Why don't they protect terms like "university"

This question may have come up a couple of times, but why are there so few rules regulating the use of terms like "university," "U of Somewhere," "college" etc.

It would be easy. Not recognized, no standards, no U. Free enterprise is good, but there must be a point when common sense prevails.

Opinions?

 

What standards do we use? Who are we protecting the name "university" from?

 

For example, the same standards that we use to distinguish a diploma mill from a legitimate school. Doesn't need to be accredited, but course offerings and a faculty would be considered constitutive of a university.

 

I believe the term "university" is protected in most Canadian provinces. Except for New Brunswick, where there a few "provincially approved" schools, I don't think "university" can be used unless it is a real university accredited by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

 

OK - I was just wondering offhand whether we were protecting the name "university" from degree mills or whether we were protecting the name "university" from little four-year colleges who add a few master's programs and start calling themselves "university."

 

The other thing is that all schools must begin life unaccredited. Given that that is the case, how would you determine which unaccredited schools are good unaccredited schools that might be worthy and which unaccredited schools are outright degree mills?

 

The other problem is that if we are going to protect the name "university," we have to get the politicians to do it for us. And, as we all know, politicians have shit for brains and most cannot tell the difference between a legitimate accredited school and a degree mill.

 

Likewise, since the protection sought is from degree mills, we would also need to protect names like "college," "institute," "seminary," etc.

 

I understand that in the State of New York only Doctorate granting institutions can be named universities (e.g. Excelsior is a college, Columbia is a university).

 

Ah, excellent observation, thanks for pointing this out! Here is where my "common sense" aspect comes into play: "Your university teaches weird stuff and is endorsed by the Holy Church of Blangblang the Mighty? That's your thing, that's cool. And if someone wants a degree from your school, that's cool, too." But: "Your school doesn't have a faculty, course offerings, or anything besides a mailing address in Bangalore, India? Bye, your school is closed!" Common sense. Easy.

Very true. But nothing that's worth fighting for comes easy.

Well, yes. But that wouldn't be a problem once we have an established framework.

I guess the bottom line of my argument is that a small set of minimal standards would shave off 90% of the diploma mills. Of course, a DM could theoretically hire some instructors and offer a handful of courses but not fail people or adhere to academic standards. But this would already be infinitely more expensive and difficult than simply creating a website like many DMs do today.

 

As an possible example, there could be a requirement that all degree-granting institutions be accredited by a USDOE-recognized accreditation agency, or demonstrate progress towards receiving such accreditation. Seems simple enough in theory. in fact, some states have standards of this kind already.

But to get uniform national standards, every one of the 50 US state legislatures and governors (plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc) would have to approve similar laws. This would be very difficult in practice.