TCM - Rules for Certification by Location

[Guest guest]

I don't see where NOMAA fits in here, as they are not even accredited by the

US Dept of Education, much less a regional acreditation agency. That is sort

of putting the cart before the horse, altho I may be wrong, as I can't be an

expert at all things.

It seems to me that regional is more difficult than US Dept of Ed

accreditation, and even more expensive and time consuming to attain. Are thee

any ND's

with experience regarding regional versus national accreditation in the group?

I'd like clarification from someone with experience in such things. It seems

from the state ment below that NOMAA has discontinued its course of being a

national accreditation agency and is now focused on being a regional

accreditation

agency. This is the first I have heard of this, and want to hear more if it

is so. It would be a logical change, but one that might include a name change,

would it not?

David Molony

 

In a message dated 7/2/04 3:29:37 PM, acudoc11 writes:

 

 

> JG

>

> Be assured that no regionally accredited university has yet accepted credits

> from TCM Masters or for that matter anything that is TCM and it is seriously

> doubtful they will UNTIL such time as graduates come forth from NOMAA

> accredited schools which hold the dual accreditation.

>

> In part I would suspect that California was the same as to being

> exclusionary

> AND at the same time their testing standards were set to a much higher level

> for basic qualifications.

>

> Richard

>

>

>

> In a message dated 7/2/2004 10:19:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> johnlg_2000 writes:

> Whether or not credits transfer, that I do not know; I

> guess it's up to the ind. school accepting the

> credits.

> In NJ, you can't call yourself a Doctor.

> There's an apprentice program, but I don't

> know of anyone using it.

>    NJ's exam was used to exclude people from the

> state, not enhance their skills.

>   JG

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

The organization some are deeply connected with has already taken a strong

oppositional position regarding NOMAA. With such a position (for those who

haven't seen it....refer to various postings in Acupuncture Today) there is no

need

to comment any further. The writings on both sides speak for each position.

 

Competition and thereby choice is paramount to beneficial outcomes for the

profession.

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 7/3/2004 12:45:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

I don't see where NOMAA fits in here, as they are not even accredited by the

US Dept of Education, much less a regional acreditation agency. That is sort

of putting the cart before the horse, altho I may be wrong, as I can't be an

expert at all things.

It seems to me that regional is more difficult than US Dept of Ed

accreditation, and even more expensive and time consuming to attain. Are thee

any ND's

with experience regarding regional versus national accreditation in the

group?

I'd like clarification from someone with experience in such things. It seems

from the state ment below that NOMAA has discontinued its course of being a

national accreditation agency and is now focused on being a regional

accreditation

agency. This is the first I have heard of this, and want to hear more if it

is so. It would be a logical change, but one that might include a name

change,

would it not?

David Molony