Is it possible the accreditation system is an instrument for monopoly that is used to keep college prices ridiculously high? If capitalism is built on quality self selection, what do we need accreditation for?
It wouldn't be a monopoly, it would be a cartel. It's not really that either, though, since prices vary so much by provider and since there's no limit on how many customers any given provider can have. -=Steve=-
No. There are in fact small, *accredited* public institutions at which the tuition is very reasonable. Dakota State and Peru State come to mind.
Its about maintaining quality, consumer protection etc, and insuring that at the minimum the educational institution i.e. provider is not simply distributing for profit a product that is in high demand. Now in free society the providers can compete for best professors and best football team , Advanced updated labs with the latest equipment. All this cost money. University with rich academic history, research and discoveries, earns a good name, when you in your final year get 3 to 4 offers from employers you know that the university has EARNED that. And there are good solid inexpensive state universities as well. Maybe the campus is larger and more students are listening to the same professor, maybe the professor is not the best in his field, also location wise its not in prestige place, so they can afford lower tuition. Accreditation is for our own good and protection. Learner
here is my 2 cents....accreditation and financial aid causes the price of college to sky rocket. an institution should stand on its own reputation in the working world. Let employers and the free market decide if a degree or college is legit. Not some government regulation or accreditation committee. There wasnt accreditation when this country was founded and many many colleges did well. Get rid of accreditation and government regulation and let the free markets decide.
Since accreditation in the U.S. is private, it's part of a market-based system. It's Title IV funding that skews things. But who would argue for ending that? Talk about political suicide. -=Steve=-
We live in an post-industrial, knowledge-based economy that prizes organization - not on some near-lawless 18th-century frontier. The secondary educational marketplace is working quite well for 21st century needs, evidenced by the number of grad students who come from around the world to enroll in US universities - most of them public, I might add. Unaccredited schools continue to exist, but their relatively lower enrollments - and lower tuition costs - suggest that accreditation, that is to say independent verification of school quality - is a commodity prized in the marketplace. Two cheers for the accreditors.
Accreditation functions in much the same way as the old mediaeval guilds: limit the number of new competitors that we allow in, thereby keeping prices high by restricting the supply.
1. Accredited, low-price schools exist. Dakota State University is one. 2. Unaccredited schools exist. We are free to attend them, free to hire their graduates. 3. In the complex knowledge-based society, complex marketplace in which we live, consumers demand assurance that their educational purchases are of value. Since most of us don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to validate educational value ourselves we turn to the accreditors. In return, most of us voluntarily pay a premium directly and indirectly (the latter in the form of taxes that are returned in the form of Title IV aid) for tuition at an accredited school.
Good example is AICS - American Institute of Computer Science Prior to earning accreditation their degree program in CS was comparing to two semesters in Traditional university. So if compared to graduate from RA or NA university the student covered 20 % or so. AICS changed name when they applied and earned DETC accreditation, their IT and CS degrees today are at the standard and its a win win for graduates and employers. Still the degrees are not RA and don't have the same level of utility but as we notice DETC accredited degrees are at their highest level of acceptance today ( my opinion ). Here is the connection to IT / CS degrees one was quick degree that was considered a joke among IT/CS professionals and on the level of career diploma from unaccredited provider. Today its legitimate NA DECT accredit degree and I applaud the Institute for upgrading their programs and earning accreditation. my 2 c
It is a good example, Lerner. The overall issue of accreditation and monopoly seems a little larger than this niche category, however. Dave
Yes it is larger. My wife thinks of it this way. The homes in really good areas are very expansive so it keeps the criminal elements and hip-hop gangs from moving in to this areas. Only persons with substantial credit and income can afford to by a house in that neighborhood. I don't see full connection but there is something to this. I do agree that this a post that should move to Accredited vs Unaccredited area. And yes its not black and white there is politics, competition, turf elements as well. Pharmaceutical companies sell us drugs / medicine that heps us to fight disease yet they are also for profit money making industry. Is FDA only protects us or is it also protects pharmaceutical companies as well? Maybe bout?
Since accreditation in the U.S. is private, it's part of a market-based system. It's Title IV funding that skews things. But who would argue for ending that? Talk about political suicide Steve, the only problem i have with accreditation is it is used to determine Title IV funding. That is, IMHO its used for both government regulation and funding. Now if accreditation was used strictly as a private voluntary matter of self policing amongst colleges and universities with no government interference, I am all for that. As for TITLE IV funding get rid of it, it just helps the price of an education artificially skyrocket. Let the free markets decide the reputation of colleges and accreditation and price.
Ever wonder if the FDA is just a bunch of evil government control freaks who are just out to tell us what drugs we can and can't do?
In this discussion, who hold the monopoly - the accreditation agency or the schools that hold the accreditation?
We have here Roopert and Han were is Bollo and Bruce Lee. Enter the dragon. just kidding. Back to the subject. One more important element of accreditation of Engineering Nd Technology including IT programs is ABET. This adds to the cost of the program, but also adds to the value of the degree and the format of the program. Learner
The technically correct term here would be oligopoly. The individual (accredited) schools are the oligopoly, and the accreditors themselves are owned by the member (accredited) schools, and it is through these accreditors that the existing (accredited) schools decide which, if any, new competitors are to be allowed in.
Learner - Too funny I asked the simple question, as I think the original posting was very silly. We are an open market, we get to decide if we find value in the accreditation agency we deicde on by schools, and schools decide on which standards that they will ahdere to. To say there is a monopoly is silly, as there has been many of a debate about which accreditation agency is best, hence there are some consumers that find value in some, others do not. To ask why not have no accreditation and let the market decide - I do not want to have to do the research, school by school to find the value I am looking for, and knowing the school has a minimum set of standards by obtaining accreditation is good for me. Others use ranking systems by magazines, but I say accrediation DOES preserves monopoly - as the MARKET decided that accreditation matters, and degree mills don't have value.
It's not an either/or proposition. Accreditation limits supply. Student financial aid increases demand. Either limiting supply or increasing demand can increase price, and doubly so if both are happening at the same time.
