The United States’ system of quality control for college and university degrees can be confusing. First, there is the legality issue. In order for a college or university to be operating legally, they must apply to the state for something which (depending on the state) might be called approval, authorization, licensure, or registration, and this they must receive before opening for business. A college or university must, however, have an operating history before becoming accredited. Therefore, not all unaccredited degrees are necessarily bad. In some states, like California, one can take the state Bar Exam with an unaccredited Juris Doctorate and take the state licensure exam in psychology with an unaccredited Doctor of Psychology degree. In other states, like Oregon, the Office of Degree Authorization keeps a list of schools whose degrees are illegal to use in that state. To be quite frank with you, things are getting a lot stricter about the use of unaccredited degrees. So, first of all, I would check the laws in your state (or the state you plan on living in). At any rate, even if your unaccredited degree is legal for use in the state wherein you plan on living, it is entirely up to the employer which degrees he/she is willing to accept as a valid credential.

Theodore H hit it right on the head, great answer. Accreditation can be confusing. To clear up Taranto’s confusion, regional accreditation is actually better than national for an institution

Regardless of delivery method (on ground, online, hybrid), a higher ed institution in the US can have 3 institutional accreditation statuses.

1. Regionally accredited – the highest and most useful.

2. Nationally accredited – real, but not as recognized or useful. Yes it is less than regional accreditation, which isn’t intuitive.

3. Unaccredited

Be sure to check here before you enroll: http://www.chea.org/search/

In the US, any college worth anything is accredited.

You will find lots of ads for non-accredited “universities” on-line that offer B.A., M.A., or even Ph.D. for you life experiences. These are worthless!

Do not waste your time by going to a non-accredited university. There are no standards they must adhere to, they do not have to prove the value of their education, there is no quality control.

Do not confuse “legally approved.” All this means is they are not breaking any laws. Universities in the US do not apply to the government for approval. Some schools are chartered and supported by the states they reside in (For example, University of California Los Angeles {UCLA}), but schools do not apply for approval from the goverment.

So YES, hiring managers will not take you seriously if you have gone to an unaccredited college.

Accreditation is a process by which colleges police themselves to ensure that they meet certain stadards of quality. Take advantage of it and only go to an accredited school.

If you are using the word “discrimination” to mean that employers are less likely to hire someone with a degree from an unaccredited university — then yes, they discriminate against them.

But that word often connotes a sense of unfairness — so if you are using the word “discrimination” to mean that employers unfairly reject those with degrees from an un accredited university — then no — they do not.

My advice is to avoid any university that is not accredited. Even here, you need to be careful. There are many bad schools that have regional accreditation — but not the more prestigious national accreditation.

Most colleges and institutions of higher learning are accredited – and usually when you get a background check, they check to see if you indeed went to an accresited college. If the college is not accredited, you probably won’t get credit for it. Even DeVry and ITT Tech are accredited in some sort of way – not saying anything’s wrong with those institutions, but if the college isn’t accredited, it’s almost illegal. Can’t get a job in the U.S. based on higher learning with that.

it somewhat is discrimination if it somewhat is the clarification. that is purely no longer unlawful discrimination. there is not any longer something to assert that inner maximum persons and companies can not discrimination, different than in line with particular particular categories (race, ancestry, gender, many times marital status, specifically situations age, specifically situations sexual orientation). different than for those statutorily risk-free categories, there is not any longer something that prohibits inner maximum discrimination. So, if a organization would not desire to hire you with the aid of fact your hair is purely too long or too short, or because you hair is blue, or because you’re a vegetarian, or because you’re an ex-felon, there is not any longer something combating them. the government is fairly extra constrained in its potential to discriminate, yet even then felons or ex-felons are no longer a risk-free type, and to that end are often no longer subject to heightened scrutiny on the guidelines. without stepping into any of the arguments around whether being a felon is a call or no longer, or something approximately God as against human beings granting a 2nd possibility, the criminal answer is that inner maximum discrimination is many times no longer unlawful, and fairly some forms of government discrimination are additionally no longer unlawful. Is that honest? in all probability no longer. yet this international hasn’t been honest with the aid of fact the recommendations of prejudice and concern have been given invented. that is purely the way it somewhat is.