New Senate Education Chair is a friend to DL

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Anthony Pina, Jul 19, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    In today’s Chronicle of Higher Education, there is a feature article on the new Chair of the Senate Education Committee, Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyoming). Enzi is a friend to distance learning (his wife has a DL masters from U. of Wyoming) and is pushing legislation to get the insane 50% rule rescinded (universities that offer over 50% of courses via DL cannot participate in federal financial aid). He has also sponsored a bill that would require colleges and universities to accept units from all schools accredited those entities recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (which would, of course, include national, as well as regional accrediting bodies). Recognition by CHEA was not mentioned in the article.

    After having been dominated by New Englanders, such as Edward Kennedy, who clearly favor traditional educational institutions and systems, we may see some exciting things on the distance learning front coming out of the Senate (apparently Enzi and Kennedy have been working pretty well together).
     
  2. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Thanks for posting this news here.
     
  3. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    Those who wish to see the status of DETC rise from its current "accepted sometimes" status should really support this guy.
     
  4. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    This is a great idea...I'm going to have to look into this guys goals. Accredidation that is U.S. Dept of Ed and CHEA recognized should be viewed as a valid accreditation.
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Suppose that accreditor ABC requires that programs in a particular subject include an appropriate set of labs. But suppose that rival accreditor XYZ doesn't weight labs as heavily and doesn't insist on them for this kind of program. (Which might make it more DL-friendly.) If graduate programs are forced by law to accept undergraduate degrees accredited by XYZ, then does that mean that it's now illegal for them to require labs?
     
  6. Lauradglas

    Lauradglas New Member

    That's just plain silly. If I took Chem w/o a lab component, and school XYZ expected a lab component as part of their GE requirements I would have to take the lab. They may choose to put my other Chem units as electives. While the gov't can say they are required to accept the units, no one can force them to accept those units as equivalent to a given requirement. That's why schools have credit evaluators. Now, as to the rigorousness of a lab via DE vs B&M that's going to depend on individual schools anyway. I took a micro lab at a highly regarded B&M that I thought was a joke. I took a physics lab via DE at my local community college that kicked my butt. That experience is true to all schools.
     
  7. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    So if accreditor A and accreditor B are both recognized by the US Dept. of Education, despite what some believe are significant differences in their standards, the proposed legislation would continue to permit a university to insist upon the standards enforced by accreditor A, even if that insistence meant rejecting credits or degrees with B's accreditation? How would that be different than the present situation?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2005
  8. Lauradglas

    Lauradglas New Member

    Your argument is based on the erronious assumption that education via a NA school is somehow substandard to education via a RA school. Would you care to back that up?
     
  9. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    If a university insists upon a particular accreditation, then presumably it believes that the standards enforced by that accreditor are important.

    Prohibiting universities from differentiating among accreditors seems to imply either that all accreditation standards are in fact the same, or else that whatever differences that exist in accreditation standards are unimportant and must not be considered.

    If the federal government in its wisdom sees fit to preempt the academic community and define and enforce its own choice of academic standards, then the whole basis of the private-accreditation free-choice system seems to be shaken.

    What's the point of an accreditor deciding to define and enforce any standard above the absolute minimum that the US Dept. of Education decides to recognize, if universities are prohibited by law from recognizing or preferring such things?
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Aren't there some concerns about academic freedom and institutional independence?

    Should an ABA accredited law school be required to accept transfer credits from, say, Concord when the ABA itself won't accredit a D/L program?

    Even if the answer is "yes", there is nothing that would require a state board of bar examiners to accept a degree based on a significant number of D/L credits. Wouldn't this just frustrate one of the purposes of accreditation, at least in the professional degree area?
     
  11. jagmct1

    jagmct1 New Member

    If a university insists upon a particular accreditation, then presumably it believes that the standards enforced by that accreditor are important.

    Universities around the country have accepted regionally accredited schools transfer credits. So, what you're saying is that ALL regional accreditors hold the EXACT same standards. The DETC has proven time and time again that their standards "meet" and even "exceed" regional accreditation standards. Bottom line, legislators are realizing this and are now enforcing laws to protect students from NA schools from transfer credit discrimination.

    If the federal government in its wisdom sees fit to preempt the academic community and define and enforce its own choice of academic standards, then the whole basis of the private-accreditation free-choice system seems to be shaken.

    The "accreditation free-choice system" will not be "shaken." The same standards will still be in place. If there is discriminiation (which there is), the legislation will step in, which they SHOULD do.
     
  12. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Do the gurus at the ABA have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (or even a preponderance of the evidence) showing that a quality legal education is impossible to obtain via distance learning? I'm just curious to know why the ABA won't even give DL law schools a fair trial.
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    As an aside, I really wish people wouldn't water down important words like "discrimination" by this sort of casual misuse.

    -=Steve=-
     
  14. jagmct1

    jagmct1 New Member

    What else would you call it?

    I believe discrimination is an appropriate teminology for this issue. Using it in this context does not "water down" the word or it's meaning.
     
  15. Lauradglas

    Lauradglas New Member

    Hmmm... discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.
    Based on that definition, I think that's an relevent use of the word.
    I've read quite a few of these discussions and at this point I think that the government should step in. Students are CONSUMERS. Consumers have the right to protection. There has to be some kind of accepted standardization for degree programs in order to protect consumers.
    If RA is the standard so be it. If it's RA and NA so be it. If it's a host of other diploid letters so be it. But something has to be done to stop the madness and protect consumers.
     
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The ABA doesn't need that kind of proof. Here's why:

    Professional accreditation is qualitatively different than institutional education. Institutional education, meaning R/A and DETC, doesn't focus on the individual professional degree program to determine whether that program adequately prepares its students for practice.

    There are several California (and other states as well) R/A law schools that do not meet ABA standards. There is nothing wrong with the way these schools function as schools but in general, they do not prepare students as well for Bar exams or, if Bar exams have any validity at all, practice.

    There are a few exceptions. Well, one consistant exception anyway, LaVern, but LaVern will BE ABA accredited one of these days.
     
  17. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Okay, putting aside whether the ABA should have to prove that DL law schools cannot possibly provide a quality legal education or whether DL law schools should have to prove to the ABA that a quality legal education can be had via distance learning, and putting aside the question of whether that proof should meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence, I'm just wondering why the ABA does not accredit any DL law schools. Doesn't the ABA allow even for the theoretical possibility that there could actually exist DL law schools worthy of accreditation? Or do they actually allow for such a possibility, but just haven't yet found themselves such a specimen that meets their criteria?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2005
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I don't know the answers to these questions but much information, including standards for accreditation and policy position papers can be found at www.abanet.org under the section on legal education and admissions to the bar.

    Remember, please, that it is the various state boards of bar examiners who have the final word regarding educational requirements for admission to the Bar. A little research will soon show you that many, if not most, state boards have requirements that, in one way or another, are less stringent than ABA model rules. A few states impose stricter requirements. But NO state other than California will accept a D/L J.D. (See below.)

    Also keep in mind that the vast majority of law schools are R/A as well as being ABA accredited. ABA accreditation for these schools is unnecessary to allow their students to participate in federal financial aid. It is required almost entirely to satisfy bar examiners.

    Finally, you might keep in mind that the only state that permits correspondence school J.D.s with no law practice experience to take the Bar is California. (With 3-5 years of experience, about 22 states will allow D/L J.D.s to take their Bar exam)

    EVEN THE CALIFORNIA BAR DOES NOT ACCREDIT CORRESPONDENCE OR D/L SCHOOLS! And THEY have experience with these schools and their graduates.
     
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Hmmm... discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.
    Based on that definition, I think that's an relevent use of the word.


    The merit involved is the quality of the school one can determine from a school having national accreditation as opposed to regional accreditation.

    I've read quite a few of these discussions and at this point I think that the government should step in. Students are CONSUMERS. Consumers have the right to protection. There has to be some kind of accepted standardization for degree programs in order to protect consumers.
    If RA is the standard so be it. If it's RA and NA so be it. If it's a host of other diploid letters so be it. But something has to be done to stop the madness and protect consumers.


    Madness? What madness? It's not like the differences among various types of accreditation are difficult to learn and distinguish. Most people do just fine.

    If consumers (of education or any other product or service) are unwilling to expend a basic reasonable effort to educate themselves about their prospective purchases, don't ask the rest of us to have our freedom of choice curtailed to protect them from their laziness.

    -=Steve=-
     
  20. jagmct1

    jagmct1 New Member

    A nationally accredited school holds no less or more value than regional schools. That's why the federal law is being put into place.

    When talking about correspondence/DL degree programs the DETC has been a major player in this arena for quite some time. RA schools are being threatened by more affordable NA schools, so the last string they hang onto is regional is "better quality."
     

Share This Page