GA Resolution: Recognising Achievements Act

LOL I can guess that this was written by someone whose degree was not accredited in another country!

I think the author missed the whole point about accreditation. It's meant to judge, it's not meant to be fair, and it CAN'T be. Just think about this for a moment.

Someone with a Bachelor's degree from a university in China, earned in the Chinese language, applies for a Master's program in the United States. By the nature of the process, one is party judging the other without full knowledge of the Chinese school and its curriculum, without knowing the Chinese language. To try and gauge its equivalence in the United States, of course some guess work is needed.

Besides, there's the problem of junk schools-- some countries have a lot of those, so called "Shell Universities" or "College in name only" which in reality are just for-profit schools/companies. Not to mention some degrees are not even directly transferable across nations. My own Master in Architecture degree is recognized by the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) in all commonwealth countries, but in the USA it's of little worth; not even equivalent to a B.Arch over there. Why? which brings me to my last point---the context is different. Different countries (in my case) have different building laws, development codes, contract laws. Another example: In the case of a lawyer, criminal law in Country A =/= law in Country B. So what you learned in country A is not always accreditable in country B.

I can see all sorts of problems with this resolution and it intrudes too much in my nation's business. Everyone who wants to go to ANOTHER country naturally have to follow the country's rules and traditions.


AGAINST.

Yes, that's the case. The author doesn't seem to find it funny, though.

forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=99128&sid=283834503dbb329d12954f643a96d2a6#p4938297 (at the bottom)



FOR with all my heart.

Fellow representatives, I am afraid that you seem to be misunderstanding the resolution. The resolution does not, in any way, require any institute of accreditation to give any degree any particular level of recognition. In fact, the terms of the resolution act against such occurrences; it requires that institutes of accreditation develop a system whereby qualifications earned in other countries would be compared to qualifications earned in the area where the institute operates, qualifications of which said institutes would, of course, be fully knowledgeable. Using this system, someone with, for example, a PhD in Economics from the National University of Insertcountrynameherea, which is roughly equivalent to a BA in Economics from the National University of Ossitania, could come to Ossitania, apply for accreditation and be given the most appropriate and deserved level of recognition; the same level as anyone with a BA in Economics from the National University of Ossitania.

This resolution will not require your national accreditation offices to automatically accredit qualifications "earned" from a diploma mill, unless you mean to say that the institutes of accreditation in your country are incapable of doing sufficient research to verify the level of education received by the holder of a particular qualification. The resolution requires merely two things;

(1) That institutes of accreditation develop a system whereby degrees earned in other countries can be compared fairly to degrees earned in the institute's area of operation, ensuring that both highly-qualified and unqualified individuals receive the recognition they deserve, though in the latter case, the recognition they deserve is, quite obviously, none at all.
(2) That institutes of accreditation do not deny any individual access to their accreditation process based solely on where the individual's qualification was earned. If they have other, valid reasons to do so, then that's fine. Note that it does not require them to give undue recognition to the qualification or, indeed, any recognition at all. It merely requires that no individual be denied access to the process based solely on where they earned their qualification. Obviously, if their qualification is a load of hokey, then they will not receive the same recognition that would be given to someone who earned a real qualification.

How is it unfeasible? A young man from Ossitania comes to Cerb with a BSc in Biopharmaceutical Chemistry. He applies for accreditation with the relevant body in Cerb. The relevant body looks up the relevant information and then gives the young man's degree the appropriate level of recognition. How is that unfeasible?

I will gladly listen to any concerns that you may have to share with me.

"Has no way of contacting the country as noone in Cerberion speaks the language." - This is a simply ridiculous proposition. At least one party on either side of the exchange will be able to speak a language in which both parties can communicate.
"Has no way of verifying if the school exists." - If there is no evidence that the school exists (public records, for example), then it is reasonable to assume that the qualification is fake and hence refuse to recognise it.
"Has no way of verifying if the school is still accredited." - If there is no evidence that the school is still accredited (public records, for example), the it is reasonable to assume that the school is not and hence refuse to recognise it.
"Has no way of comparing the curriculum to the scholastic system in Cerberion." - There has to be a way, it's required by the resolution that all institutes of accreditation develop such a system.
"Has no concept if the diploma is genuine or a fabrication." - If there is no evidence that qualification is genuine (public records, for example), then it is reasonable to assume that is is fake and hence refuse to recognise it.
"Has no reference if educational standards have improved or declined." - If there is no evidence that the educational standards of the school, college or university are up to scratch (public records, for example), then it is reasonable to assume that they are not and hence refuse to recognise the qualification (I see a pattern developing).

You seem to think that the resolution requires every applicant to have their qualification recognised. This is simply not the case. The resolution requires that institutes of accreditation make every effort to determine the veracity of every applicant's claim to being qualified. If, after making such efforts, the institute cannot determine the veracity of the claim, then they are still perfectly entitled to refuse to recognise the qualification. The resolution guarantees access to the process, it doesn't guarantee success.

Furthermore, it doesn't require every institute to keep records on every school. It requires them to make every effort to give the due level of recognition to each applicant, not every graduate of every course in the world.

LUAC is FOR this resolution, though some members dissented.