ADLP Accreditation??

what do you all make out of this accreditation agency?

http://www.nahighered.org/accreditation.htm

-S

 

Read the following comments by selecting the link below.


http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20703&highlight=ADLP

 

It's not an accreditation agency. If it's not approved by the US Department of Education (USDE) and/or its Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) it's not an "accreditor."

I have argued this before and I'll never stop arguing it: I believe that, at least in the world of education, the word "accredit" and/or "accredits" and/or "accreditor" and/or "accrediting" and/or "accreditation" and/or "accredited" should be protected words... protected in the same way that "lawyer" or "attorney" are protected and a person may not call himself/herself one of those things in the US unless s/he is actually a member of the bar.

In the world of education, an agency should not be able to call itself an "accreditor," or call what it does "accreditation," or name schools/programs that it "accredits," unless it is approved by USDE and/or CHEA.

 

An accreditor is only as credible as the schools it accredits. Here's this thing's lineup:

http://www.nahighered.org/ADLPAffiliations.htm

Members

American Coastline University
American University Of London
American Academy High School
Bircham International University
Concordia College and University
International University of Fundamental Studies
Irish International University
JLF University
JLF University Medical School
Lacrosse University
Madison University (Accreditation Candidate)
Rehoboth Medical Institute (Accreditation Candidate)
Tecana International University
Technical Education College
The International University

 

Gregg:
...I believe that, at least in the world of education, the word "accredit" ... should be...protected in the same way that "lawyer" or "attorney" are protected and a person may not call himself/herself one of those things in the US unless s/he is actually a member of the bar."

John:
As we point out in the Degree Mills book, there already is a Rule in place at the FTC to do exactly that. The FTC has chosen not to enforce this Rule, apparently believing there is no need to do so.

 

Sounds like it's time for an email or letter-writing campaign to the FTC.

 

Re: Re: ADLP Accreditation??

Why not?

I have no difficulty imagining an accreditor that isn't recognized by either the Dept. of Education or CHEA, but whose accreditation is greatly respected by the professional and academic communities.

Whatever respect an accreditor receives is a function of the credibility of its standards and the soundness of its process.

Probably the best approach to take towards accreditors is 'show me':

If an accreditor is recognized, then it's probably credible, absent any reason to think otherwise. But if an accreditor isn't recognized, then it needs to make a convincing case for itself.

The ultimate decision on whether the case was successful lies with individual decision makers, whether they are employers, universities or professional organizations. If anyone feels incompetent to judge, then they can always defer to the government or CHEA's judgement. But the decision shouldn't be taken out of the people's hands entirely.

 

Re: Re: Re: ADLP Accreditation??

Fine... then in my perfect world where only USDE/CHEA-approved agencies may use the word "accredit" and all derivatives/conjugates thereof, those agencies that are credible but unapproved by USDE/CHEA may "approve" or "endorse" all day long... 'til the cows come home... 'til they're blue in the face. They just can't call themselves "accreditors"; or what they do "accreditation." Simple as that.

Again, mind you, that's just in my idealized world...

...although, if Dr. Bear is right that the FTC already has a rule which dictates same, but that's just not enforced, then it certainly appears to be more than in just my idealized world, doesn't it.

And the imprimatur of USDE/CHEA approval. You conveniently left out that part.

You mean in the same way that those who love the unaccredited, less-than-wonderfuls advocate that such institutions should be given a chance to prove themselves... to show us? (A rhetorical question)

I'd say that's an understatement; and that the word "probably" and everything after the word "credible" is unnecessary and intentionally misleads.

And to whom do I bill the time it takes for it to do that? Why do I have to perform the due diligence it takes to make the determination; that it will take to "convince" me? Why can't I rely on USDE/CHEA approval to tell me everything I need to know about an accreditor's reliability? And why can't there be something almost sacred about that which allows me to do so... as evidenced by the inability of the agency to call itself an "accreditor," or what it does "accreditation," unless it's USDE/CHEA approved?

How is this not analogous to the very nature of accreditation itself? We encounter an institution that may very well be rigorous and legitimate, but it's unaccredited. Fine. Maybe it's a peachy-keen school... but upon whose opinion of that may I rely without taking the time to contemplate it a bit; or to check-out said opinion for myself? In order to get to that positive opinion of the school, I must perform my own due diligence... even if it's to do nothing other than learn that a whole bunch of really impressive folks out there think a lot of the school and so, therefore, it's probably safe to say it's okay. I don't even have time for that much opinion gathering... and accreditation ensures that I should never have to worry about finding it.

And this argument doesn't even speak to the utility issue, based on what other busy people will think of the unaccredited school (and/or its credentials); and who will rely on whether or not it's accredited -- and only that -- to decide whether to even give it (or its credentials) the time of day!

If it's accredited, we not only know that there's a certain minimum level of quality and rigor there; but we also know that others will think so, too... and without performing a minute's worth of their own due diligence to figure that out! Accreditation gives us that. It presents that to us... on a silver platter, where it belongs. We can trust that the institution's quality is good, and that a credential therefrom will be respected because it's accredited... and we don't have to pause for a single second to double-check. The due diligence has already been performed for us by the accreditor. That's the accreditor's appropriate role... perhaps even its finest and most honorable. It's certainly its most useful regarding such matters as these!

So how is USDE/CHEA approval of an accreditor not basically the same sort of thing; and for the same sorts of reasons? What you propose requires me to check-out the accreditor; to let it prove itself to me. If it wants to pay me my hourly fee to do that, fine... I'll listen. Otherwise, I'll rely on whether it's USDE- and/or CHEA-approved, thankyouverymuch. I'm busy, too... as is every HR person or college/university admissions officer who is tasked with determining degree legitimacy. No one has time to perform their own due diligence in such matters; and we don't need to. That's USDE's/CHEA's appropriate role... perhaps even its finiest and most honorable. It's certainly its most useful regarding such matters as these!

To honor that; to give that meaning and import and consequence, then only those agencies that are USDE/CHEA-approved should be allowed to even call themselves "accreditors," or what they do "accreditation." All others should be limited to words like "approve" and/or "endorse" to describe what they do.

The FTC, it would appear, agrees... or so suggests the good Dr. Bear.

No one's depriving individual decision makers of their opinions, or their right to form same. What a silly thing to suggest. In my paradigm, any agency that isn't USDE- and/or CHEA-approved can give its official okeedokie to any educational institution it wishes; and anyone's free to value that, and act upon it, in any way they wish. But the agency simplly can't call whatever it does "accreditation" unless it's USDE- and/or CHEA-approved. Imposing such limitation doesn't take anything from anyone's hands. It simply provides appropriate guidance so that whatever decision they do make is informed, and based on something that actually means something. Is that not the very nature of imprimatur?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ADLP Accreditation??

No, that was precisely my point.

If the accreditor has credible standards and sound practices, then it's reasonable to give its endorsements credence, whether or not the accreditor is government recognized.

And if the accreditor's standards aren't credible and its practices aren't sound, then no amount of government recognition will eliminate that defect. (That was the fudamental problem with Liberian government approval of the 'NBOE'.)

People shouldn't confuse academic and political criteria of legitimacy.

Yes, precisely. I take exactly the same line towards individual unaccredited schools that I take towards unrecognized accreditors.

There are a number of non-accredited schools that I like quite a bit. But I don't expect people who are unfamiliar with them to join me in liking them unless they are provided with some convincing reason why they should.

I think that you owe me an apology for that.

I wrote the words 'probably...absent any reason to think otherwise' for two reasons.

First, governments do make mistakes on occasion and they often secumb to political pressures. I think that once again, the Liberian 'NBOE' fiasco was the reductio-ad-absurdem of confusing politics with academics by relying uncritically on government rulings.

Second, even when the system is working smoothly, a government official's opinion in Washington about what credible accredition standards should look like might not coincide very closely with what decision makers out in the community actually need in an educational qualification.

My point in the passage you took exception to was burden of proof. In the case of government/CHEA recognized accreditors, it makes sense to give weight to those judgements and to assume that recognized accreditors are probably credible. Disagreement is obviously possible, but it would require some reasons.

In the case of unrecognized accreditors, the safest course is probably to distrust them a-priori. The possiblity remains that an urecognized accreditor is credible, but people need some reasons why they should think so.

My point in this thread is that the academic and professional communities should be free to make those decisions for themselves.

If you are aren't already familiar with the academic standards that you desire and with those accreditors that maximize them, then you probably shouldn't be billing for your hours in the first place. I'm talking about professionals here, about individuals and organizations who are already familiar with the accreditor that they are using, whatever its recognition status happens to be in Washington.

You can do that.

In fact, I'd suggest that outside specialized professional situations where the relevant accreditors are already familiar to decision-makers, not taking a chance on the unknown is probably the safest course.

You already are free to insist on government recognized accreditation if you feel any need. But now you are going way beyond that by demanding that you be allowed to define the meaning of 'accreditation' for everyone else.

I'm not comfortable with that. I sense something faintly totalitarian about attempts to control the meaning of words by authoritarian fiat.

 

I'm still waiting for the cows.

 

Ya se fueron........que tirada.

Tio:

Their flight got in early........they got tired of waiting on you so they grabbed a taxi.

*******GRIN******

 

The accreditation agency mentioned is obviously flawed, but I still do not see any reason to regulate the word 'accreditor'. Some of these are already unrecognized in their approach so no need to waste time on them.

I think an accreditor could make themselves respected by doing what real accrediting means.

I am for the free market, let quality decide the good from the bad.

 

It would seem that by regulating the word 'accredit' more than it is now, would possibly create problems for Accreditor's that don't work in the field of education.

 

I am against full blown regulation because I believe in the free market spirit. I think common sense will tell you that these are not good accreditors anyway. One simple way to add some simple regulation is in the business license, it would require an audit of accreditation activities.

For example, this particular agency accredits Concord College and University, but no where in the degrees, does the student have to prove anything as a basic requirement. How does accreditation makes sense there beats me.

 

Re: Ya se fueron........que tirada.

I guy waiting for a taxi suddenly felt some warm mass on his head.
He wiped it as it turned to be a bird poop he exhaled and said how I thank you god that you didn't make cows with wings.

Or in Russian as I remember from preschool this anecdot states how good that cows don't fly.

Learner