Criminal Justice?!?!? Why would anyone want to be a cop?

Cajun — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:00 GMT

The street was dimly lit, a light drizzle casting a golden sheen on the wet sidewalk reflecting the yellow streetlight from above. Two men standing under a bus stop quickly exchange greetings, exchanging money and drugs. One of the men begins to walk away when two unmarked police cars come screeching to a halt in front of the bus stop. The man who was standing under the roof immediately runs on foot, being chased by the man who just purchased drugs from him (an undercover Narc) and several other men wearing a smorgasbord of black vests that say police in big white letters, some of them wearing what appears to be ninja hoods.

They run to a low chain linked fence, the drug dealer effortlessly clears it in one jump. The Narc and his companions in hot pursuit likewise begin to jump the fence, the Narc tearing his new jeans that he just bought two weeks ago. He runs through the slippery wet grass and rounds a corner cautiously in case the drug dealer is waiting for him with a gun drawn or some other nasty surprise. Nothing. He quickly dashes down between the houses when he hears several men yelling all at once, he rounds the front of a house to see two masked officers wrestling with the suspect on the ground in the mud. The Narc runs up and grabs hold of the suspects kicking legs, taking a foot to the face briefly busting his lip for his efforts as he attempts to hold down the flailing man while the other two officers yelling, attempt to handcuff him.

Once cuffed, the drug dealer looks at the bleeding Narc and spits at him yelling about how he’s going to get him when he gets out.

The Narc goes back to the police station and begins to write his report as the intake officers book the suspect. He has to be careful that the report is factual, well written, easy to understand with a logical timeline, referencing all pertinent data and additional reports, warrants, evidence, etc. and is free of any personal opinions or assumptions. The Narc then has a fellow officer maybe glance it over one time while he gets some coffee. Looking good the report gets filed to go ahead to the district attorney’s office. The Narc wraps up another 14 hour day.

Later the a copy of the report will be given to the defense attorney to poke holes in, look for mistakes or violations of civil rights. Anything to get his client off the hook. The Narc will go to court, sit there patiently answering the same question rephrased differently 5 different times. He will answer questions about his methods, work habits, personal history, professional history, friends and fellow officers and possibly even his educational background and training.
“What?” you say?

That’s right, he may have to answer questions about his educational background, especially if it is weak in order for the defense attorney to make the officer seem incompetent or less than honest. For example it is not uncommon for an officer to list his training and experience when providing a statement for a warrant to be issued; this often includes educational background if applicable.

Anyone considering a job in law enforcement should be aware of this possibility. Often what separates the officer’s story from that of the bad guy’s is simple credibility. If you are considering a degree in criminal justice, is the school you are considering one that you would be confident in mentioning in a court of law to a hostile attorney dead set on making you look stupid at best and incompetent as an officer at worst? It is a serious consideration whenever you consider your school of choice’s accreditation, reputation, history and even method of learning.

Hope that helps…

Add to:

Regional Accreditation vs. National Accreditation

Cajun — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:53:00 GMT

Before I started reading and posting and reading some more on higher education, I had no idea that there were so many ongoing debates going on behind the scenes about getting a college degree. The more popular debates I have seen are:

1.) Regional Accreditation (RA) vs. National Accreditation (NA)
2.) Professional accreditation vs. no professional accreditation
3.) Non-profit schools vs. For-profit schools
4.) State schools vs. private schools
5.) Religious schools vs. non-religious
6.) Professional schools vs. academic schools
7.) Online vs. on campus

And I am quite sure that there are other arguments going on that escape my attention at the moment. Any one of the 7 criteria can be debated ad nauseam but the biggest debate I see over and over again and one that leads to high emotions is that of RA vs. NA schools. I've blogged over this before but the topic is so divisive and heated that I thought I'd write about it again.

Recently within various forums, including the elearner forum there have been posts where some argue that a degree should be regionally accredited or nothing, regardless of the circumstances. Others feel that national accreditation and regional accreditation are equal. Both are wrong.

Regional accreditation is of course the standard among colleges and universities. Notice I did not say the "gold" standard or the "highest" standard, merely "the" standard. By "the" standard I mean that the majority of universities and colleges within the United States are regionally accredited. The most recognized names in higher education are regionally accredited. Most if not all state schools are regionally accredited and almost any employer that I can think of within the United States will accept a regionally accredited degree as meeting the "accredited institution" requirement for employment positions (independent of professional accrediting agencies such as ACBSP of course). Most licensing agencies will accept regionally accredited schools though some will require additional accreditation or memberships such as the American Bar Association or ACBSP accreditation, etc.

National accredited schools are a minority among universities and colleges and generally are considered an alternative accreditation to the mainstream regional accreditation. In most instances a nationally accredited school is acceptable for employment purposes, but seldom for academic positions, ironically even among nationally accredited schools.

Where things get heated is usually when RA advocates argue that only RA degrees make sense and are generally acceptable. This of course upsets the NA degree holders, especially when a NA degree holder has experienced success using their NA degree.

The truth is most people outside of these educational forums know about or care enough to research the differences between the two. This includes the mythical all discerning human resources representative or hiring manager. I am a hiring manager and I work with no less than 9 other interviewers and hiring managers, along with about 2 or 3 different human resources persons who are the applicant screeners; they review applicants before they are forwarded to us. The general attitude of the educational portion of the resume or application packet is that of a check box. We of course perform background investigations where the education will be double checked to make sure the applicant actually earned the credential that they claimed and that the school from which it was earned fulfills a preestablished criteria for accreditation, which in our case is that the school is accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

I have professional counterparts with other departments with whom I speak on occasion regarding finding and recruiting qualified applicants. Their criteria varies in that some adopt the accreditation requirements of the State of Texas peace officer licensing board which will only recognized regionally accredited schools. Others will recognize any degree within a specific major from a school that maintains accreditation from a U.S. Department of Education recognized accrediting agency.

Generally the screeners themselves do not really know the difference. The interviewers and hiring managers generally do not know the difference either and the background screeners often research the school using a book published by the U.S. Department of Education or the USDOE website. I happen to be the resident expert in this sort of thing within my own department and occasionally I will field a question from others, but often the argument is simply cut and dried.

My observations are as follows on the debate.

1.) A regionally accredited degree from almost anywhere would be acceptable to most employers as long as the major can be demonstrated to be of value to that employer. The one exception to the rule is when you have a screener armed with enough information to draw erroneous conclusions. For example if you have a recruiter who has heard bad things about University of Phoenix, they may discard that resume incorrectly assuming the degree is illegitimate.

2.) In most instances a nationally accredited degree will be okay. I don't have an actual percentage since I have not honestly done any formal research on the matter, but I would guess probably over ¾ of employers would not question the validity of the degree simply because they (the recruiter) will check the school out through the USDOE website, which is free and easy as you simply type the name of the school and hit enter. http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp

More often than not if the school is listed within and the degree major is in an area the recruiter is looking for, this graduate will make the cut. The only times I see NA degrees discarded is generally when the job posting or human resources policy specifies a "regionally accredited" school and more often than not will go on to list those accrediting agencies by name so as to have no doubt.

So is a regionally accredited degree better than a nationally accredited degree? Certainly in my experience the two are interchangeable in academic rigor and education, but in utility the regionally accredited degree will prove to be greater, however perhaps not necessarily for you personally.

A regionally accredited degree makes more sense for someone:

1.) Who is relatively young in age, (early 20's to mid 30's)
2.) Who is likely to change jobs a few times during their career
3.) Who may even change careers once or twice
4.) Who may want to teach one day
5.) Who would like to work their way into a more prestigious school
6.) Who would like to simply put the whole debate behind them and not have to worry about it in the future
7.) Who can get a RA degree for the same expense and effort as a NA degree
8.) Who works within a state that has educational standards to where only RA degrees are recognized by that state for licensure or employment (like Texas)

A nationally accredited degree makes more sense for someone:

1.) Who likes the teaching method of a particular NA school and otherwise would not attend college. For example the paper and pen method of correspondence learning at Andrew Jackson University vs. using a Blackboard format
2.) Who is fairly established in their career and is not likely to change jobs anytime soon if ever and the degree meets the standards of their current employer
3.) Who is earning the degree for reasons different than that of economics, such as personal pride or achievement
4.) For someone who wants a fairly lenient credit transfer from a smorgasbord of other colleges and schools. Of course that used to be Excelsior College, who while still fairly lenient, will only accept other RA school credits
5.) Is self employed or simply wants the education that comes with the degree

I hope this makes sense to those considering a degree soon and are caught up in the RA vs. NA debate.

Add to:

My Ashford University Experience : National Accreditation

Criminal Justice?!?!? Why would anyone want to be a cop?

Regional Accreditation vs. National Accreditation