Complaint Review: IERF...International Education Research Foundation - Culver City California

This was posted in 2008. The poster's position is evidently held by someone else I have communicated with at IERF. I have posted the paragraphs with my comments in Alpha.

"Because IERF only learned of this posting recently and we do not have all the customer details, we cannot speak to the specifics of this posting, but would like to respond because IERF takes any customer complaint very seriously."

A) If you mention attorney general or better business bureau they may take you seriously. 

B) As for specifics, they can chose from any one of the many thousands they have claimed to evaluate

" Please note the procedure that IERF follows in evaluating foreign credentials is based on theFoundation's nearly 40 years of experience and expertise in the field of credential evaluation and international education research. We believe that it is because of the latter that IERF is highly respected in this field by academic institutions, state licensing boards, professional organizations and governmental agencies, alike."

C) The irony is they are evaluating higher education credentials, an industry that knows very well that self-certification
is neither a good idea or ethical. Peer review is the order of higher education. Yet IERF claim to be a law unto themselves. They can believe what they like. What they do is what is pertinent. So this is in effect, 40 years of
navel gazing.

D) Highly respected? IERF should feel free to submit their procedures and records and any complaints to an outside authority for audit.  For example, the State of Missouri DESE does not endorse IERF. The State lists IERF as a credential evaluator but refuses to admit that this is an endorsement. The State asked a few questions in 2005. They got the answers they wanted. Voil, IERF is copasetic. The State never audited and has no means or intention of receiving and investigating complaints. This is not a meaningful audit in any sense of the word. That constitutes respect for IERF in the State of Missouri.   Academic Institutions are liable for their own evaluations. This is a statement made by the US Department of Education and I have only just sent this on to IERF in the last few hours when the current director misrepresented IERF to me - again. This is also true of employers. Who they choose is no more an exercise in expertise that IERF show themselves (if they did have the expertise they should not send the work out to be done by those less qualified.)

If State Licensing Boards are just as respectful, we might perhaps starting going overseas when we need medical care because we are all in trouble. Governmental agencies often do not agree with each other and their lists may be quite different. What does that signify?

 "Also, IERF has been a member of the Better Business Bureau since 1992. In light of the fact that we have evaluated over 200,000 reports, we are particularly proud of the Better Business Bureau's excellent A rating of this Foundation. Jack may not be aware; however, this rating is based on the low number of claims that are lodged as well as the manner in which any claim submitted to the Better Business Bureau is addressed by this Foundation."

  E) And this Better Business Bureau claim is relevant how? Do they act as auditor? Are they experts in the process of credential evaluation, education and training systems outside their own municipality, to say nothing of the rest of the planet? It is safe to say that since IERF is engaged in interstate commerce and corresponds primarily with people from outside the USA or in other states, their membership in a Better Business Bureau in Culver City California is irrelevant - unless they are suggesting we start sending our complaints to them. There is a thought. Remember, most human being do not even know that ripoffreport.com even exists. But the A rating they have received would then be miniscule since their clients do not have a clue as to how to get in touch with the Culver City BBB or that it even exists. To someone from France or Florida, IERF is just a website and a hole into which their money disappears.

 F) They have evaluated over 200,000 reports? I think we know that they have merely made a claim of evaluating that is robustly refuted here. And since they have no external auditing authority, this is just
more self-gratification on their part.

G) Another disturbing thought, if they have evaluated over 200,000 reports, and they have been doing it since 1969 and they have been charging 180 dollars each that would be about 3.6 million dollars or $83720/annum. That is not a very good average. And old and experienced company that does this sort of work would require a significant infrastructure and database, and highly knowledgeable personnel with good channels of communication worldwide and $83K would not come anywhere near that. If they charged double they would still have problems staying afloat. This is a good an argument supporting claims that they foist more costly processes on their clients once they have the initial fee in their hands - in for a penny, in for a pound. 

 H) If they have some many years and some much experience doing this, can someone explain why their web based instructions are so convoluted?  " In addition, as a Charter Member of the National Association of Credentials Evaluation Services (NACES), the primary recognition body for credential services in the United States, which sets and promotes standards of excellence in the profession, it is important for Jack to understand and appreciate that there is a set procedure in place for the evaluation of credentials."

G) NACES membership criteria can be viewed at http://www.naces.org/apply.htm. That organisation answers to whom exactly? And if these these members are abiding by standards etc, why are their requirements and procedures so different?

H) The primary recognition body for credential services in the United States? Primary as in the first people anyone confers or the most or the best or the most reliable or what? Maybe just the ones who do the most marketing. Anyone with half a brain knows in the Post 9-11, Post Mortgage and Securities Blowout that so called experts are probably the least reliable. This is a vacuous claim with no testable parameters nor identifiable correlation to expertise and ethical substance. The fact that the director of IERF makes such a claim is evidence in favour of a damning conclusion: the director is either clueless and incompetent  . . . or a liar.

 "Lastly, by signing the application, Jack acknowledged that he accepted IERF's terms and conditions. The documentation that is required to be submitted as well as our no refund policy is clearly stated on the application form and also on our website.

I) That first resort of the thief - you signed it. It is all on you. You are to blame for any problems that arise. Not us. You get what we decide you will.

No. What Jack did by signing was to act in good faith that IERF would be working within an ethical framework. Their instructions are convoluted and sophomoric. They present themselves as experts but are unable to establish this beyond saying they belong two organisations (Better Bus. and NACES) neither of which have any say over what happens and nor do they know how to evaluate competence. If IERF are the consummate professionals they say they are and ethical business people, they would be able to say within a few minutes if they had sufficient to proceed to a successful conclusion.

What they did was take his money and then demand more.  IERF stands for Caveat Emptor. Expect no professional integrity from this bunch.