Talk:Diploma mill: Difference between revisions
imported>Frank van Geelkerken No edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
== Law workgroup? == | == Law workgroup? == | ||
Why is this article in the law workgroup?<br> | Why is this article in the law workgroup?<br> | ||
It is not even remotely related to law.[[User:Frank van Geelkerken|Frank van Geelkerken]] 11:16, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | It is not even remotely related to law.[[User:Frank van Geelkerken|Frank van Geelkerken]] 11:16, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Copyright (c) 2002 Nexus, A Journal of Opinion Nexus, A Journal of Opinion, 2002, 7 Nexus J. Op. 79, 11405 words, ARTICLE: Note: Dinosaur TRACS: The Approaching Conflict Between Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and College Accreditation Procedures, Timothy Sandefur (J.D. 2002, Chapman University School of Law; B.A. 1998, Hillsdale College.) Quote from article (concerning Government financing of higher education in USA): ''But to avoid the problem of "fly by night" schools, the law required (and still requires) that the grants be spent only at accredited institutions. 6 And it permitted the Commissioner (now the Secretary) of Education to draw up a list of accrediting agencies whose judgment in such matters would be respected. 7 But no criteria were set forth by which the Commissioner was to compile such a list: the Commissioner's decision was "essentially ministerial." 8 This was not a mere oversight: both the government and the colleges recognized the need for a wide range of academic freedom from government regulation.'' | Copyright (c) 2002 Nexus, A Journal of Opinion Nexus, A Journal of Opinion, 2002, 7 Nexus J. Op. 79, 11405 words, ARTICLE: Note: Dinosaur TRACS: The Approaching Conflict Between Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and College Accreditation Procedures, Timothy Sandefur (J.D. 2002, Chapman University School of Law; B.A. 1998, Hillsdale College.) Quote from article (concerning Government financing of higher education in USA): ''But to avoid the problem of "fly by night" schools, the law required (and still requires) that the grants be spent only at accredited institutions. 6 And it permitted the Commissioner (now the Secretary) of Education to draw up a list of accrediting agencies whose judgment in such matters would be respected. 7 But no criteria were set forth by which the Commissioner was to compile such a list: the Commissioner's decision was "essentially ministerial." 8 This was not a mere oversight: both the government and the colleges recognized the need for a wide range of academic freedom from government regulation.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 09:11, 26 September 2007
Law workgroup?
Why is this article in the law workgroup?
It is not even remotely related to law.Frank van Geelkerken 11:16, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
References
Copyright (c) 2002 Nexus, A Journal of Opinion Nexus, A Journal of Opinion, 2002, 7 Nexus J. Op. 79, 11405 words, ARTICLE: Note: Dinosaur TRACS: The Approaching Conflict Between Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and College Accreditation Procedures, Timothy Sandefur (J.D. 2002, Chapman University School of Law; B.A. 1998, Hillsdale College.) Quote from article (concerning Government financing of higher education in USA): But to avoid the problem of "fly by night" schools, the law required (and still requires) that the grants be spent only at accredited institutions. 6 And it permitted the Commissioner (now the Secretary) of Education to draw up a list of accrediting agencies whose judgment in such matters would be respected. 7 But no criteria were set forth by which the Commissioner was to compile such a list: the Commissioner's decision was "essentially ministerial." 8 This was not a mere oversight: both the government and the colleges recognized the need for a wide range of academic freedom from government regulation.