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.
By stating this, you are claiming that this fly-by-night unknown is like Stanford and Harvard. Stanford and Harvard don't need accreditation because they are the standards, and have set those standards for (Harvard anyway) nearly 400 years.
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.
I don't think you understand. The reason this college is useless for academic purposes is nothing to do with its accreditation - it's to do with its reputation.
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?'
You're making an argument from absurdity, and you're wrong.
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.
Please don't cut sections out of what I wrote and deceptively edit it to make it look like I said something entirely different.
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.
Why would someone ask? The information is available. And if I see a degree from a university I don't recognize and then discover it's unaccredited, sure, that's a red flag. You can't get employment in my industry without a degree from a regionally accredited university.
