication of Bear’s statement, there are a number of points included in the Bircham International University Wikipedia article that should be reviewed, including those listed below:
1. BIU bought a shelf company called Oxford International College without any intention of promoting an association with Oxford University
2. BIU does not have, nor does it need to have, recognised accreditation
As John Bear’s view of BIU is important to much of the article content, I’d appreciate it if someone could review these points.
Thanks
Vivj2012 (
talk)
08:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean it's relevant to the article topic. It's fairly obvious that a school that changed its name has no relationship to Oxford University, and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. The cited source states there is no relationship for the purpose of clarification, but the way the source is used here carries an implication that a connection was intentional. Bear doesn't state that the connection was intentional either, but implies it, writing "the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake" [2] but that's Bear's view, not Wikipedia's position. WP:SYNTH, you know — an encyclopedia article mustn't synthesize a conclusion, either explicitly or implicitly. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of
user:Bircham
|
---|
I think that John Bear statements after his recent review of Bircham University need to be discussed and incorporated into the article. John Bear is an undisputed reference to this topic. He has published his conclussions so far in two of the major DL web forums because there are no more publication of his famous guide. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556 Bircham International University revisited by John Bear » Wed May 22, 2013 3:40 am More than ten years ago, my daughter and I included a listing for Bircham International University in the thirteenth edition of our book, Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. The book, in effect, separates schools into three categories: those with recognized accreditation, those that operate legally but without recognized accreditation (or the equivalent in other countries), and those that we identify as degree mills. Bircham is included in the middle category. The CEO of Bircham, William Martin, has asked us to revisit that listing, and we are pleased to do so. For purposes of reference, here is the original listing: Bircham International University Madrid, Spain Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorates Degrees by correspondence at all levels in business, arts, health, psychology, engineering, computers and science. Website lists “delegation” addresses in Spain, England, United States (a Mail Boxes Etc. in Miami, Florida), Bahamas, Taiwan, China, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, and New Zealand. We were told that the offices in Spain and Taiwan were the main offices, and that the offices in England and the Bahamas are strictly administrative and do not serve students, The Internet site is registered to an address in Madrid, Spain. Until 2000, the school was called Oxford International University; the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake. Will consider an “honorary doctorate” on submission of your curriculum vitae, two reference letters, and a minimum donation of $1,200 (U.S.). The main thing we would add, if we were doing a new edition of our book (which, alas, we are not at this time), is to address the concept of non-formal learning, a concept which has become increasingly popular in most European countries in recent years. It is, in effect, a middle ground between formal education and informal everyday learning. Non-formal learning typically occurs in a formal learning environment, but often one that is not formally recognized. It can involve seminars, workshops, colloquia, distance or online courses, independent study, etc. An Internet search will find many articles on the topic. For instance, Malcolm Tight (Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training, London: Routledge) writes that non-formal education is about “acknowledging the importance of education, learning and training which takes place outside recognized educational institutions.” Bircham International University describes itself as a practitioner of non-formal education. As such, while it operates legally under Spanish law, it is not formally recognized by the Ministry of Education of Spain (where it is located), although the Ministry has acknowledged the relevance of the concept, and, along with other countries in the European Union, is working toward establishing policies to identify, evaluate, and recognize those entities offering non-formal education. Bircham does not have (nor does it need to have) recognized accreditation. In the matter of the use of the Oxford name, Mr. Martin writes that “In 2000 BIU bought a UK ‘shelf company’ called Oxford International College that was immediately changed to Bircham International College with the purpose of opening a branch office in the UK. We did not get the authorization to issue degrees in the UK, so neither the UK company, nor the office, was ever opened. There was never any interaction with the University of Oxford…” For many years, we have written that in the process of choosing any school, the prospective student should determine, as best he or she can, that their credential will meet both their current and predictable future needs. Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham, it seems clear that there are many satisfied people with the their credential. Mr. Martin has asked us to post this message on the DegreeDiscussion.com and DegreeInfo.com forums, and to send a copy to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which we have done. He has also asked us to respond to any responses that may be posted on this forum. But there is really little more we can say, other than that we stand by what we have written. --John and Mariah Bear, May, 2013 Author/co-author Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning (first 15 editions) Degree Mills: The Billion $ Industry That Has Sold ... a Million Fake Diplomas. Send This Jerk the Bedbug Letter John Bear Senior Member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 ( talk) 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) MY USER ID: I have been asked by some editor about the reasons for editing this article without a user ID. There are several reasons that I would like to share with the editors interested in this article. All my edit history has been happening at the Spanish Wikipedia for several years, so I have no editing history in the English Wikipedia. I have no intention of dedicating too much time to this article, so I do not expect to need a user. I have been asked by Bell Pottinger and Wikimedia to review this article and edit it, if necessary, sticking to Wikipedia rules and consensus. Bell Pottinger has tried to edit this article by adding relevant contributions that have been ignored by the editors currently watching this article. Consequently a complaint has been raised directly to Wikimedia and to Jimmy Wales himself (at Wikia) regarding some type of what might be called editing "feudalism" affecting this article. Bell Pottinger has a history of direct collaboration with the founder of Wikimedia. Bell Pottinger can not edit directly any article at Wikipedia because of conflict of interest with their clients. Bell Pottinger usually works with the collaboration of senior editors that consider their editing proposals, achieve consensus and act accordingly. The Bircham institution is based in Spain and sources from Spanish nature may probably be relevant. I do live in Spain and have a long history of editing Spanish Wiki. So, I have been asked to help with this article. I believe in open and clean communication to achieve consensus. For this reason I want to explain my recent involvement in this article to the editors currently involved. Bell Pottinger client seems quite unsatisfied with the current article outcome. I personally do not care about that, but my first reading of the Bircham article does not give me the true sense of neutrality that is expected at Wikipedia, so I decided to move in. I also found some outdated or wrong links and quite a few refences to wayback machines. I plan to dedicate a while a week to review parts of the article and propose changes if necessary. I would like to receive a clear response by any editors interested in this article to help me reach a good consensus. I have started with the recent reference from John Bear added by Bell Pottinger to the talk page. By reading John Bear article at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bear it is clear that he is an undisputed authority in the field of distance education, so I have thought that his input is a good start point in reaching consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 ( talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
|
User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of
user:Bircham
|
---|
Hi Orlady, I have done some edits at the Bircham International University article. You have systematically undone all of them, despite of my efforts to provide some input and discussion in the talk page. You affirm that I have no credibility. At Wikipedia credibility is the direct consequence of the sources of information used, not on whom the author is. A long editing history at Wikipedia may demonstrate commitment from the editor or proficiency in dealing with Wiki rules, but not actual credibility. The fact that all wikipedia editors are anonymous users without identified credentials and qualifications make the credibility of editors a not much applicable aspect for any editor. It is then the facts that should be considered. You have deleted a some proposed edits, even one that was corrected by the Oregon DOE web that you now linked to a wayback machine. The Oregon DOE web is not working all the time, but when it works you should check and find out that the references to Kenya Institute are deleted, so they should be in the article. Use the way back on a closer in time look and you may check this out. Anyway, I see some discrepancies in the way an article should talk about any institution. The institution should be defined based on facts, then explain what it is, what it does, where it is, when it was founded. For these facts two sources are relevant: John Bear and Spain ICEX ( A Spain gobernment body that has been considered a promotional one by editors with out knowledge about the institution). I will explain more about the ICEX later and provide English ref for verification. The article more or less does so, but it is redundant sometimes. Also, any comments and opinios should be reserved to the Controversy section, which is, by the way, a good idea. I kindly ask for some trust. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ABOUT ICEX Spain Business is the Official web of the Spanish Institute of Foreign Trade (ICEX), Secretariat of State of Tourism and Trade from the Spain Ministry of Economy. You can check this here http://www.icex.es/icex/cda/controller/pageICEX/0,6558,5518394_5593081_5657952_1,00.html Spain Business is actually a database of Spanish Companies used by the commercial department of all Spain Embassies to find data about Spanish Companies involved in any Foreign Trade. ICEX intends to promote foreign trade by providing info about Spanish Companies. It is not a promotional gadget. Inclussion into this database happens by request from ICEX only. Usually ICEX extracts some info from the Company's Incorporation papers and its mission published on the web, that may be transcribed totally, partially or rewritten. The definition posted by the ICEX is the definition accepted by an Official Governmental Body about Bircham. I agree that this definition is based on the institution mission and that it has some promotional flavor, but if we take out the promotional words, the definition is very reliable and properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Quotations are used in the article to refer to published material. If quotations are not accepted the we should delete all quotaions used in this article. I do not see any fundamented statements for undoing my contributions to the article. Please do take a few minutes to enlighten me. And smile :) Life is full of marvelous gifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
@ JzG: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 recently closed as "no consensus." Please consider changing the protection level of this page so PC2 is no longer needed. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Bircham International University (BIU) is a controversial, progressive university that is accredited by the AAHEA (American Association of Higher Education Accreditation) which is the oldest educational accreditation organization in the USA and is a Christian organization. The AAHEA is a nongovernmental organization not affiliated with the US Department of Education (DOE) or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and these later two organizations are what currently decides accreditation in the USA. The reason probably is that Bircham International University does not give the standardized exams, but the textbooks and curriculum are the same (i.e., USA textbooks, British textbooks); instead, students have to show that they can apply what they learn by producing case studies in written report form. Bircham International University (BIU) is often attractive to those who all ready have accredited degrees and wish an additional degree for the purpose of learning more, and to those that may have cultures that this university suits well, and/or those who want an additional degree that is more affordable time-wise and cost-wise. Entrepreneurs may find Bircham International University helpful in learning additional material in a time, and cost effective way. Bircham International University is in several countries worldwide, and does state that their degrees awarded may not be accepted by some employers as accredited university degrees. Bircham International University has forum webpages if students and/or alumni want discussions.
Example of Bircham International University credits and Spain's accreditation system
According to Spain's accreditation system and Bircham International University, Bircham International University credits are considered continuing education credits, but not accepted as university credits as such, but the credits are valuable and can be as valuable or more valuable as the continuing education credits can exceed beyond the university level credits depending on the curriculum: award degrees referred to as títulos propios / university-specific titles. Through the changes effected by the Law of University Reform of 1983, universities became free to offer these no oficial / non-official degree programs According to The Educational System of Spain, C 1997, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc., Milwaukee, pp. 44-45: In addition to official titles recognized by the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC), Spanish universities outside the realm of MEC-sanctioned officialtitles. The most common título propio qualification is Máster / Master; additional qualifications include Especialista / Specialist, Experto / Expert, Diploma, Técnico / Technician, Graduado / Graduate, and Doctor. Título propio programs represent a minimum of 20 credits. Other non-official programs which do not lead to a title include short term courses and seminars of continuing education and As non-official titles, títulos propios do not have academic recognition of the MEC and are not considered part of the formal higher education structure. They do not provide access to government-mandated positions of employment but in the private sector may have value for employment purposes equal to or exceeding official titles. Títulos propios are awarded by the rector of the individual university, rather than by the MEC; the MEC specifies training. Títulos propios and non-official programs may also be referred to as estudios propios / university-specific studies. In the 1983 Reform, the MEC specified that these titles must use terminology that does not coincide nor lead to confusion with official titles established by the government. that the text and format of these titles and their accompanying grade reports must not lead to any confusion with that of official titles. As there is no government-mandated uniformity to the programs, the selections of programs offered as well as their structures vary widely. The universities offering título propio programs set the requirements for their admission and the award of their qualifications. These may vary in detail from institution to institution, depending on purpose, whether there is an expectation of homologation, or other factors. Títulos propios are offered at all levels, including through the level of the doctorado, and in all fields. Qualifications bearing the same general name may have widely divergent requirements, even at the same institution. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACNY ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The following line was removed due to questions of relevance and biased implications:
"The article quoted former FBI agent Allen Ezell, who investigated diploma mills as part of Operation Dipscam, as describing some of Bircham's promotional claims as "pure hokum"."
Allen Ezell's validity as a source of information about BIU is questionable. There is no doubt that the former FBI agent is a reputable source in regards to some of the diploma mills investigated during Operation Dipscam. However, there is no established link between BIU and Ezell found in the Citylink source. Ezell's quote about Bircham appears almost as an afterthought with no substantiating connection between the two mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in any source I have seen so far.
This statement, as it was written, seems to imply a connection between Operation Dipscam and BIU when no connection has so far been verified. And it references "promotional claims" when no such claims were mentioned in the source.
Since Operation Dipscam's investigations officially ended in 1991 and Bircham was not founded until 1992, it is questionable that Bircham would have been included in that investigation. Perhaps if the quote were rewritten to clarify this point it could remain without seeming biased. However, I would still question the relevance of including the statement until a more substantial link is made between Dipscam and BIU.
I have included the section of the article being referenced, yet could find no other examples that included both Ezell and Bircham together in this article. Also included is a reference showing the dates of Operation Dipscam's investigations.
"“It’s pure hokum,” says Allen Ezell with a laugh, about Bircham. An undetectably forged diploma in surgery from Harvard Medical School — down to the holographic seal — hangs above Ezell’s desk in his Tampa office. But Ezell is no fraud — the diploma is a memento from his years running the FBI’s diploma-mill task force, DipScam. Although he retired from the FBI in 1996, Ezell has watched the number of diploma mills skyrocket, thanks to spam e-mailing." - Citylink magazine 2003
Dates of Dipscam investigations:
Potts, Kimberley.
"Protecting Tennesseans from Education Fraud". Retrieved 10-7-2014. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This morning I was surprised to see that this page had reverted to its older version without a single mention on the talk pages. Several editors, myself included, have spent many hours tracking down additional sources in order to present an accurate and unbiased representation of BIU.
I encourage any editor who wishes to dispute any of the current content to address their issues on the talk pages, allowing all editors the chance to present their input in order that a consensus can be found.
In order to present the facts surrounding BIU, many sources of information must be considered. Simply presenting one point of view at the exclusion of all others, without the due process of forming a consensus, is not in line with Wikipedia's principles and has the potential of creating inaccurate and even misleading entries.
It is clear that there are many issues surrounding BIU. Only by addressing each one individually, and by backing up our statements with references to the facts, will we be able to represent these issues accurately. By reverting the page to an older version, the additional references were blatantly circumvented and ignored, in order to serve what, I can only assume, appears to be a personal vendetta.
It is my hope that in the future we can set our personal feelings aside, and by engaging in open conversation find a consensus on this topic.
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the replacement of edits that Orlady reverted. They should be discussed now, before they are reinstated. Dougweller ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Orlady, it'd be helpful if you'd lay out your objections in a bit more detail. -- NeilN talk to me 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to begin by saying that it was not my intention to start an edit war; if I stepped on any toes by reverting the page to how it appeared on October 9, I apologize. And I don't recall making any personal attacks (please specify), I simply called for discussion. Furthermore, I agree that the editors who made the extensive changes to this page in the first place, without inviting discussion, should've handled the situation differently. However, that does not make their additions any less valid or the facts themselves inadmissible.
My intention is to help create a page that presents well-rounded and factual information that is neither for nor against BIU. However, there are several reasons why I object to reverting the page to a prior version.
Besides my objections to the Allen Ezell quote outlined above (which has been ignored while reinstating the older version, also without discussion) I can define several reasons why the older version should not be reinstated, and how by doing so a large amount of well-written material would be excluded.
That being said, the page as it appears on October 9 is far from complete, and some of the information removed in the process of creating it was, in my opinion, done without cause. However, that information could certainly be re-included (provided of course it maintains a neutral point of view).
The page in its reverted form looks messy, with incomplete thoughts that are typically one-sided and in some cases are misrepresentations of the sourced material.
Some examples include:
· several internal links to pages that don't exist
· statements repeated without additional information given
· statements of opinion presented as statements of fact
· an overall point of view that is far from neutral
By reinstating the older version the following information has been excluded without presenting a valid reason for doing so:
· a description of how credit hours are measured
· the courses they offer
· expanded descriptions of the controversy in Mexico, and Kenya
· a more detailed representation of the opinions of Stephen Barrett and John Bear
· references to the testimony given by Bircham's former students
·a more extensive description of their accreditation status, along with a number of questionable "accreditation" sources and statements about the dubious nature of said institutions
·all references to the school's history (with few exceptions), the names of its founders, and a more complete explanation of its prior connection to Oxford International University
This is not intended as a complete list of issues, but is just to get the ball rolling. I would be very curious to hear the rationale behind excluding this material, and to hear the justification for simply reverting to a prior version instead of reinstating the sections that (quite possibly) were removed without just cause.
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You're right that I shouldn't have used such an inflammatory word as 'vendetta', but it wasn't meant to be a personal comment, my apologies for that. I only meant that the page as it now appears, in my humble opinion, is far from encyclopedic, and the comment -admittedly off base- was a question of motivations.
While clicking through random articles I happened upon the page, noticed some errors in grammar, and also wondered why it was semi-protected. Then after I read the talk pages and several of the references, it became clear why there were some major on-going editor disputes. My interest then become two-fold; a genuine desire to be of assistance, and the thrill that comes from debating heated issues. After I dropped out of college, I've been missing the rush of a healthy debate, as well as the challenge of finding the truth amidst many differing opinions.
I have no relationship to Bircham what so ever. It's clear that some in the past may not be able to say the same. The page at one time certainly resembled their web site -in fact was near identical-; it is not my intention to promote BIU, nor is it my intention to bash them.
So, what say you? Shall we hash this out?
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, please don't get me wrong. I often see this article and see the talkpage arguments. Its a pity that enmity has developed amongst the editors, as I feel. May be if there could be a whole new set of editors and the current editors, all and with due respect, could be replaced, there could be peace. My reason for interest in this article is my past studentship and graduation there. I found them as kind but strict people. So it seems a bit awkward to see information on the article the way it present. I know, I might be considered partial, but partial or not, white is white and black is black; and for everyone, it is a fact that "there can be no greater truth than what I have seen myself". I hope u all agree that. So no matter what u think of me, I want to propose the following, or you might take it just as an opinion :
I am aware that there is some controversy going on here. I propose that the leads estbalished by actual experts in distance education like John Bear or Stephen Barret should be followed. John Bear have published recent comments about BIU that should contribute to the article content.
http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556
Stephen Barret from Quackwatch has conducted an extensive skeptical research on the institution that provides a much more neutral and enciclopedic input than the current article published.
http://www.credentialwatch.org/reports/bircham.shtml
I propose to use this skeptikal research as a new article template for further development. The template may then be improved with further contributions based on actual and updated sources. Bolton007 ( talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate User:Afterwriting double-checking my work and helping me out on this page, but I do not understand where the use of [3] proves that "Bircham is not accredited by any recognized accreditation agency." Thus I readded the failed verification tag.
Oregon list clearly states its purpose is "to provide information about degrees that are not valid in the State of Oregon." It further states that it is "by no means exhaustive." I fail to see how the source proves that BIO is not recognized by any accreditation agency. For what it's worth, "recognized" seems to be very close to wp:weasel and begs the question: an accreditation agency recognized by whom? To me, it looks like BIU's educational accreditation is a bit flimsy. But that doesn't mean we can throw out the rule book just to pile on it. AbuRuud ( talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Much of the best information on this unaccredited institution comes from Bear's 2003 guide. The page needs the proper page citation from the book and pointed citations for the quotes from the guide. Google books has a few mentions of BIU from the 2003 version available online via .pdf. DavidWestT ( talk) 05:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Seeing no interest in Bears Guide, and seeing that (citation needed) persists on the page for the quote from the Guide, I'll re-add it and get back to editing.19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on quotes like this that are feedback on the University:
"Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham University,[22] it seems clear that there are many students who are satisfied with the their credentials.” I would call this a "reception" section, consistent with similar pages and similar content on similar pages. DavidWestT ( talk) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Describes BIU as a non-profit. The add is relevant on encyclopedic tone. DavidWestT ( talk) 18:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing we add Category:Schools in Spain, and Category: Non-profit organisations based in Spain to round out categories. The institution has an emphasis there.
DavidWestT (
talk)
17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
AAHEA - American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation The American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation (Formerly AAHE) is the oldest association in the United States dedicated to the advancement of higher education. AAHEA has literally set the standards in higher education in the USA for 140 years through our research, publications, conferences, and partnerships. AAHEA's primary function is to assure and strengthen academic quality and ongoing quality improvement in academic courses, programs and degrees. The United States Department of Education recognizes AAHEA as a higher education organization. For details check the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation website.
AAHEA carries forward a long tradition of ensuring quality, accountability, and improvement in higher education. Recognition by AAHEA affirms that standards and processes of accreditation are consistent with quality, improvement, and accountability expectations that AAHEA has established. AAHEA will recognize regional, specialized, national, international and professional educational institutions.
Bircham International University was admitted as member of AAHEA in October 2009. In November 2009, BIU presented the complete application for accreditation. During this time AAHEA has been requesting documents, evidence and explanations to ensure the quality, accountability, and improvement in the higher education provided by Bircham International University.
In June 2010, Bircham International University was granted full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation. For further verification you should contact the AAHEA Secretary.
In May 2013, Bircham International University went through a new accreditation review. BIU full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation was renovated for three more years. According to Prof. Stephen Barnhart, Ed.D., AAHEA CEO, and Prof. Christopher Campbell, MBA, Ed.D., the evaluation results of Bircham International University were above and beyond the standard accreditation requirements (see letter below).
See more Bircham International University World References. Check the complete Bircham International University Network.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@ JzG: Hello, I would appreciate some more comments about [4]. I feel that a part of neutrality is to mention what the institution itself says about its accreditation status. Thank for your time, -- Martin Urbanec ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While checking Orladys last input I have detected several things in this delicate section. Please help on this in order to keep the reliability of the sources. There is no mention of Bircham in the two accreditations exposed: Academy for the Promotion of International Culture and Scientific Exchange and the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. I have changed for others. These are not actually accreditations but memberships but they may be interpreted as accreditations and it is important to explain that neither of these sounding names nor any others from the Bircham list is from a recognized accreditation agency. I think we should not enter into the importance or relevancy of each of these references provided by Bircham. The Educational Quality Accreditation is not a past claim. It is a current one. The IAU is not a list of accredited schools but of recognized or official schools. We should be precise with the terms in the statements. Finally I included a reference about the non formal education registration of Bircham and provided more direct links to the statement posted in the article. Shoovrow ( talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
CHANGE 1 - Added section on Consumer Protection
Consumer protection is relevant in case of an institution that is not accredited. The seal is granted by the Government of Spain and according to the Spain laws the public should be informed about it. http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=2558&cdestado=P Read more WP:IRS and if you have concerns use WP:BRD and discuss on talk
CHANGE 2 - Section of Non-degree training and courses
It is Authorized Provider of Continuing Education Units. Wikipedia & IACET Ref to CEUs added WP:IRS Grundvigt course is not distance learning WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Posted literally as shown. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk
CHANGE 3 - Criticism and controversy (First Paragragph)
Added description posted by the Oregon ODA referring to both Bircham and Oxford.
CHANGE 4 - Criticism and controversy (Last Paragragph)
Link to any 2008 article not found. Link to an article that reads "This article has been unpublished." Refer to what is published and to Wikipedia Policy. See WP:IRS WP:BRD and discuss on talk. Do not use links leading to not supporting statements. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Criticism and controversy - Changes in first paragraph
I do not agree with the idea that consumer protection is misleading or can be confused with accreditation. They are two quite different concepts. In fact, it is quite relevant to the public to learn where they could place any complaints in case they have a problem with Bircham. There is nothing in the text that is misleading to what this seal actually is. Moreover the Spanish Law says that the public should be informed abut consumer protection complaints. Of course, this obligation does not extend to Wikipedia, but it shows how the public can be protected from any consumer abuse or fraud. This is important in the case of an unaccredited institution.
Criticism and controversy - Adding a second paragraph
Oregon ODA. I do not understand why the statement about Bircham in the Oregon ODA is the less relevant point of this article and it is systematicaly discarded. In fact the definition of Bircham from the ODA is the most relevant reference that can be provided in this paragraph and should be included, as well as the other references such Oxford.
Criticism and controversy - Changes in last paragraph
Now that the original 2008 article has been sourced in an archive, we should explain why we use an archive link and not the actual newspaper article that clearly states that the article is deleted. That's added to this paragraph as well as fixing the links that were not working. This will explain why the original article is not sourced here.
Shoovrow ( talk) 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1. Article interest? I encountered this article some months ago. Its negative tone attracted my attention. Then I checked some of the links and started to find out that some of them were not really based reliable sources or working links. I proposed some changes based on reliable sources and I got a warning from an editor inviting me to step out of this article editing. This warning actually pushed further my interest into this article. I was also called puppet of some kind and even suggested for blocking. The more walls the more I wanted to find what is behind here. As far as I have seen, there are some editors who seem to control anything about this article. I have seen the systematic blocking of users that provided interesting reliable links (for anybody who took the time to read them). Is it possible for some editors to create a "control" consortium of an article at Wikipedia? Maybe I am naive on my interpretation, but I would like to learn more about the Wiki editing and administration.
2. Edit war. I have been said to participate into an edit war. I am sorry if I give this impression to anybody. I just do not want to be pushed away without proper reasoning and arguments. I do not believe that this wonderful Wikipedia project should be the place talking good or bad about anyone or anything. We should just stick to the facts that best inform the public. I truly think that this article has improved after my contributions. Still there are things I do not understand. I have taken my time to think about them before getting back to this. These are the following:
3. ODA statements The statement that ODA describes Bircham as a "F" Foreign Degree Supplier (Suppliers that appear to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.) This definition is relevant in a paragraph that is based on statements from the Oregon Department of Education. This statement should be included as well. It is actually the most relevant and updated one. Previous reference to this links just refers to the foreign countries where this institution is based. Consequently I think that this statement from the ODA should be included. WP:Lead
Later the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization [1] described Bircham as a Foreign Degree Supplier that appears to be based outside the U.S., though possibly also operating in the U.S.. The ODA also informs that Bircham has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".
4. Consumer protection This institution is unaccredited. This is clear through the article. The public should be informed that there are ways to protect their rights and money in case they get into any trouble with an unaccredited institution based in Spain. I have never understood this consumer protection as any kind of approval, accreditation or publicity, nor talking good or bad, but just referring to a relevant information for the public. I think the explanation was clear: "Since 2005, BIU holds the consumer protection seal of the National Consumer Institute (Instituto National del Consumo) within Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs. According to this National Consumer Institute, organizations displaying this symbol have agreed to arbitration of any consumer complaints that should arise against them." I do not want to enter any edit warring, but I think that this should be considered an inserted. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again I have reverted another editor's addition of a paragraph about a consumer protection measure that Bircham has subscribed to in Spain. This is an appropriate protection for a consumer who has paid for something that he did not receive -- for example, the consumer paid for a new table and chairs, but the store did not deliver them. This is not a quality assurance measure for education. Indeed, I believe this is a good example of the essentially meaningless pieces of official-looking documentation that diploma mills often provide. (For example, this document states: "Diploma mills routinely offer the possibility of having an Apostille attached to a perfectly valid notarized copy of the diploma, thus creating the appearance of an official ... diploma.")
For information on the type of quality assurance process that is supported by governments and higher education officials, read "Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area - 3rd edition (2009)". It is available for downloading in 12 languages at http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso -- you can read whichever language you prefer.
That report explains that quality assurance at the institution level must address many items. Here is an abbreviated version of the list:
The report also has criteria for external quality assurance agencies in higher education. Here is a shortened version of that list:
As you can see, this is far more complicated than providing for mediation if a student thinks the university has cheated him. Including information about that kind of process in this article is misleading, since it does not supply the information or the assurances that students and society need to have when judging higher education. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:C Deleted references to Publication subject to copyrights permission. Since 2009, John Bear guides copyrights and contents belong to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House (world's largest trade book publisher). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Speed_Press Any citacion to these books must have permission. Wikipedia:Non-free_content These material is not in the public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.158.47 ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization alerts the public that Oxford International University has "no connection to legitimate Oxford University in Great Britain".[26]" what does OIU have to do with BIU? It looks like possible vandalism. Kdammers ( talk) 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
BIU got the Online Trust Seal. See listing and entry. I also added the reference to the previous Consumer Protection Ref they got in 2005 as stated by the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce, as it seem to make sense in this paragraph. Shoovrow ( talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see that there is a misleading understanding of the ONLINE TRUST SEAL in Bircham. It is not "having secure servers and not giving away credit cards" as Orlady states. Somebody with Spanish Language proficiency should read the website. Just using a Google translator is not helping much to illuminate a mind. I will try to clarify for you: 1. Online trust seal ensures the ethical approach of the institution to its consumers. Applicants must meet certain regulations to qualify for this seal and also assume the compromise to engage in a set arbitrage in case of any conflict. It is never an educational quality seal and I can not see how it can be understood that way. http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/ 2. This organization is privately managed but Government participated http://www.confianzaonline.es/que-es-confianza-online/asociaciones-participantes-2/ 3. This organization is the only one authorized by law and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to ensure the ethics of companies engaged in online sales. http://www.confianzaonline.es/sello-de-confianza/que-es/ http://www.consumo-inc.es/Distintivo/queEs.htm Based on the above, I have to say that removing "Online Trust Seal" is a mistake. It is a reliable source, it links directly to Bircham and it contributes to the definition of the nature of the institution because it demonstrates a real interest for consumer well being and ethical behavior. This input was inserted in the Controversy section. I can not see how this can create any confusion with the clearly stated sections about the unaccredited status of Bircham. Finally I have to say that users not fluent in Spanish or English should be looking at references in their languages. How international users may understand this entry is just speculation in my point of view. http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/entidades-adheridas/# http://www.confianzaonline.es/adheridos/ficha-entidad-asociada/?cod=1645&lang_view=es&letra=b
On an additional note, I also want to remark my disagreement with the removal of the Mexican Government web directory. This is not any directory. It is the Mexican Government web directory and it has its relevancy. The reference of the Local newspaper posted in the article is actually much less relevant than the Mexican Government Directory. The article in that newspaper does not mention Bircham, except in a listing of institutions apparently committing academic fraud that even includes the Spain Government and Official UNED (this can tell you how serious the article is). This article was a sensationalist outburst based on a note issued by the Mexican Ministry of Education that clearly explains that the institutions offering distance learning are not officially recognized in Mexico. It then lists 11 institutions that they know operate in Mexico. Check the link http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf This was the source of the article for the inclusion of the "academic fraud accusation", just because some of the institutions in the list did commit that fraud (read the article - it does not mention Bircham, but other institutions, yes). The inclusion in the Mexican Government Directory is the results of BIU having demonstrated that it is fit to be included there. I suggest that this paragraph is rewritten considering the most reliable sources from the Mexican Government itself: http://setab.gob.mx/avisos/pdf/av2.pdf http://directorio.gob.mx/www.php?categoria=757
Finally I want to explain that the reference to Oxford from the ODA was never removed, but changed to the place where it makes more sense in the section about history of the institution.
I ask the community of editors to reconsider that the proposed changes were actually contributing to the article and based on relevant and reliable sources. Do undo your "undo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.83.176 ( talk) 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to the Mexican web directory, there is no indication in that directory that there is any significance to listings there. The website makes no claims regarding its nongovernmental contents (as translated by Google, it says "directorio.gob.mx is the portal that brings together sites of all institutions and agencies of the Federal Public Administration to be able to link to them in an agile and dynamic. You will also find sites that are not part of the Government related to national affairs and may be of interest."). Also, Bircham is not the only distance education provider listed, as the directory also lists a "University of Futbol" [1]. The fact that Bircham got itself listed in that web directory is an isolated (and out-of-context) fact of unknown significance (and possibly no significance) that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am deleting it from the article again. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should provide information about all aspects that define the item. Consumer Protection is an important part of any non accredited university. Just as an example, The State of Hawaii monitors unaccredited institutions through its Consumer Protection Department and it is this department the one that authorizes any unaccredited institution activity in Hawaii. So the relevance of any State or Government related reference can not be just ignored. The Online Trust seal mentioned is not about technical or financial issues (red the web). It is not a security certificate for online payment. It is the guarantee that the institution has gone through a review, that meets all regulations in Spain pertaining consumer interactions and that complies with the ethical standards set forth by the organization. Bircham activity is education provider, but above all Bircham is also a Spanish Institution subject to Spanish Laws and this is intrinsic to its definition. Many aspects of Bircham as an education provider are more that clearly expressed in the article. Quackwatch is the opinion of a single person who has the personal project of watching what he does not agree with. That may be a relevant link, but it is quite less relevant than an institutional one such the Online Trust seal. This reference has to be included as part of the definition of this institution. It creates a difference with other institutions and such difference need to be explained and added to the definition of Bircham.
The Mexican web directory is a web published by the Mexican Government to inform users about many different issues. The significance of this is implicit in the fact that the web is managed by the Mexican Government and it publishes all information that they consider relevant for the public. Editors should be proficient in Spanish Language before judging by intuition or automatic translation.
Based on these two premises I have included new entries to the article that I belive are correct and relevant to the purpose of this encyclopedia. I restored them for past edits I found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.203.154 ( talk) 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Issues of agencies and activities for recognition and accreditation from the part of BIU are mentioned in this section already. Their recent claim about seals should also be clarified in the same way. Otherwise, the rest of the unaccreditating organizations' names and facts will also be misfits for this section. Shoovrow ( talk) 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been reading this interesting discussion. As far as I can see the point here is that Consumer Protection may be confused with some kind of accreditation, which is not. It is clear that the accreditation process itself is ensuring the consumer protection. It is also clear than in cases of unaccredited institutions such protection does not usually exist. I have checked the documents disregarded by Nuujinn. 1. This is a legitimate letter from the US-Spain Chamber of Commerce. Editors should read more carefully. It is never said that it is just the US Chamber of Commerce, which should not have much to say about a Spanish document. This document then is something to be considered. 2. Looking similar to a BBB membership may be a too quick look at things. Even then BBB is considered a good reference from the US government and DOE. In fact there are not unaccredited institution belonging to the BBB, so this event is significant in itself. These facts do contribute to the definition of the profile offered by Bircham. I guess the whole issue should be settled by adding the simple explanation that the mentioned Consumer Seals do not contribute to educational accreditation of the institution. http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/10.pdf http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_35845581_29343796_1_1_1_1,00.html http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/regulation/documents/consumer-protection.pdf http://www.detc.org/corporate/faq.html http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/udgi/regulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.73.143 ( talk) 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This statement about the Mexico SEP refers to the actual source published by the SEP. The previous article now sourced via wayback machine does not mention Bircham along the article but displays a list copied from the actual SEP note. This note refers to the lack of recognition of the mentioned 11 institutions. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill#Mexico explains how some of the listed institutions are accredited. I think the link to the SEP source is more reliable and truthful than the obsolete and imprecise article mentioned.
I also added the links of the different BIU webs in different languages. I do not consider this to be advertising. The advertising argument must be a joke. Do you really think that anybody reading this article would consider anything with this institution? The links were originally included and accepted by the Wikipedia editors community after the through review they usually conduct on this article. Bircham refers to itself as an international institution and the reliable source that proves this fact are the different and independent websites in each language.
Finally I want to remark that if wikipedia is English source based as stated then to reference should be accepted in any other language than English. This is not the case in this article. References are provided in other languages than English when the editors consider it serves their purpose. Policy should be consistent and serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.26.36 ( talk) 09:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted the same way that the articles for other schools has been deleted or not created such Ambassador University Corporation, American Century University, Atlantic International University and many others from the list of unaccredited institutions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education. I just took some examples from the "A" in the alphabetical list. An encyclopedia should a place for knowledge not a random list of companies. Or if decided to include such institutions it should be comprehensive and include all the schools from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.110 ( talk) 12:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
As I am sure many of you are aware, a number of improvements can be made to this article to ensure it is accurate.
The introduction to the article can be supported by the following reference to the Spain Business website, the official website of Spain's Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Can more of the following content from the Spain Business website be used in the introduction to the article?
BIRCHAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS A PRIVATE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION OF DISTANCE LEARNING HIGHER EDUCATION THAT OFFERS ADULT DEGREE PROGRAMS AT PROFESSIONAL, UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVELS THROUGH SOUND UPDATED CURRICULA AND AN INNOVATIVE DISTANCE LEARNING METHOD OF INSTRUCTION.
Spain Business:
http://www.us.spainbusiness.com/icex/cda/controller/pageInv/0,2958,35868_595007_1131004_166539,00.html
In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Bircham International University is my client. I hope to work with other editors to ensure that this Wikipedia article is accurate. Please contact me on my
Talk Page if you have any questions
Vivj2012 (
talk)
11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Using whois shows that spainbusiness.com is (apparently) registered by es:Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior, and Google translate claims "It is a Spanish public company, state level, which aims to promote the internationalization of Spanish companies". A public company with the aim of promoting something is not generally useful as a reliable source for contentious material. Regardless of the technicalities, the wording of the source is obviously authored by someone wanting to promote the subject of this article (and there are lots of websites that will display material provided by an organization). Editors do not have to prove that is the case. On the contrary, per WP:REDFLAG, if Bircham is what the source claims, there will be several other sources that verify those claims. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Orlady/Johnuniq, thanks for getting back to me and clarifying the above. It's good to get feedback on this. As I've mentioned there are a number of other issues that need to be reviewed, so I'll add these below. Vivj2012 ( talk) 15:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
John Bear recently published a statement on the
Degree Info and
DegreeDiscussion websites regarding the listing of Bircham International University in his book Bear’s Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. Following the publication of Bear’s statement, there are a number of points included in the Bircham International University Wikipedia article that should be reviewed, including those listed below:
1. BIU bought a shelf company called Oxford International College without any intention of promoting an association with Oxford University
2. BIU does not have, nor does it need to have, recognised accreditation
As John Bear’s view of BIU is important to much of the article content, I’d appreciate it if someone could review these points.
Thanks
Vivj2012 (
talk)
08:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, just because something is mentioned in a source doesn't mean it's relevant to the article topic. It's fairly obvious that a school that changed its name has no relationship to Oxford University, and doesn't need to be stated explicitly. The cited source states there is no relationship for the purpose of clarification, but the way the source is used here carries an implication that a connection was intentional. Bear doesn't state that the connection was intentional either, but implies it, writing "the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake" [2] but that's Bear's view, not Wikipedia's position. WP:SYNTH, you know — an encyclopedia article mustn't synthesize a conclusion, either explicitly or implicitly. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of
user:Bircham
|
---|
I think that John Bear statements after his recent review of Bircham University need to be discussed and incorporated into the article. John Bear is an undisputed reference to this topic. He has published his conclussions so far in two of the major DL web forums because there are no more publication of his famous guide. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556 Bircham International University revisited by John Bear » Wed May 22, 2013 3:40 am More than ten years ago, my daughter and I included a listing for Bircham International University in the thirteenth edition of our book, Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. The book, in effect, separates schools into three categories: those with recognized accreditation, those that operate legally but without recognized accreditation (or the equivalent in other countries), and those that we identify as degree mills. Bircham is included in the middle category. The CEO of Bircham, William Martin, has asked us to revisit that listing, and we are pleased to do so. For purposes of reference, here is the original listing: Bircham International University Madrid, Spain Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorates Degrees by correspondence at all levels in business, arts, health, psychology, engineering, computers and science. Website lists “delegation” addresses in Spain, England, United States (a Mail Boxes Etc. in Miami, Florida), Bahamas, Taiwan, China, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, and New Zealand. We were told that the offices in Spain and Taiwan were the main offices, and that the offices in England and the Bahamas are strictly administrative and do not serve students, The Internet site is registered to an address in Madrid, Spain. Until 2000, the school was called Oxford International University; the name change was motivated, at least partly, by entanglements with its more venerable namesake. Will consider an “honorary doctorate” on submission of your curriculum vitae, two reference letters, and a minimum donation of $1,200 (U.S.). The main thing we would add, if we were doing a new edition of our book (which, alas, we are not at this time), is to address the concept of non-formal learning, a concept which has become increasingly popular in most European countries in recent years. It is, in effect, a middle ground between formal education and informal everyday learning. Non-formal learning typically occurs in a formal learning environment, but often one that is not formally recognized. It can involve seminars, workshops, colloquia, distance or online courses, independent study, etc. An Internet search will find many articles on the topic. For instance, Malcolm Tight (Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training, London: Routledge) writes that non-formal education is about “acknowledging the importance of education, learning and training which takes place outside recognized educational institutions.” Bircham International University describes itself as a practitioner of non-formal education. As such, while it operates legally under Spanish law, it is not formally recognized by the Ministry of Education of Spain (where it is located), although the Ministry has acknowledged the relevance of the concept, and, along with other countries in the European Union, is working toward establishing policies to identify, evaluate, and recognize those entities offering non-formal education. Bircham does not have (nor does it need to have) recognized accreditation. In the matter of the use of the Oxford name, Mr. Martin writes that “In 2000 BIU bought a UK ‘shelf company’ called Oxford International College that was immediately changed to Bircham International College with the purpose of opening a branch office in the UK. We did not get the authorization to issue degrees in the UK, so neither the UK company, nor the office, was ever opened. There was never any interaction with the University of Oxford…” For many years, we have written that in the process of choosing any school, the prospective student should determine, as best he or she can, that their credential will meet both their current and predictable future needs. Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham, it seems clear that there are many satisfied people with the their credential. Mr. Martin has asked us to post this message on the DegreeDiscussion.com and DegreeInfo.com forums, and to send a copy to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which we have done. He has also asked us to respond to any responses that may be posted on this forum. But there is really little more we can say, other than that we stand by what we have written. --John and Mariah Bear, May, 2013 Author/co-author Bears Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning (first 15 editions) Degree Mills: The Billion $ Industry That Has Sold ... a Million Fake Diplomas. Send This Jerk the Bedbug Letter John Bear Senior Member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 ( talk) 11:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) MY USER ID: I have been asked by some editor about the reasons for editing this article without a user ID. There are several reasons that I would like to share with the editors interested in this article. All my edit history has been happening at the Spanish Wikipedia for several years, so I have no editing history in the English Wikipedia. I have no intention of dedicating too much time to this article, so I do not expect to need a user. I have been asked by Bell Pottinger and Wikimedia to review this article and edit it, if necessary, sticking to Wikipedia rules and consensus. Bell Pottinger has tried to edit this article by adding relevant contributions that have been ignored by the editors currently watching this article. Consequently a complaint has been raised directly to Wikimedia and to Jimmy Wales himself (at Wikia) regarding some type of what might be called editing "feudalism" affecting this article. Bell Pottinger has a history of direct collaboration with the founder of Wikimedia. Bell Pottinger can not edit directly any article at Wikipedia because of conflict of interest with their clients. Bell Pottinger usually works with the collaboration of senior editors that consider their editing proposals, achieve consensus and act accordingly. The Bircham institution is based in Spain and sources from Spanish nature may probably be relevant. I do live in Spain and have a long history of editing Spanish Wiki. So, I have been asked to help with this article. I believe in open and clean communication to achieve consensus. For this reason I want to explain my recent involvement in this article to the editors currently involved. Bell Pottinger client seems quite unsatisfied with the current article outcome. I personally do not care about that, but my first reading of the Bircham article does not give me the true sense of neutrality that is expected at Wikipedia, so I decided to move in. I also found some outdated or wrong links and quite a few refences to wayback machines. I plan to dedicate a while a week to review parts of the article and propose changes if necessary. I would like to receive a clear response by any editors interested in this article to help me reach a good consensus. I have started with the recent reference from John Bear added by Bell Pottinger to the talk page. By reading John Bear article at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bear it is clear that he is an undisputed authority in the field of distance education, so I have thought that his input is a good start point in reaching consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.144.229 ( talk) 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
|
User:Madridsupport blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of
user:Bircham
|
---|
Hi Orlady, I have done some edits at the Bircham International University article. You have systematically undone all of them, despite of my efforts to provide some input and discussion in the talk page. You affirm that I have no credibility. At Wikipedia credibility is the direct consequence of the sources of information used, not on whom the author is. A long editing history at Wikipedia may demonstrate commitment from the editor or proficiency in dealing with Wiki rules, but not actual credibility. The fact that all wikipedia editors are anonymous users without identified credentials and qualifications make the credibility of editors a not much applicable aspect for any editor. It is then the facts that should be considered. You have deleted a some proposed edits, even one that was corrected by the Oregon DOE web that you now linked to a wayback machine. The Oregon DOE web is not working all the time, but when it works you should check and find out that the references to Kenya Institute are deleted, so they should be in the article. Use the way back on a closer in time look and you may check this out. Anyway, I see some discrepancies in the way an article should talk about any institution. The institution should be defined based on facts, then explain what it is, what it does, where it is, when it was founded. For these facts two sources are relevant: John Bear and Spain ICEX ( A Spain gobernment body that has been considered a promotional one by editors with out knowledge about the institution). I will explain more about the ICEX later and provide English ref for verification. The article more or less does so, but it is redundant sometimes. Also, any comments and opinios should be reserved to the Controversy section, which is, by the way, a good idea. I kindly ask for some trust. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ABOUT ICEX Spain Business is the Official web of the Spanish Institute of Foreign Trade (ICEX), Secretariat of State of Tourism and Trade from the Spain Ministry of Economy. You can check this here http://www.icex.es/icex/cda/controller/pageICEX/0,6558,5518394_5593081_5657952_1,00.html Spain Business is actually a database of Spanish Companies used by the commercial department of all Spain Embassies to find data about Spanish Companies involved in any Foreign Trade. ICEX intends to promote foreign trade by providing info about Spanish Companies. It is not a promotional gadget. Inclussion into this database happens by request from ICEX only. Usually ICEX extracts some info from the Company's Incorporation papers and its mission published on the web, that may be transcribed totally, partially or rewritten. The definition posted by the ICEX is the definition accepted by an Official Governmental Body about Bircham. I agree that this definition is based on the institution mission and that it has some promotional flavor, but if we take out the promotional words, the definition is very reliable and properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Quotations are used in the article to refer to published material. If quotations are not accepted the we should delete all quotaions used in this article. I do not see any fundamented statements for undoing my contributions to the article. Please do take a few minutes to enlighten me. And smile :) Life is full of marvelous gifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
@ JzG: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 recently closed as "no consensus." Please consider changing the protection level of this page so PC2 is no longer needed. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Bircham International University (BIU) is a controversial, progressive university that is accredited by the AAHEA (American Association of Higher Education Accreditation) which is the oldest educational accreditation organization in the USA and is a Christian organization. The AAHEA is a nongovernmental organization not affiliated with the US Department of Education (DOE) or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and these later two organizations are what currently decides accreditation in the USA. The reason probably is that Bircham International University does not give the standardized exams, but the textbooks and curriculum are the same (i.e., USA textbooks, British textbooks); instead, students have to show that they can apply what they learn by producing case studies in written report form. Bircham International University (BIU) is often attractive to those who all ready have accredited degrees and wish an additional degree for the purpose of learning more, and to those that may have cultures that this university suits well, and/or those who want an additional degree that is more affordable time-wise and cost-wise. Entrepreneurs may find Bircham International University helpful in learning additional material in a time, and cost effective way. Bircham International University is in several countries worldwide, and does state that their degrees awarded may not be accepted by some employers as accredited university degrees. Bircham International University has forum webpages if students and/or alumni want discussions.
Example of Bircham International University credits and Spain's accreditation system
According to Spain's accreditation system and Bircham International University, Bircham International University credits are considered continuing education credits, but not accepted as university credits as such, but the credits are valuable and can be as valuable or more valuable as the continuing education credits can exceed beyond the university level credits depending on the curriculum: award degrees referred to as títulos propios / university-specific titles. Through the changes effected by the Law of University Reform of 1983, universities became free to offer these no oficial / non-official degree programs According to The Educational System of Spain, C 1997, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc., Milwaukee, pp. 44-45: In addition to official titles recognized by the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC), Spanish universities outside the realm of MEC-sanctioned officialtitles. The most common título propio qualification is Máster / Master; additional qualifications include Especialista / Specialist, Experto / Expert, Diploma, Técnico / Technician, Graduado / Graduate, and Doctor. Título propio programs represent a minimum of 20 credits. Other non-official programs which do not lead to a title include short term courses and seminars of continuing education and As non-official titles, títulos propios do not have academic recognition of the MEC and are not considered part of the formal higher education structure. They do not provide access to government-mandated positions of employment but in the private sector may have value for employment purposes equal to or exceeding official titles. Títulos propios are awarded by the rector of the individual university, rather than by the MEC; the MEC specifies training. Títulos propios and non-official programs may also be referred to as estudios propios / university-specific studies. In the 1983 Reform, the MEC specified that these titles must use terminology that does not coincide nor lead to confusion with official titles established by the government. that the text and format of these titles and their accompanying grade reports must not lead to any confusion with that of official titles. As there is no government-mandated uniformity to the programs, the selections of programs offered as well as their structures vary widely. The universities offering título propio programs set the requirements for their admission and the award of their qualifications. These may vary in detail from institution to institution, depending on purpose, whether there is an expectation of homologation, or other factors. Títulos propios are offered at all levels, including through the level of the doctorado, and in all fields. Qualifications bearing the same general name may have widely divergent requirements, even at the same institution. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACNY ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The following line was removed due to questions of relevance and biased implications:
"The article quoted former FBI agent Allen Ezell, who investigated diploma mills as part of Operation Dipscam, as describing some of Bircham's promotional claims as "pure hokum"."
Allen Ezell's validity as a source of information about BIU is questionable. There is no doubt that the former FBI agent is a reputable source in regards to some of the diploma mills investigated during Operation Dipscam. However, there is no established link between BIU and Ezell found in the Citylink source. Ezell's quote about Bircham appears almost as an afterthought with no substantiating connection between the two mentioned anywhere else in the article, or in any source I have seen so far.
This statement, as it was written, seems to imply a connection between Operation Dipscam and BIU when no connection has so far been verified. And it references "promotional claims" when no such claims were mentioned in the source.
Since Operation Dipscam's investigations officially ended in 1991 and Bircham was not founded until 1992, it is questionable that Bircham would have been included in that investigation. Perhaps if the quote were rewritten to clarify this point it could remain without seeming biased. However, I would still question the relevance of including the statement until a more substantial link is made between Dipscam and BIU.
I have included the section of the article being referenced, yet could find no other examples that included both Ezell and Bircham together in this article. Also included is a reference showing the dates of Operation Dipscam's investigations.
"“It’s pure hokum,” says Allen Ezell with a laugh, about Bircham. An undetectably forged diploma in surgery from Harvard Medical School — down to the holographic seal — hangs above Ezell’s desk in his Tampa office. But Ezell is no fraud — the diploma is a memento from his years running the FBI’s diploma-mill task force, DipScam. Although he retired from the FBI in 1996, Ezell has watched the number of diploma mills skyrocket, thanks to spam e-mailing." - Citylink magazine 2003
Dates of Dipscam investigations:
Potts, Kimberley.
"Protecting Tennesseans from Education Fraud". Retrieved 10-7-2014. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This morning I was surprised to see that this page had reverted to its older version without a single mention on the talk pages. Several editors, myself included, have spent many hours tracking down additional sources in order to present an accurate and unbiased representation of BIU.
I encourage any editor who wishes to dispute any of the current content to address their issues on the talk pages, allowing all editors the chance to present their input in order that a consensus can be found.
In order to present the facts surrounding BIU, many sources of information must be considered. Simply presenting one point of view at the exclusion of all others, without the due process of forming a consensus, is not in line with Wikipedia's principles and has the potential of creating inaccurate and even misleading entries.
It is clear that there are many issues surrounding BIU. Only by addressing each one individually, and by backing up our statements with references to the facts, will we be able to represent these issues accurately. By reverting the page to an older version, the additional references were blatantly circumvented and ignored, in order to serve what, I can only assume, appears to be a personal vendetta.
It is my hope that in the future we can set our personal feelings aside, and by engaging in open conversation find a consensus on this topic.
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the replacement of edits that Orlady reverted. They should be discussed now, before they are reinstated. Dougweller ( talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Orlady, it'd be helpful if you'd lay out your objections in a bit more detail. -- NeilN talk to me 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to begin by saying that it was not my intention to start an edit war; if I stepped on any toes by reverting the page to how it appeared on October 9, I apologize. And I don't recall making any personal attacks (please specify), I simply called for discussion. Furthermore, I agree that the editors who made the extensive changes to this page in the first place, without inviting discussion, should've handled the situation differently. However, that does not make their additions any less valid or the facts themselves inadmissible.
My intention is to help create a page that presents well-rounded and factual information that is neither for nor against BIU. However, there are several reasons why I object to reverting the page to a prior version.
Besides my objections to the Allen Ezell quote outlined above (which has been ignored while reinstating the older version, also without discussion) I can define several reasons why the older version should not be reinstated, and how by doing so a large amount of well-written material would be excluded.
That being said, the page as it appears on October 9 is far from complete, and some of the information removed in the process of creating it was, in my opinion, done without cause. However, that information could certainly be re-included (provided of course it maintains a neutral point of view).
The page in its reverted form looks messy, with incomplete thoughts that are typically one-sided and in some cases are misrepresentations of the sourced material.
Some examples include:
· several internal links to pages that don't exist
· statements repeated without additional information given
· statements of opinion presented as statements of fact
· an overall point of view that is far from neutral
By reinstating the older version the following information has been excluded without presenting a valid reason for doing so:
· a description of how credit hours are measured
· the courses they offer
· expanded descriptions of the controversy in Mexico, and Kenya
· a more detailed representation of the opinions of Stephen Barrett and John Bear
· references to the testimony given by Bircham's former students
·a more extensive description of their accreditation status, along with a number of questionable "accreditation" sources and statements about the dubious nature of said institutions
·all references to the school's history (with few exceptions), the names of its founders, and a more complete explanation of its prior connection to Oxford International University
This is not intended as a complete list of issues, but is just to get the ball rolling. I would be very curious to hear the rationale behind excluding this material, and to hear the justification for simply reverting to a prior version instead of reinstating the sections that (quite possibly) were removed without just cause.
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You're right that I shouldn't have used such an inflammatory word as 'vendetta', but it wasn't meant to be a personal comment, my apologies for that. I only meant that the page as it now appears, in my humble opinion, is far from encyclopedic, and the comment -admittedly off base- was a question of motivations.
While clicking through random articles I happened upon the page, noticed some errors in grammar, and also wondered why it was semi-protected. Then after I read the talk pages and several of the references, it became clear why there were some major on-going editor disputes. My interest then become two-fold; a genuine desire to be of assistance, and the thrill that comes from debating heated issues. After I dropped out of college, I've been missing the rush of a healthy debate, as well as the challenge of finding the truth amidst many differing opinions.
I have no relationship to Bircham what so ever. It's clear that some in the past may not be able to say the same. The page at one time certainly resembled their web site -in fact was near identical-; it is not my intention to promote BIU, nor is it my intention to bash them.
So, what say you? Shall we hash this out?
Slow-River-Rasp ( talk) 03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, please don't get me wrong. I often see this article and see the talkpage arguments. Its a pity that enmity has developed amongst the editors, as I feel. May be if there could be a whole new set of editors and the current editors, all and with due respect, could be replaced, there could be peace. My reason for interest in this article is my past studentship and graduation there. I found them as kind but strict people. So it seems a bit awkward to see information on the article the way it present. I know, I might be considered partial, but partial or not, white is white and black is black; and for everyone, it is a fact that "there can be no greater truth than what I have seen myself". I hope u all agree that. So no matter what u think of me, I want to propose the following, or you might take it just as an opinion :
I am aware that there is some controversy going on here. I propose that the leads estbalished by actual experts in distance education like John Bear or Stephen Barret should be followed. John Bear have published recent comments about BIU that should contribute to the article content.
http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/45894-bircham-international-university-revisited.html http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9556
Stephen Barret from Quackwatch has conducted an extensive skeptical research on the institution that provides a much more neutral and enciclopedic input than the current article published.
http://www.credentialwatch.org/reports/bircham.shtml
I propose to use this skeptikal research as a new article template for further development. The template may then be improved with further contributions based on actual and updated sources. Bolton007 ( talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate User:Afterwriting double-checking my work and helping me out on this page, but I do not understand where the use of [3] proves that "Bircham is not accredited by any recognized accreditation agency." Thus I readded the failed verification tag.
Oregon list clearly states its purpose is "to provide information about degrees that are not valid in the State of Oregon." It further states that it is "by no means exhaustive." I fail to see how the source proves that BIO is not recognized by any accreditation agency. For what it's worth, "recognized" seems to be very close to wp:weasel and begs the question: an accreditation agency recognized by whom? To me, it looks like BIU's educational accreditation is a bit flimsy. But that doesn't mean we can throw out the rule book just to pile on it. AbuRuud ( talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Much of the best information on this unaccredited institution comes from Bear's 2003 guide. The page needs the proper page citation from the book and pointed citations for the quotes from the guide. Google books has a few mentions of BIU from the 2003 version available online via .pdf. DavidWestT ( talk) 05:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Seeing no interest in Bears Guide, and seeing that (citation needed) persists on the page for the quote from the Guide, I'll re-add it and get back to editing.19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on quotes like this that are feedback on the University:
"Based on the testimonials offered by Bircham University,[22] it seems clear that there are many students who are satisfied with the their credentials.” I would call this a "reception" section, consistent with similar pages and similar content on similar pages. DavidWestT ( talk) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Describes BIU as a non-profit. The add is relevant on encyclopedic tone. DavidWestT ( talk) 18:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing we add Category:Schools in Spain, and Category: Non-profit organisations based in Spain to round out categories. The institution has an emphasis there.
DavidWestT (
talk)
17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
AAHEA - American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation The American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation (Formerly AAHE) is the oldest association in the United States dedicated to the advancement of higher education. AAHEA has literally set the standards in higher education in the USA for 140 years through our research, publications, conferences, and partnerships. AAHEA's primary function is to assure and strengthen academic quality and ongoing quality improvement in academic courses, programs and degrees. The United States Department of Education recognizes AAHEA as a higher education organization. For details check the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation website.
AAHEA carries forward a long tradition of ensuring quality, accountability, and improvement in higher education. Recognition by AAHEA affirms that standards and processes of accreditation are consistent with quality, improvement, and accountability expectations that AAHEA has established. AAHEA will recognize regional, specialized, national, international and professional educational institutions.
Bircham International University was admitted as member of AAHEA in October 2009. In November 2009, BIU presented the complete application for accreditation. During this time AAHEA has been requesting documents, evidence and explanations to ensure the quality, accountability, and improvement in the higher education provided by Bircham International University.
In June 2010, Bircham International University was granted full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation. For further verification you should contact the AAHEA Secretary.
In May 2013, Bircham International University went through a new accreditation review. BIU full accreditation from the American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation was renovated for three more years. According to Prof. Stephen Barnhart, Ed.D., AAHEA CEO, and Prof. Christopher Campbell, MBA, Ed.D., the evaluation results of Bircham International University were above and beyond the standard accreditation requirements (see letter below).
See more Bircham International University World References. Check the complete Bircham International University Network.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bircham International University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@ JzG: Hello, I would appreciate some more comments about [4]. I feel that a part of neutrality is to mention what the institution itself says about its accreditation status. Thank for your time, -- Martin Urbanec ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)