Nationally accredited. Not regionally accredited. Hence useless for academic purposes.
However, it's potential utilization is much, much more diminished compared to a no-name state school.
This might change when (if) they acquire regional accreditation, but they've only just started the process. Thus, it could take upwards of 5 years.
Regionally accredited schools simply don't take credits from schools that aren't.
There are also students compiling lists of schools which will consider and/or accept UoPeople credits/degrees.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople/comments/g55smv/list_of_in...
The idea that UoPeople is some kind of academic dead-end is simply not accurate. It's not going to get as far as a degree from a no-name state uni on its own, but it can definitely be leveraged to further one's goals.
You said 'Nationally accredited. Not regionally accredited. Hence useless for academic purposes.'
But, as Stanford and Harvard show us, being neither nationally nor regionally accredited does not make it useless for academic purposes. Saying they don't need accreditation - yeah that was my point.
When this college has been around and is known as one of the most prestigious colleges on the planet for 400 years, then we can talk about it not needing accreditation. Until then, you're being disingenuous at best by pretending they exist in the same conversation.
We know accreditation is irrelevant, as other colleges do fine with out. You can be accredited and have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and have a reputation, or you can be accredited and not have a reputation, or you can be not accredited and not have a reputation.
The two things are entirely independent.
Almost nobody (notable exception probably the government) cares if your college is accredited or not. When you say you have a Stanford degree nobody goes 'wait is that accredited?'
Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet. Stanford is regionally accredited by the way, I'm not sure why you keep arguing they're not (your confusion is probably that they dropped their ABET accreditation in CS which is not required for CS although some universities do maintain it). Actually, now that I went back and looked it up, even Harvard is accredited, as is every other ranked university I looked up -- Carnegie Mellon is accredited, Georgia Tech is accredited, MIT is accredited.
The two things are entirely independent, you're correct -- but you're making an argument that isn't supportable in comparing the premiere universities on the planet who could, if they wanted, theoretically, eschew the concept of accreditation because they don't need to prove anything about their curriculum with a college that has nothing -- no accreditation, no reputation, nothing at all.
Lol you're the one who told me it wasn't! You said 'Neither does Harvard.'
> Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are among the premiere universities on the planet
No, they don't need accreditation because nobody cares about accreditation.
I said your argument is wrong and that Stanford, which you claimed was not accredited, is in fact accredited, and you are confused about what accreditation means, as ABET accreditation is not what we're talking about, but regional accreditation, which is the standard.
Most CS programs are not ABET accredited and do not find it necessary.
I had been told before that Harvard was not accredited and that was clearly incorrect, so I also corrected that in my comment with the information I found when I looked it up.
Have you ever hired someone and stopped to check if their college was accredited?
Don’t believe the people telling you you need accreditation!
But the vast majority of their work force has a real degree from an accredited university, and you know it.