Former Students Blast Grand Canyon University over ‘Worthless Degrees’
•February 17, 2026
0
Why It Matters
A ruling could compel for‑profit colleges to disclose accreditation status, reshaping enrollment practices and federal aid compliance.
Key Takeaways
- •GCU sued for misleading accreditation claims
- •Plaintiff spent $20,533 on unaccredited psychology master
- •University cites loan forgiveness to block standing
- •Judges question value of non‑licensure degrees
- •Potential injunctive relief could change marketing practices
Pulse Analysis
For‑profit institutions like Grand Canyon University have built large enrollment engines on federal student aid, relying on aggressive marketing that emphasizes career outcomes. Accreditation, however, remains the cornerstone of professional licensure and employer confidence. When a university promotes a program as a pathway to a regulated field without meeting state accreditation standards, it not only jeopardizes students’ career prospects but also risks violating consumer‑protection laws that govern federal funding.
The current lawsuit centers on a Master of Science in Psychology that, according to the plaintiff, was presented as a credential for California mental‑health licensure despite lacking state approval. The university’s defense hinges on two points: the academic catalog’s disclaimer that the degree does not lead to licensure, and the argument that the plaintiff’s loan forgiveness eliminates her standing to sue. Courts will need to weigh whether the university’s disclosures satisfy legal standards or if the counselors’ alleged omissions constitute deceptive practices that trigger RICO and unjust‑enrichment claims.
Beyond the courtroom, the case could trigger broader regulatory scrutiny of for‑profit colleges that market “worthless” degrees. If the plaintiffs secure injunctive relief, schools may be forced to revamp marketing materials, provide clearer accreditation disclosures, and possibly refund students misled about licensure pathways. Such outcomes would reinforce the importance of transparent credentialing, protect federal aid dollars, and could shift prospective students toward institutions with verifiable accreditation, reshaping the competitive landscape of higher education.
Former students blast Grand Canyon University over ‘worthless degrees’
PHOENIX (CN) — Grand Canyon University defended itself Tuesday in a class action claiming it deceives students into enrolling in useless degree programs that don’t meet common accreditation and licensure requirements.
Katie Ogdon, a resident of Fresno, California, says she enrolled in Phoenix-based GCU’s Master of Science in Psychology degree program with the intention of becoming a mental health therapist in California. Two years and more than $20,000 in student loans later, Ogdon learned the degree program GCU counselors encouraged her to pursue is not accredited in California and does not qualify her to be a licensed therapist in the state.
Ogdon says GCU uses deceptive and misleading statements about its degree programs to register as many students as it can and collect federal funding without telling students that the programs may not be useful in their desired field of work, amounting to RICO activities and unjust enrichment. She says counselors are trained to omit relevant accreditation information and have misled thousands of students into registering for unaccredited masters programs at GCU.
In a federal courtroom Tuesday afternoon, GCU argued that Ogdon has no standing to represent the plaintiff class.
Ogdon’s total fees for her two years at GCU amounted to $20,533 — less than the $22,000 granted to her in federal student loans. Because her student loans were forgiven in 2020, just days before she filed this lawsuit, Ogdon forfeited the right to make any legal claims relating to her student loans, which cover everything Ogdon spent at GCU and more, defense attorney Derin Dickerson argued.
“All of her claims are intrinsically linked to her federal student loans, which are now forgiven,” he said.
Dickerson said GCU’s academic catalog clearly states that its Masters of Science in Psychology degree doesn’t lead to licensure. Ogdon and other plaintiffs say they relied on advice from class counselors who told them their degrees were accredited, but GCU says those students could and should have conducted their own cursory research of public information available to them.
If a degree program is not accredited and offers no opportunity for licensure, “what value is that program to the students?” U.S. District Judge Douglass Rayes asked Dickerson.
“There would be some limited value,” Dickerson replied. “It does not lead to a licensed job but it leads to other jobs that don’t require licensure.”
Dickerson said those who graduate from Ogdon’s masters program could go into human resources, academia or use the degree to pursue a doctorate.
Finally, Dickerson said if any of Ogdon’s claims survive, they may only be for monetary relief, not injunctive relief.
Representing the plaintiff class, attorney Leonard Aragon said the only injunctive relief the plaintiffs request is an order to stop making false and misleading statements about its degree programs.
The plaintiffs argued that not all of Ogdon’s claims are linked to her student loans, as some fees — like graduation, for example — she paid outside the timeframe of the loans. Because Ogdon brings her claims on behalf of a class, she still has standing to move forward even if her own claims are mooted by her loan forgiveness, plaintiff attorney Annick Persinger added.
Because neither Ogdon nor Gurjit Singh, who represents a subclass of students from New York, intend to return to GCU, the university argues that there’s no risk of immediate future harm. Plaintiff attorneys said the image associated with carrying a GCU degree is harmful enough.
“There’s reputational harm created by Grand Canyon continuing graduating students with these worthless degrees,” Aragon said.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...