Ranking of Accreditation

Hi Guys

Can you rank the various levels of accreditation - AACSB, DETC, Regional, etc from highest to lowest?

Thanks!

 

OK, I will give you my 2 cents worth.

1. Any of the Regional accreditors
2 DETC
3 The remaining national accreditors.

I am sure others may desagree with me.

 

In most situations, regional accreditation is the most important.

In some situations, professional accreditation is irrelevant; in others it is relevant, in still others it is essential.

National accreditation (the institutional kind) ranks below both. In no situation is DETC accreditation (or TRACS or ACICS, etc.) superior to regional accreditation. Sometimes it is as acceptable as regional accreditation, which is nice.

 

Doesn't anybody study just to learn? All this talk about accreditation (I realize this board is specifically for accreditation discussion) on the other boards makes me wonder why anyone bothers to "educate" themselves.

It is all about the credential, rather than the education. Sickening. Ruining the spirit of the exercise.

I would never post this if I hadn't gone to a near-Ivy school for my undergraduate. I wouldn't feel qualified to say anything about the credentialing phenomena. But since I did go to one of the best colleges in the country, I think my opinion is valid and speaks from real experience. I just don't think these schools really provide that much of a better education.

It seems to me that the people most concerned about credentialing are the ones who never "got to bat"; meaning, they were never accepted into the "prestige" institutions, and are therefore insecure about the substance of their education.

My university (at least the non-science studies) was easier than my high school. If I told anyone where I went they would shudder in disbelief.

The most important thing I'm learning is that it is what you DO with what you know, not how or where you learned it.

I find that distance learning and the earning of degrees is a way to apply discipline to my meandering reading/book habit. It enforces depth rather than breadth.

Of course, if credentials is what you want, then yes, accreditation is important.

I've had many jobs; the best employers don't really care about accreditation. Unless you aspire to work in a bureaucracy, accreditation really doesn't matter that much.

 

Gold - Professional (i.e. in Business AACSB)
Silver - RA
Bronze - National

The reason for accreditation is to show a standard. Otherwise, I could start a University and simply mail you a degree in the mail, and the learning process is down to mailing me the check. Each shows a standard, which is more stringent than others.

You cn't be AACSB withouth being RA, but there are hundreds of RA that can't or don't want to meet the strigent standards of AACSB.

There are two distinct disucssion (seeing this thread topic come up over the years). First is how do people see the rankings of accreditation in general. The second argument is accreditation worth anything and are these people's feelings founded on differences in the schools.

I will only answer the first

(Disclaimer: United States ranking by me)

 

Yeah, well in my case, the standard at my undergrad was supposedly "Gold", when I got little better than "read the book write the paper take the blue book" and a host of teaching assistants with thick accents.

 

That's not what I heard

I have heard just the opposite about St Regis University. I didn't know they were in ivy League.

Only kidding. What University did you go to? I agree with you about the overemphasis on rankings.

 

Gosh, I hope so!

Actually yes, of course people study just for the sheer pleasure of learning. If not then how would anyone be able to earn a degree ala Lawrie Miller's BAin4weeks method? Even if any given individual never seeks to CLEP their non-traditional learning and have it officially 'recognized', then so what? For many that's hardly the point of most of their learning pursuits. The simple fact is that none of us are ever going to live long enough to learn all there is to learn out there. But true love of learning for its own sake is something that must be instilled early in life. I am thankful my own parents did just that for me and my siblings, and sorry for those who have parents who didn't or don't do the same for their children. Those are the kids who waste all their free time watching mindless television shows or playing video games. They don't change when they grow up, they just raise children of their own who continue the legacy of wasted time.

Absolutely. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? The phenomena you cite may be more of a response to 'creeping credentialism', the practice of requiring more and more credentials to perform the same jobs. After all, people do have to make a living! A few of my eldest elders still remember a time when a person could start as a company janitor, stay with the same company most of their career, end up a vice president before their career was over, and do it all without benefit of any post-secondary education. Those days are long gone.

No, I can't agree with that statement. Your opinion would be valid to me regardless of where you went to school, or if you had no post-secondary education at all. What matters is whether or not any given person is reasoned, thoughtful, and fair-minded in their opinions and their actions. That doesn't mean they can't have strong opinions, there just has to be some reason behind the argument rather than just reactionary emotion.

I am fortunate to know/have known people from many different backgrounds, countries, religions, ethnicities, and educational levels. It may sound cliche, but I can honestly say some of the most intelligent and intellectually curious people I have ever met never stepped foot inside any college, Ivy league or otherwise. (Including at least one who started as a window washer and ended up a vice president years later, all without pursuing higher education until much later in life and then only to fulfill a purely personal desire to have a college degree.) I have also had the distinct displeasure to know a few highly educated idiots. The common traits among all of the latter group are throwing their credentials around even in social situations, waxing poetic about themselves, their particular 'expertise', their money, and always belittling others without ever realizing they are betraying themselves as idiots. Their opinions and actions are seldom reasoned, thoughtful, or fair-minded, and no one can ever teach them a thing because they already know it all. But maybe they were like that before they got their degrees, pampered and spoiled as children perhaps?

Like you I went to a 'good' school too but have never and would never presume to be "smarter" than those eldest elders spoken of earlier. (Especially that former window washer. ) I can also honestly say I have learned something from each person ever met, even a few of those educated idiots.

Kit

 

In the US there are two basic kinds of accreditation, institutional and specialized. The former accredit entire universities, which might offer programs in many different fields. The latter accredit individual schools, departments and even programs within larger institutionally accredited universities, concentrating on detailed curricular and subject-matter-specific issues. Some (not all) of the specialized accreditors may also serve as institutional accreditors of small specialized schools, provided that the accreditor is prepared to assess things like institutional governance and finance.

OK, I think that the ideal situation is for a school to be both regionally accredited and to have all of the available specialized accreditations that apply. Specialized accreditations are often necessary for professional licensing, and they certainly further buttress the credibility not only of particular departments, but also of the entire university.

Next, I'd put regionally accredited institutions without the specialized accreditations available in the subjects that they offer.

I'm not sure where I'd put those small schools with specialized accreditations as their institutional accreditation. There are numerous non-RA but ATS theological seminaries, for example. There are rabbinical schools and yeshivas accredited by AARTS. There are some NASAD accredited art schools. Virtually all acupuncture colleges aren't RA but are accredited by ACAOM, and virtually all chiropractic colleges get their primary accreditation from CCE. I guess that I would rank these 'high' or 'low' depending on what I think of the accreditor's credibility and on my opinion of the subject and institution concerned.

Below all this, I'd rank the more specialized accreditors that don't accredit programs within RA schools, but rather are struggling to become alternative full-service institutional accreditors. ACICS used to be an accreditor of vocational business-skills-colleges, but it has recently starting accrediting all kinds of institutions, from art schools to engineering schools. DETC has evolved along with the DL it specializes in, changing from an accreditor of 'learn a skill in your spare time' correspondence courses to more of a higher education emphasis. TRACS belongs here too because it seems to be broadening out from accrediting narrowly religious programs to accrediting entire colleges (of a narrow religious persuasion). It's complicated by all of the conservative protestant doctrinal criteria it brings to the table. Some people may love this accreditor, but I don't.

 

Originally posted by agingBetter

I think you are confusing credentialing with accreditation, which are not one and the same. Credentialism theory (I am reading alot of it the moment, so I know what I am talking about) is silent on the issue. The sociological pressures that fuel credentialism merely force the individual to seek a qualification, and essentially reify credentials - no distinction is made between accredited/un accredited etc. Indeed, it is a body of knowledge that is lacking - hopefully my research will patch it up.

The discussions on this board re-accreditation are mainly surrounding one main issue - consumer protection. In my world caveat emptor is a cop out, and I don't buy it one bit. All prospective customers of a higher education product, be it a fake degree or an RA degree, deserve to be educated into making an informed decision. That is what this board is about.

And I totally agree with you - learning is learning, and it can come in many and varied forms.

Cheers and back to the thesis.

George

 

IMHO

- Regional accreditors
- DETC
- Other national accreditors

 

I can't agree with this. My research suggested that employers care about accreditation, they just don't understand it. But when they do, their appreciation of it grows.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone finds out about unaccredited schools and diploma mills, not realizing that such things even exist. So many people just take degrees and schools at face value, not asking the important questions. But when you tell them about it, they get interested.

There are many, many companies with policies regarding the acceptability of degrees (for employment, tuition reimbursement, etc.) Some (most? all?) have language specific to accreditation. I have yet to see one that explicitly allowed for unaccredited schools or schools approved/licensed by the states. It doesn't happen.

Another thing my research revealed is that some employers take the stance of "any degree is fine for us, degrees don't matter in our business." Okay, fine. Their risk.

 

Thank you, Rich Douglas, for the thoughtful reply.

After I posted this, I realized that perspectives on accreditation have a lot to do with one's place in life and of course, job aspirations.

For someone who has 10-15 years of work experience, accreditation is probably less important and more of a "check the box" kind of accomplishment, assuming that person is not trying to change careers.

For someone who is changing careers, a young person, or trying to break into the education "racket"/bureaucracy, accreditation is a lot more important.

You must understand, I am completely prejudiced against educators after having paid thousands for a top notch degree and left feeling relatively uneducated. The same degree is perfect for becoming an education professional since it looks good for rank and accreditation. However, no matter what you pay for your education, you are still tasked with educating yourself . I was ignorant of this fact back then.

Anyway, had I known the kind of adult I would turn out to be I would have just gone to a state school and sat through 300 seat lectures with teaching assistants at a bargain rate. (I would not have considered an unaccredited school of course, because young people should go to regionally accredited schools, in my opinion.) Silly me, at 17, I thought being upwardly mobile was realistic and therefore going to school with the "haves" was important. Bitter am I? Yes. But that is a tangent...

My education background is relevant to this conversation, in my opinion, because education snobs seem to believe opinions from people who have experience with other education snobs have more valid opinions. Perhaps I am wrong about this. I want to give the impression that my passion about this issue does not stem from feelings of inadequacy. In other words, I walk the walk.

And finally, I think it is much more important to go to a regionally accredited school for undergraduate work.

 

I went to UC Berkeley and got a Bachelor's degree. In some ways I saw similar things. The expense wasn't that great but at the community college, I felt, they were more interested in making sure that I was educated than at Berkeley. However, this is only tangentially relevent to the discussion of accreditation.

Accreditation is more about utility in the degree rather than utility in education received. Accreditation is more about getting in the door rather than being able to perform once the job is landed. Accreditation assures that the school/program meets the accepted standards.

Your points are more relevent to ranking of student education rather than "Ranking of Accreditation". As a side note, it is a favorite tactic for the degree mill apologists to purposely confuse education and accreditation to try and excuse the lack of accreditation by the degree mill. Henrik is an expert on this as he weaves his web of deception in defense of Knightsbridge University.

 

Well said Rich !! aptly put !!!

 

My own interest in DL is mostly in non-degree courses. I already have a masters degree, see no need to collect more of the things, and don't anticipate ever earning a doctorate. (Why on earth should I?)

Even if you aren't personally interested in earning a degree, you should still be interested in what the different forms of accreditation are saying about the various schools and programs where you anticipate taking courses.

But like it or not, the fact is that most people who post to Degreeinfo are interested in earning a degree and then in using it afterwards. So how various kinds of accreditation are perceived by other people is certainly a valid topic of discussion here.

In my experience, graduates of prestige schools are often strangely clueless about the issues surrounding accreditation. They were simply dazzled by their own school's reputation and never gave accreditation a moment's thought.

That's an awfully arrogant way of putting it. It's also self-contradictory. If credentialling didn't matter, then why would it matter whether or not somebody attended a prestige school?

But yes, accreditation is most valuable when considering programs that students and their prospective employers aren't already personally familiar with. Accreditation tells them that trusted and credible parties have already checked out the institution or the program in question, and verify it. Considering that the United States has several thousand institutions of higher education of all descriptions, it's unrealistic to imagine that anyone is familiar with all of them.

It sounds to me like you are shooting wildly. Your real argument isn't with accreditation, it's with degrees themselves.

I agree that in many cases experience and accomplishments speak a lot louder than degrees. I also agree that there is sometimes too much emphasis on paper credentials. But that wasn't the original topic of this thread.

 

Well, then let me be succinct:


1. accreditation is no guarantee of quality
2. the "better" the accreditation, the worse the service
3. the goal of education, in my opinion, should not be about pedigree; it should be about what you LEARNED.

Good 'nuf?

Done.

 

It is extremely expensive to hire someone. The employer has to be as sure as possible regarding the person's skills, knowledge, experience, credentials, and personal qualities. This is a difficult thing to do. Degrees help them do this. While there are always exceptions (brilliant people with no formal education and idiots with doctorates), there must be a correlation between higher education and those qualities mentioned. If not, why would employers bother?

If it is accepted that employers (and the general public, two of the three basic consumers of higher education, with students being the third) rely upon degrees (in part) to make their employment decisions, wouldn't it also be in their interest to hire people holding degrees from schools that real educative processes? Otherwise, wouldn't the degrees be meaningless? Well, accreditation serves that function.

Education and degrees are separate subjects, except that degrees serve to notify others of one's education. But they have to be bona fide indicators to accomplish that feat.

 

1. It's all we have. It seems to do a reasonably good job in this country of "guaranteeing" the quality.

2. I would be very interesting in the explanation of this statement. Based on all the horrible degree mills that sell meaningless paper as degrees, I can't imagine that your statement is true but likely I don't understand your intended context?

3. I would guess that the big goal for the majority of students that eventually graduate was the degree. This is typically hoped to help leverage the person into a job or career or perhaps to help them advance in a career. From a grand point of view of making society a better place and improving our economy etc, I think that this is a good thing.

I had a high school and college buddy that had the goal of just purely an education. He went to college for three years more than me, earned far more units than me, and probably could have gotten a Bachelor's degree with 3 or 4 majors, if there was such a thing. He got zero degrees because he never bothered to apply for graduation. He has been doing construction for 25 years. That is all great, I don't criticize his decision. My view is that people are different and that this is generally a good thing. I think that it is rather arrogant for you to say what the goal of everyone should be who attends school.

 

I don't think it is accreditation that is the factor. I have a family member who went to USC. He had a personal advisor, I mean personal, as in would check in on him 3-4 times a semester asking about how classes are going, what classes he will be looking forward to the next semester. Some classes only had 3 people in them, since they were requirements. Do I blame this on the accreditation, no, I say it is the school.

It sounds like you had a bad experience with a particular school and you blame the accrediation, it simply could be the school. If I am wrong, I would love to see the research you are looking at to back it up.