Federal list goes sour

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Alan Contreras, Mar 11, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Alan Contreras

    Alan Contreras New Member

    Yesterday, March 10 2005, the U.S. Department of Education admitted that it had mistakenly included some unaccredited entities on its much-whooped-about List of Accredited Colleges. A swarm of warnings have been issued all over the country that the new list should be considered unreliable.

    What a fiasco.
     
  2. aic712

    aic712 Member

    I like CHEA.org better anyway, it's easier to search through. The govt side is odd anyway, especially for schools like UOP, Strayer and Devry that have multiple campuses. They list each separate campus (although only like 20 or so of the UOP campuses) and some don't have any accreditation notes even though the institution as a whole is accredited, I can see how that would confuse people.

    http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/InstList.asp
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2005
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Last year I did some work for a school that wanted to provide this kind of information to local employers. It seems they get asked this a lot. I directed them to the CHEA site, rather than attempt to create a whole different database that had to be constantly maintained--and would inherently be fraught with errors. Too bad the USDoE couldn't see the same simple fact.
     
  4. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I don't understand why they even undertook the task of providing a list when they could have instead pointed at an already known and reliable list?
     
  5. galanga

    galanga New Member

    but it's the government

    Something to consider, though: it is a government site. At long last the Dept. of Ed has, in our highly political environment where elected officials can be flown to foreign countries with beautiful beaches one week, then vote against consumer protection legislation that would inconvenience their benefactors the next week (all without losing their jobs, much less ending up in prison), chosen to say something about fake schools.

    There is work to be done, and it is too bad that the first release of the list contains errors. But finally, something has been tried in Washington DC to work the problem of diploma mills.
     
  6. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    I presented at a conference on Friday and warned of the errors in the list. There is clear demand for centralised, reliable registers and the USDOE was on right track. Shame they couldn't pilot the list before it went public.

    Cheers,

    George
     
  7. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    I presented at a conference on Friday and warned of the errors in the list. There is clear demand for centralised, reliable registers and the USDOE was on right track. Shame they couldn't pilot the list before it went public.

    Cheers,

    George
     
  8. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    Agreed!

    So much for governmental intervention. Unecessary intrusion is more like it.

    The US-based private, volunteer, and much-respected and almost-universally-used accreditation, vetting, and listing processes have worked well thus far. Government can support, and not attempt to duplicate and confuse, the successful private venture.

    If only government (federal, state, local) would do the right thing re: vastly improving (sic removing) the "state-licensed" loophole which permits diploma mills, unaccredited entities, and unwonderful "schools" to operate by citing "We are state-licensed," as if that were acceptable or equal to legitimate accreditation.

    Smacks of deception of the mostly unknowing public, pure and simple.

    Yes, I am referring to Wyoming, safe haven state for the unwonderful KWE and the like.

    Thanks.
     
  9. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Don't use CHEA instead

    The USDE/OPE search engine would appear to be attempting to be more all-inclusive than the CHEA search engine is attempting to be... as evidenced, for example, by the fact that there are accreditors approved by USDE that are not also approved by CHEA; though the reverse is not true. Ergo, using the CHEA database instead of the USDE/OPE's would, if it were working right, leave out institutions... thereby, contrary to what some have advocated here, making the CHEA database presumptively less appropriate.

    For example, according to the CHEA web site, of the following eleven (11) USDE-approved national accreditors (not "specialized/professional" or "regional" accreditors, but, rather, just "national" ones), five (5) of them, as noted below and shown with a red asterisk (*), are not also approved by CHEA:
    • Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools* (Approved by USDoE, but not approved by CHEA)
    • Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology* (Approved by USDoE, but not approved by CHEA)
    • Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)
    • Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training* (Approved by USDoE, but not approved by CHEA)
    • Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)
    • Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools Accreditation Commission (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)
    • Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada Commission on Accrediting (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)
    • Association for Biblical Higher Education Commission on Accreditation (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)
    • Council on Occupational Education* (Approved by USDoE, but not approved by CHEA)
    • National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences, Inc.* (Approved by USDoE, but not approved by CHEA)
    • Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Accreditation Commission (Approved by both USDoE and CHEA)

      *Red asterisk = Approved by USDoE, but not also approved by CHEA.

      NOTE: CHEA-recognized organizations must meet CHEA eligibility standards (www.chea.org/recognition/recognition.asp). Accreditors exercise independent judgment about whether to seek CHEA recognition.

      For USDoE recognition, accreditation from the organization is used by an institution to establish eligibility to participate in federal student aid or other federal programs (www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/index.html). Some accreditors cannot be considered for USDoE recognition because they do not provide access to federal funds. Other accreditors have chosen not to pursue USDoE recognition.

      Because CHEA affiliation and USDoE recognition depend on a range of factors, readers are strongly cautioned against making judgments about the quality of an accrediting organization and its institutions based solely on CHEA or USDoE status. Additional inquiry is essential. If you have questions about the CHEA or USDoE recognition status of an accreditor, please contact the accrediting organization.
    Sadly, though one would assume that the USDE/OPE database would be more complete, it would appear not to be... this problem in addition to the infirmity posited in the thread-starting post.

    For example, do a search on both sites for a list of all institutions, anywhere, and no matter who accredits them, with the word "seminary" in their names (in other words, search, simply, on the keyword "seminary" and leave all other fields at their default).

    The CHEA search only lists the first 100 institutions in its database because its searches are limited to 100 results... which is fine for our little example, here.

    The USDE/OPE search lists -- today, anyway -- 158 institutions (it listed 163 the other night... so go figure) which is supposed to be every institution in its database which contains the word "seminary" in its name. And if you look closely, you'll see that, indeed, the USDE/OPE search results would appear to be its entire list since it goes from the letter "A" to the letter "Y."

    The CHEA search, on the other hand, though it lists only 100, goes only to the beginning of the letter "M" -- suggesting that maybe (half or just a tiny bit more) of all the institutions in its database with the word "seminary" in their names are showing.

    But that's not reliable enough, so let's dig deeper...

    If one counts backward from the 158th institution on the USDE/OPE list, we only get to not quite the end of the letter "P" -- meaning that USDE/OPE's first 100 on the list covers not just the beginning of the letter "M" (as the CHEA list of 100 does), but also the letters "N" and "O" and most of "P."

    Clearly, therefore, there are more institutions -- pretty much four letters of the alphabet worth, to be more precise -- with the word "seminary" in their names in CHEA's database than there are in USDE/OPE's.

    Ergo, USDE/OPE's, though it lists more accreditors (and, presumably, all of their institutions, is fundamentally incomplete... at least when compared with CHEA's.

    That's a shame, in my opinion, because USDE/OPE, and not CHEA, really is the logical place where such a database should reside... contrary to what some in this thread have advocated.

    Given that the stakes are so high; and that a job applicant could, clearly (based on the number of accreditors argument, above) be wrongly eliminated if one used the CHEA database instead of the USDE/OPE's, I think we should be advocating that USDE/OPE stop screwing around and get it right before someone gets hurt.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2005

Share This Page