Requirement of RA Institutions to Accept NA Dropped

http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/03/2006033101n.htm

 

Why doesn't the U.S. govt. do what is done in other countries and set national standards that must be adhered to? It seems in the U.S. that there is all sorts of accreditation, acceptance and non acceptance.

A straightforward system would be a federal awards criteria and an agency to make sure that the standards are kept. It is very confusing to most outsiders that national accreditation by a federal body can be ranked lower than regional accreditation.

One system allows everybody to know where they are. Other countries manage this quite well. With the resources that the US has, it should manage it better than most.

It would cut out a lot of waste in resources. Employers would know that they are getting. It would lend some accountability to the accrediting process instead of having regional accreditors with total power or professional associations like the ABA.

I note in the UK that the Blair govt. has moved to widen the door for other legal practitioners to allow competition. Barristers and Solicitors have previously had the business to themselves. Legal Executives may be a new professional model. Currently limited, but on the way. The one route to law has been changed.

 

The unfortunate answer to that is called lobbyists and special interest groups.

 

it would be impossible to enforce this even if this became the law.

the source of the credit is only one important criteria when an applicant is reviewed, so the accepting university could disqualify the applicant for other reasons.

There are many issues when transferring from RA to RA.