CA Approval versus RA - - Let's Compare

CA Approval Standards versus NCA RA standards.

California Approval Standards.

§ 94900 APPROVAL OF INSTITUTIONS OFFERING ACADEMIC OR HONORARY DEGREES
(a) No private postsecondary educational institution may issue, confer, or award an academic or honorary degree unless the institution is approved by the council to operate in California and award degrees. The council shall not issue an approval under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 94901 or a conditional approval under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 94901 until it has conducted a qualitative review and assessment of, and has approved, each degree program offered by the institution, and all of the operations of the institution, and has determined all of the following:
(1) The institution has the facilities, financial resources, administrative capabilities, faculty, and other necessary educational expertise and resources to ensure its capability of fulfilling the program or programs for enrolled students.
(2) The faculty are fully qualified to undertake the level of instruction that they are assigned and shall possess degrees or credentials appropriate to the degree program and level they teach and have demonstrated professional achievement in the major field or fields offered, in sufficient numbers to provide the educational services.
(3) The education services and curriculum clearly relate to the objectives of the proposed program or programs and offer students the opportunity for a quality education.
(4) The facilities are appropriate for the defined educational objectives and are sufficient to ensure quality educational services to the students enrolled in the program or programs.
(5) The program of study for which the degree is granted provides the curriculum necessary to achieve its professed or claimed academic objective for higher education, and the institution requires a level of academic achievement appropriate to that degree.
(6) The institution provides adequate student advisement services, academic planning and curriculum development activities, research supervision for students enrolled in Ph.D. programs, and clinical supervision for students enrolled in various health profession programs.
(7) If the institution offers credit for prior experiential learning it may do so only after an evaluation by qualified faculty and only in disciplines within the institution's curricular offerings that are appropriate to the degree to be pursued. The council shall develop specific standards regarding the criteria for awarding credit for prior experiential learning at the graduate level, including the maximum number of hours for which credit may be awarded.
(b) The approval process shall include a qualitative review and assessment of all of the following:
(1) Institutional purpose, mission, and objectives.
(2) Governance and administration.
(3) Curriculum.
(4) Instruction.
(5) Faculty, including their qualifications.
(6) Physical facilities.
(7) Administrative personnel.
(8) Procedures for keeping educational records.
(9) Tuition, fee, and refund schedules.
(10) Admissions standards.
(11) Financial aid policies and practices.
(12) Scholastic regulations and graduation requirements.
(13) Ethical principles and practices.
(14) Library and other learning resources.
(15) Student activities and services.
(16) Degrees offered. The standards and procedures utilized by the council shall foster the development of high quality, innovative educational programs and emerging new fields of study within postsecondary education. In addition, the standards and procedures utilized by the council shall not unreasonably hinder educational innovation and competition.


94901 QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS; ON-SITE REVIEWS; EVALUATION CRITERIA
(a) The council shall conduct a qualitative review and assessment of the institution. It also shall conduct a qualitative review and assessment of all programs offered except continuing education programs and programs that are exclusively avocational or recreational in nature. The review shall include the items listed in subdivision (b) of Section 94900, through a comprehensive on-site review process, performed by a qualified visiting committee impaneled by the council for that purpose.
An institution may include some or all of its separate operating sites under one application. Alternately, it may submit separate applications for any one site or combination of sites. The satellites or branches included in either an initial or renewal application shall be considered by the council to comprise a separate, single institution for purposes of regulation, approval, and compliance under this chapter.
The application shall include a single fee based on the number of branches, satellites, and programs included within a single application in order to cover the costs involved for those multisite and multiprogram reviews. If the application is for renewal of an existing approval, the institution need only submit information necessary to document any changes made since the time its previous application was filed with the council. Fees for renewal applications will be based on the actual costs involved in the administrative review process.
(b) The number of sites inspected by the council as part of its review process shall be subject to the following considerations:
(1) If the application for approval includes branches and satellites, the council shall inspect each branch and may inspect any satellite campus.
(2) If the application is for approval to operate a branch or a satellite, the council, in addition to inspecting the branch or satellite, also may inspect the institution operating the branch or satellite campus.
(c) The council may waive or modify the on-site inspection for institutions offering home study or correspondence courses. The visiting committee shall be impaneled by the council within 90 days of the date of the receipt of a completed application and shall be composed of educators, and other individuals with expertise in the areas listed in subdivision (b) of Section 94900, from degree-granting institutions legally operating within the state. Within 90 days of the receipt of the visiting committee's evaluation report and recommendations, or any reasonable extension of time not to exceed 90 days, the council shall take one of the following actions:
(1) If the institution is in compliance with this chapter and has not operated within three years before the filing of the application in violation of this chapter then in effect, the bureau may grant an approval to operate not to exceed five years.
(2) If the institution is in compliance with this chapter, but has operated within three years before the filing of the application in violation of this chapter then in effect, or if the council determines that an unconditional grant of approval to operate is not in the public interest, the council may grant a conditional approval to operate subject to whatever restrictions the council deems appropriate. The council shall notify the institution of the restrictions or conditions, the basis for the restrictions or conditions, and the right to request a hearing to contest them. Conditional approval shall not exceed two years.
(3) The council may deny the application. If the application is denied, the council may permit the institution to continue offering the program of instruction to students already enrolled or may order the institution to cease instruction and provide a refund of tuition and all other charges to students.
(d) When evaluating an institution whose purpose is to advance postsecondary education through innovative methods, the visiting committee shall comprise educators who are familiar with, and receptive to, evidence bearing on the educational quality and accomplishments of those methods.
(e) The standards and procedures utilized by the council shall not unreasonably hinder educational innovation and competition.
(f) Each institution or instructional program offering education for entry into a health care profession in which the provider has primary care responsibilities shall offer that education within a professional degree program which shall be subject to approval by the council pursuant to this section.
(g) (1) If an institution is not operating in California when it applies for approval to operate for itself or a branch or satellite campus, the institution
shall file with its application an operational plan establishing that the institution will satisfy the minimum standards set forth in subdivision (a)
of Section 94900.The operational plan also shall include a detailed description of the institution's program for implementing the operational plan, including proposed procedures, financial resources, and the qualifications of owners, directors, officers, and administrators employed at the time of the filing of the application. The council may request additional information to enable the council to determine whether the operational plan and its proposed implementation will satisfy these minimum standards.
(2) If the council determines that the operational plan satisfies the minimum standards described in subdivision (a) of Section 94900, that the institution demonstrates that it will implement the plan, and that no ground for denial of the application exists, the council shall grant a temporary approval to operate, subject to any restrictions the council reasonably deems necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, pending a qualitative review and assessment as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 94900. The council shall inspect, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 94901, the institution, or branch or satellite campus if approval is sought for that campus between 90 days and 180 days after operation has begun under the temporary approval to operate. Following receipt of the visiting committee's or the council staff's report, the council shall act as provided in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (c).
(h) If at any time the council determines that an institution has deviated from the standards for approval, the council, after identifying for the institution the areas in which it has deviated from the standards, and after giving the institution due notice and an opportunity to be heard, may place the institution on probation for a prescribed period of time, not to exceed 24 calendar months. During the period of probation, the institution shall be subject to special monitoring. The conditions for probation may include the required submission of periodic reports, as prescribed by the council, and special visits by authorized representatives of the council to determine progress toward total compliance. If, at the end of the probationary period, the institution has not taken steps to eliminate the cause or causes for its probation to the satisfaction of the council, the council may revoke the institution's approval to award degrees and provide notice to the institution to cease its operations.
(i) An institution may not advertise itself as an approved institution unless each degree program offered by the institution has been approved in accordance with the requirements of this section. The council shall review all operations of the institution, pertaining to California degrees, both within and outside of California. The council may conduct site visits outside of California, including the institution's foreign operations, when the council deems these visits to be necessary. The institution shall be responsible for the expenses of the visiting team members including the council's staff liaison. The council may authorize any institution approved to issue degrees under this section to issue certificates for the completion of courses of study that are within the institution's approved degree-granting programs.
(j) An institution shall not offer any educational program or degree title that was not offered by the institution at the time the institution applied for approval to operate, and shall not offer any educational program or degree title at a campus that had not offered the program or degree title at the time the institution applied for approval to operate that campus, unless the council first approves the offering of the program or degree title after determining that it satisfies the minimum standards established by this section.


NCA RA Standards

In addition to the General Institutional Requirements, an institution accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education demonstrates that it satisfies five Criteria for Accreditation.
To assist those involved in making judgments about affiliation, the Commission provides a list of typical areas of institutional activity or concern that form a “Pattern of Evidence” related directly to the satisfaction of each of the five criteria. These indicators illustrate characteristic varieties of evidence that an institution might present in building its case and that the Commission’s processes weigh in making a decision.
These indicators are not “checklists,” nor are they exhaustive; they are broad descriptions of the kind of concerns and issues the Commission considers when making a holistic decision on each criterion. Not every indicator will be critical for every institution; many institutions include additional indicators of their success in fulfilling the criteria.
The five Criteria for Accreditation are:
Criterion 1. The institution has clear and publicly stated purposes consistent with its mission and appropriate to an institution of higher education.
In determining appropriate patterns of evidence for this criterion, the Commission considers evidence such as:
 long- and short-range institutional and educational goals;
 processes, involving its constituencies, through which the institution evaluates its purposes;
 decision-making processes that are appropriate to its stated mission and purposes;
 understanding of the stated purposes by institutional constituencies;
 efforts to keep the public informed of its institutional and educational goals through documents such as the catalog and program brochures;
 support for freedom of inquiry for faculty and students;
 institutional commitment to excellence in both the teaching provided by faculty and the learning expected of students.
Criterion 2. The institution has effectively organized the human, financial, and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.
In determining appropriate patterns of evidence for this criterion, the Commission considers evidence such as:
 governance by a board consisting of informed people who understand their responsibilities, function in accordance with stated board policies, and have the resolve necessary to preserve the institution's integrity;
 effective administration through well-defined and understood organizational structures, policies, and procedures;
 qualified and experienced administrative personnel who oversee institutional activities and exercise appropriate responsibility for them;
 systems of governance that provide dependable information to the institution's constituencies and, as appropriate, involve them in the decision-making processes;
 faculty with educational credentials that testify to appropriate preparation for the courses they teach;
 a sufficient number of students enrolled to meet the institution's stated educational purposes;
 provision of services that afford all admitted students the opportunity to succeed;
 a physical plant that supports effective teaching and learning.
 conscientious efforts to provide students with a safe and healthy environment;
 academic resources and equipment (e.g., libraries, electronic services and products, learning resource centers, laboratories and studios, computers) adequate to support the institution's purposes;
 a pattern of financial expenditures that shows the commitment to provide both the environment and the human resources necessary for effective teaching and learning;
 management of financial resources to maximize the institution's capability to meet its purposes.
Criterion 3. The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.
In determining appropriate patterns of evidence for this criterion, the Commission considers evidence such as:
 educational programs appropriate to an institution of higher education:
 courses of study in the academic programs that are clearly defined, coherent, and intellectually rigorous;
 programs that include courses and/or activities whose purpose is to stimulate the examination and understanding of personal, social, and civic values;
 programs that require of the faculty and students (as appropriate to the level of the educational program) the use of scholarship and/or the participation in research as part of the programs;
 programs that require intellectual interaction between student and faculty and encourage it between student and student.
 assessment of appropriate student academic achievement in all its programs, documenting:
 proficiency in skills and competencies essential for all college-educated adults;
 completion of an identifiable and coherent undergraduate level general education component;
 mastery of the level of knowledge appropriate to the degree granted.
 control by the institution's faculty of evaluation of student learning and granting of academic credit.
 graduate programs that:
 distinguish clearly graduate from undergraduate offerings;
 expect students and faculty to value and engage in research, scholarship, and creative activity;
 restrict graduate academic credit for prior learning to credit validated by examination, credit based on documented faculty evaluation of a portfolio of original work products, or credit awarded by an institution of higher education either affiliated with a recognized U.S. accrediting association or approved by an appropriate national ministry of education;
 are approved, taught, and evaluated by a graduate faculty that possesses appropriate credentials and experience; and
 use results of regular internal and external peer review processes to ensure quality.
 transcripts that accurately reflect student learning and follow commonly accepted practices;
 effective teaching that characterizes its courses and academic programs;
 ongoing support for professional development for faculty, staff, and administrators;
 student services that effectively support the institution's purposes;
 staff and faculty service that contributes to the institution's effectiveness;
 if appropriate:
 evidence of support for the stated commitment to basic and applied research through provision of sufficient human, financial, and physical resources to produce effective research;
 evidence of support for the stated commitment to the fine and creative arts through provision of sufficient human, financial, and physical resources to produce creative endeavors and activities;
 evidence of effective delivery of educational and other services to its community;
 evidence of development and offering of effective courses and programs to meet the needs of its sponsoring organization and other special constituencies.
Criterion 4. The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness.
In determining appropriate patterns of evidence for this criterion, the Commission considers evidence such as:
 a current resource base--financial, physical, and human--that positions the institution for the future;
 decision-making processes with tested capability of responding effectively to anticipated and unanticipated challenges to the institution;
 structured assessment processes that are continuous, that involve a variety of institutional constituencies, and that provide meaningful and useful information to the planning processes as well as to students, faculty, and administration;
 plans as well as ongoing, effective planning processes necessary to the institution's continuance;
 clear identification of how the institution can strengthen its educational programs;
 resources organized and allocated to support its plans for strengthening both the institution and its programs.
Criterion 5. The institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships.
In determining appropriate patterns of evidence for this criterion, the Commission considers evidence such as:
 student, faculty, and staff handbooks that describe various institutional relationships with those constituencies, including appropriate grievance procedures;
 policies and practices for the resolution of internal disputes within the institution's constituency;
 policies and practices consistent with its mission related to equity of treatment, nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and other means of enhancing access to education and the building of a diverse educational community;
 institutional publications, statements, and advertising that describe accurately and fairly the institution, its operations, and its programs;
 relationships with other institutions of higher education conducted ethically and responsibly;
 appropriate support for resources shared with other institutions;
 policies and procedures regarding institutional relationships with and responsibility for intercollegiate athletics, student associations, and subsidiary or related business enterprises;
 oversight processes for monitoring contractual arrangements with government, industry, and other organizations.
While the Criteria are intentionally general, the judgments concerning them are founded on careful and detailed examination of the specifics of the institution. Their generality ensures that accreditation decisions focus on the particulars of each institution’s own purposes, rather than on trying to make institutions fit a preestablished mold. The widely different purposes and scopes of educational institutions demand that the criteria by which an institutional accrediting body makes its judgments be broad enough to encompass this diversity, and indeed support innovation, yet be clear enough to ensure acceptable quality.

 

I can't help but think that the state of California is doing a fairly good job. The standards are virtually identical.

Maybe RA is just a club???????

Regards, Wes

 

The standards are step 1. I hereby adopt the standards of NCA and CA for my new BillCo Accrediting Assn. Are you impressed? Step 2 is the oversight. Who does the oversight? How does the oversight of CA compare to the oversight of NCA? How many institutions per staff member are there in each system?

 

Nice idea, but no cigar.

I think if you look at the World Association's standards, they look good on paper as well. Same, as Neil pointed out, in the New Mexico standards.

The problem is, nobody's minding the store. Other than Columbia Pacific, there have been, to my knoweledge, *no* actions whatsoever against any California schools in years, and, if memory serves, California's consumer protection office, who now administers the standards, has point-blank said it has no staff whatsoever to oversee schools.

A quick look at schools like Westbrook University in New Mexico will show the same problems there... and a glance at Cambridge State should be plenty of evidence that the World Association's standards are equally laughable.

The difference is that the regionals actually do their job. Every year, there are a decent sized handful of schools that are either put on probation or lose their accreditation entirely. Not so for California.... or for New Mexico... or for the World Association... or, as far as I know, for the DETC either.

With no teeth, the standards are meaningless.

 

You missed the most important point, that is that RA has a mechanism to insure adherence to the standard. The "CA Approval Standards" is nothing but rules written on a piece of paper that isn't looked at (except by DWCox ).

 

Bill, the fact that PWU, FTU, and Newport University have some degree programs approved, and took the others across the ocean to Hawaii, proves that someone in CA government is looking at something. So I don't believe DW missed the point entirely.

Gary

 

Nor do I, Gary! Simply by having the middle initial of "W" makes him right on something.

Russell

 

DATA, DATA, DATA!! Show me the DATA of which you refer, Mr. Huffman.

Can anyone call the RA's and inquire as to compliants (type of of, and total number) filed regarding any of the accreditated institutions in any of the six regionals? I don't know the answer to this question but I think not and will pursue the answer.

Good day!

Wes

 

The mere fact that there are 3,000 or so CA-approved schools suggests that any one of them doesn't get much scrutiny by this small under-staffed and over-worked state office.

I have seen stories in the California press in the last few years about the tremendous backlog of complaints at the BPPVE. Stuff about modeling schools that make big claims but never place any graduates. About trade schools that go out of business and disappear with their students' prepaid tuition.

Degree granting universities are only a small part of the BPPVE mission, and one that they are probably unsuited to address. While the Education Code sections might represent great idealism on paper, imagining a separate (and redundant) California university accreditation system like that of New York regents, the fact that authority for putting the sections into practice was passed from the Department of Education to the Department of Consumer Affairs suggests what the real priorities are.

I think that these 'universities' have a very low priority in Sacramento. But they have enough clout and can yell loud enough if provoked that they are generally left alone, absent political pressure.

Frankly, few people in California know or care about them.

 

After researching the web sites of all six regional I determined 27 institutions with RA have published disciplinary action brought against them by their respective associations.

SACS – 19 institutions on “Warning” and 7 on “Probation”
(http://www.sacscoc.org/state_levelresults.asp)

WASC – 1 on “Probation”
(http://www.wascweb.org/senior/list.html)

NCA – 0 institutions with reported disciplinary action.
(http://www.ncacihe.org/ncacihe-bin/dirinst/namesearch)

Northwest – 0 institutions with reported disciplinary action.
(http://www.cocnasc.org/)

Middle States – 0 institutions with published disciplinary action. (http://www.msache.org/dircolum.html)

New England – 0 institutions with published disciplinary action.
(http://www.neasc.org/pssma.htm)

Regards, Wes

 

A few questions for Wes (or anyone else for that matter):

1. Collectively, how many institutions are presently represented by the 6 RA agencies?
2. How many institutions are presently represented by the BPPVE?
3. How many CA approved institutions presently have disciplinary actions against them by the BPPVE?

 

Bill, I believe those priorities, if they reflect what Departments of Consumer Affairs usually do, are good. That is, the prevention of fraudelent business transactions, and recommending enforcement action by the attorney general against fraudelent business activity. Unaccredited schools, vocational or academic, should not be held to the same standard as regionally accredited academics. States simply mimicking the RA standards are abdicating their state's rights and power to protect their resident's maximum freedom. Hawaii has the better idea with striving for disclosure and some presence in their state. People who agree that tax dollars are well spent on government employees working to keep private businessmen honest need to write their representatives with the admonition to "put my money where I want it" and be willing to pay some more in taxes if that what it takes.

Gary

 

Well how about a degree from other countries? How can we measure if their goverments are doing a good job enforcing their codes and laws? Do we have to take their word of authority? How about gaap?


Vini

 

It appears either SACS is extremely strict or is having to clean-up a few problems previously ignored?

The rest of the RA appear to provide little if any policing of their institutions. I can't imagine that SACS has 27 troubled institutions and only one other RA (WACS) has even one questionable school, which by the way is The University of Guam?????????

Anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

Regards, Wes

 

Why the question marks after the words "University of Guam"?

I know that WASC has a number of levels of concern before a school is formally and publicly put on probation. They can write up deficiencies in their periodic reviews. I suppose that some suggestions for improvement can be made in most every case. Then they have more than one level of warning. These are normally not recorded on their website until the ultimate state of formal probation is reached. What's more, formal probation is usually rapidly addressed and the status quickly removed. For example, Bethany College was on formal probation a couple of months ago but the red website "on probation" was only fleeting.

I expect the other regional accreditors operate in much the same way. SACS is probably just more open about what they record on their website.

 

Hi,

Witn an annually-renewed state license, unannounced BPPVE inspections and the power of law regarding consumer protection and closing down a non-compliant institute, one might (quite rightly ?) conclude that the California State structure has a lot more teeth.

Cheers,

Neil Hynd

 

Originally posted by Neil Hynd:


Witn an annually-renewed state license,

Which is apparently now an automatic process in which the institution essentially receives a bill and pays it...


unannounced BPPVE inspections

Apparently virtually unheard of within the past several years.


and the power of law regarding consumer protection and closing down a non-compliant institute

And if Columbia Pacific is any example of that, it is nearly impossible to get anything done. If memory serves, it took 3+ years for authorities to successfully close down the school... and, of course, all that happened was the school fled to another state.


one might (quite rightly ?) conclude that the California State structure has a lot more teeth.

In theory, I agree. As far as I know, the regionals have no authority to close schools, only to revoke accreditation... but it's also my understanding that revocation of RA is an almost certain death knell for formerly-accredited schools. I am not aware of any that have survived for more than a couple of years after loss of accreditation.

Now, if California just had enough money to actually monitor and inspect its schools... which, I suppose, could be accomplished by significantly increasing the licensure and inspection fees... but I doubt we'll see much action any time in the near future. It doesn't seem to be a priority.

 

If CA-approval is really the equivalent of regional accreditation, then one would expect to see that reflected in the academic results, right? Since doctorates are research degrees, and since the great majority of California doctorate granting institutions are in the CA-approved sector, shouldn't we expect to see a considerable research output from that direction?

Here's just a sampling of CA-approved doctorate granting schools that happen to be within easy commuting distance of my home.

1. Andrew U., Berkeley- D.Min., Th.D., Ph.D.

2. CA Institute for Clinical Social Work, Berkeley- Ph.D.

3. Center for Psychological Studies, Berkeley- Ph.D.

4. Northwestern Polytechnic U., Fremont- Ph.D.

5. U. Creation Spirituality, Oakland- D.Min.

6. Western Institute for Social Research, Berkeley- Ph.D.

7. Asia Pacific International U., S.F.- DBA

8. Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, S.F.- Ph.D.

9. Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California, S.F.- Psy.D.

10. San Francisco Law School, S.F.- J.D.

11. Northern California Graduate University, San Mateo- Ph.D., Psy.D.

12. Lincoln Law School, S.J.- J.D.

13. Saratoga U., S.J., J.D.

14. Oakland College of Law, Oakland- J.D.

15. Western Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, Ph.D.

Masters degree granting schools include: 1. Frederick Taylor U., Moraga, 2. Bay Cities Bible Institute, Berkeley, 3. Intercultural Institute of CA, S.F., 4. Institute of Buddhist Studies, Mountain View, 5. International Technological U., Santa Clara, 6. Silicon Valley U., Milpitas, 7. The Transworld U., Santa Clara, 8. U. of East-West Medicine, Sunnyvale.

I'll stop there. (I haven't even gotten to the art schools.) We already have 23 of them, as many schools as there are in the entire California State University system. 15 offer doctorates, compared to the nine UC campuses statewide. On paper, this is more academic firepower than most nations can muster.

OK, admittedly most of these things are small specialized institutes. But they certainly each approximate a conventional university department. So lets add them all up. Roll them all together and consider them as if they were one single university.

Do we see ANYTHING like a University of California campus here?

They aren't all hopeless. Combining SF Law and Lincoln might surpass RA but not-ABA JFK or New College, certainly in attorneys produced and perhaps in law articles published. The Institute of Buddhist studies is now a GTU affiliate. I saw some work by them in a recent scholarly anthology on Buddhism in America. The U. of Creation Spirituality has a similar British-style 'validation' arrangement with Naropa. (It's the Bay Area's new-age GST I guess.) If you add up all the psychology schools they certainly have some impact. The Western Institute of Social Research probably contributes some social-change type stuff. Though all those Silicon Valley engineering universities seem to me to be mysterious cyphers.

I don't want to suggest that the CA-approved schools are worthless. The state approval mechanism provides a valuable mechanism for creating small scholarly institutes and grooming the best of them for regional accreditation, or at least some other better recognized status. While I'm very skeptical of a few of them, most are definitely not degree-mills.

But the fact remains that hardly anyone here in the Bay Area has heard of any of them. (SF Law and Lincoln may be exceptions.) But many people may have lived a few blocks away from a university for years and never even known it. But they know all about the community college further down the road or the CSU fifteen miles away. These CA-approved schools have an amazingly low local profile, in professional circles as well as with the general public.

I don't know. Speaking as a Californian here, I don't want to bad-mouth my state approved schools. Some of them are fascinating and even rather attractive to somebody like me whose academic interests are not really vocational in nature.

But if CA-approval were really the equivalent of accreditation, wouldn't you expect to see more out of the state approved sector? They probably represent a majority of California's universities, after all.