Change in how Aspen features its accreditation

I had occasion to look at the DETC-accredited Aspen University website, current and past. I found it interesting that they used to refer to DETC in large type, and did not mention CHEA.

Now they feature CHEA in large type, and DETC in very small type.

I would assume this is a marketing decision. (Wonder if Dr. Lady still looks in here.)

 

Any implications on such a move?

 

The DETC sign looks still like one of these "wonderful" web-site awards from the 90th.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think DETC and its institutions would be well-served by spending a few dollars on a graphic artist.

 

Actually they should just provide the link here
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

Because if you are applying for a Department of Defense job, your Aspen degree will qualify you for that government job just the same as any other accredited institution recognized by the US Dept of Education.

 

Funny, I thought the same thing when I was analyzing whether to go with one of the big three RA colleges since affordability is one of my primary constraints. Of the three, Excelsior seemed to have the most going for it, but I just couldn't bring myself to taking the plunge with an institution with such weak branding, a mill-ish sounding name, and cheesy looking diplomas to boot. In the final analysis, if one feels the name game and presentation has any relevance when it comes to perception and marketability, then there are some reputable DETC-accredited institutions doing a pretty decent job running with the big dogs...

 

WTF? First, what is meant by "weak branding." And "mill-ish sounding name"? It's the state motto, dude. And do you really say that how the diploma looks matters? Who is going to see it? (My three from Excelsior's predecessor look traditional. But my master's from National is very much not, and that hasn't been a problem.)

Naming these considerations as somehow preponderant in choosing a DETC-accredited school instead is, well, silly. And making such a recommendation on a public forum is irresponsible.

 

Looks OK to me.

 

The 90th what?

 

I saw that, too. I think what was meant was "the '90s," as in "[t]he DETC sign looks still like one of these 'wonderful' web-site awards from the '90s," but I could be wrong.

Getting back to what I suspect was the point of Dr. Bear's thread-starting post, this move by Aspen does not surprise me now that I've come to realize that the person known here as "DLady" (or a username something like that... I'll use "DLady" for this posting because I'm too lazy to go look it up) is now running it. I recall a thread here quite a while back wherein DLady, Rich, Deselms, and others got into a big honkin' debate about how regional accreditation is more acceptable (which, as I recall, was a finding in Rich's dissertation, and I think maybe Dr. Bear's research... I can't remember) than national accreditation. It actually got a little heated, as I recall.

DLady's position, if I understand it correctly, is one very similar to mine, and that's that as long as the accreditation is USDE- and/or CHEA-approved, then it's as good and valuable as any other kind of accreditation, and should not be thought of as in any way second rate.

This move by Aspen seems to be driving-home that point... leaning heavily on USDE's/CHEA's imprimatur. This, I suspect, if I had to bet, is the result of DLady's rude awakening, once he took over Aspen, that degree seekers shopping his school were questioning DETC's value/credibility. And that, if I recall, was Rich's and Deselms's real point: Not so much that DETC and/or any other national accreditation isn't inherently valuable and credible because, after all, it, too, is USDE- and CHEA-approved. But, rather, that "regional" accreditation, for better or worse, is more well-known and recognizable to the average degree-seeker, and so will generally be better thought of at least by those who don't really and truly understand accreditation... a notion which, in that old thread, was vexing DLady no end, as I recall.

If I'm right about what underlies Aspen's doing this on its site, one would think that it would write about it... explain it... and include a link to CHEA's HETA initiative.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

My real-world experience outside of this forum and the narrow-scope of the biases of those of similar ilk is that when exploring the cost/benefit analysis of which strategy would be most desirable, the mention of Excelsior would garner eye rolls and snickers on occasion. When the tired old RA v. NA issue was raised the consensus was/is that nobody outside of academia really gives a hoot so long as the institution is reputable and accredited. Granted, these discussions were had mostly with colleagues and peers in the corporate IT sector who are about far removed professionally and philosophically as one can get from the confines of academic circles.

 

Whether or not it should be, it is. That's the crux of this argument every time. While some of us have had some concerns over some of DETC's decisions, overall that's not the issue--no biggie. What we struggle with is the very strong reality that national accreditation is simply unacceptable in many employment and academic situations, and the attempt by some to trump that reality with their hopes and wishes for equality. This is called D-E-N-I-A-L. Besides, how can you fight the unfairness if you don't even acknowledge that it even exists? That's what cracks me up. Being angry about it while denying it exists utterly handcuffs those whose energies would be better spent trying to change things instead of decrying (while denying) them. Yeesh.

 

This is a response to Rich's posting, which I'm not quoting here so it won't take-up too many of my 10,000 alloted characters... but the reader can view it, easily enough, preceding this post.​

It's not denial, Rich. Please don't condescend.

However, in the spirit of "act as if ye had faith, and faith shall be given to you" (in other words, "fake it 'til you make it,"), I find that if one is convinced that a thing should be a certain way (and that conviction is based on proof that it actually is, rather than mere wishful thinking), then the best approach is to behave as if it is, and as if that's normal. Assume it, and push forward and through, as though you know something everyone else doesn't... because, in fact, in a way, you do.

This approach works with many other things in life, too... like that same sex marriage is a civil right... because, after all, it is. I could name others.

By so doing, those of another way of thinking who witness it will furrow their collective brow and either silently go along (which is good enough for me), or they will step-up and challenge the assumption, at which point I get to skillfully disabuse them of their wrong impressions.

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is using that very tactic this very minute with the dare proffered in its television ad campaign in support of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Sadly for the CRA, Princeton researchers then stepped up and took that dare by making public its findings that HFCS prompts considerably higher weight gain, among other problems. So, in the sense that the CRA's premise upon which its use of the tactic I promote is flawed, it is a bad example other than to illustrate one way it's done.

However, there is nothing flawed about the premise that other-than-regional accreditation is just as good. That's true, and you know it. Your only argument with any meat to it is the observable phenomenon that other-than-regional accreditation -- most specifically, national accreditation -- is routinely disrespected by some regionally-accredited institutions, and some employers. That's true, and I know it. If it weren't, then what would be the need for CHEA's HETA initiative?

And let's get something clear, here, so that you and I don't heat this debate over the wrong things: I agree with you that national accreditation is not well respected by many regionally-accredited schools, and many employers. I'm not now taking DLady's insensible position from that old thread. Further evidence of that is in my characterization as a "rude awakening" that which I wrote here DLady may now be experiencing as the new head of Aspen.

Our approaches to the debate, however, are very different; yours, I dare characterize as rising to the level of concession and resignation.

You, in the name of not -- heaven forbid -- being mistaken for someone in D-E-N-I-A-L, come to the debate table as an apologist, with hat in hand, acknowledging the reality of the situation to the point that it actually emboldens what your acknowledgement of the unfairness of it all would suggest you agree is the opponent. However, that very approach seems to betray your bias... what I suspect might be your actual preference for "regional" accreditation over most any other kind (except, perhaps, I'm guessing, well-recognized and respected programmatic accreditation); and that is likely why the millists, et al, have so long accused you of being "RA or no way."

I, on the other hand, come to the debate table as the FOX NEWS CHANNEL reports "news," or as conservatives state "fact," behaving from the outset as though it is a given that "national" accreditation is just as good as "regional" accreditation; then I wait for those who disagree to either tuck tail and go along, or step up and make their case... which I'm confident I can then refute.

That is how one fights the unfairness. It's not being angry about it while decrying while denying, as you purport. Rather, reshuffling your own colorful terms, it handcuffs the energies of those who are cracked-up by, and say "yeesh" and roll eyes about, the tactics of those who refuse to embolden the opposition by approaching the discussion as apologists from the git go. And like the characters in the CRA commercials, it forces those with an opposite view to put up or shut up. In this case, though, unlike the CRA, I have the truth of any USDE- or CHEA-approved accreditation being provably just as good as another; and the HETA initiative by the very agency (CHEA) which helps make "regional" accrediation credible, even to the opponent, at which to point as partial proof.

What you have, on the other hand, is your own not-so-thinly-veiled pro-regional-accreditation bias, and the growing-more-stale-by-the-year research of your doctoral dissertation... which, incidentally, was a fine work. Seriously. Well done.

But things change... and are changing. My approach to the debate calls attention to that fact in bold ways which force the hand of the opposition, the debate resulting from which might actually lead to ending the very unfairness which even you acknowledge. But where my approach challenges it from the outset, yours gives credence to the wrong-headed reality of the situation right up front. Sadly, it is based upon my observation that your approach is so often used -- and then defended by ridiculing those who don't also use it, as you've done here -- by those who secretly don't want the debate won that has raised from me the accusation of your own pro-regional bias... perhaps the to point of your hoping it'll never change so that you can always be right.

But let's assume, for a moment, that I'm wrong about that bias in you; and that you really do see it as unfair that national accreditation is so routinely dissed; and that you really do want to see that change.

At that point my criticism of you and your position comes down to the theological/philosophical difference between optimism and hope... my discussion, here, of which I believe helps to illustrate that you could not be more wrong in your chiding of the likes of me by condescendingly spelling-out "D-E-N-I-A-L," or in your cruel laughter (your being cracked up), and in your casual tossing-in of a disrespectful "yeesh" with accompanying rolled eyes for good measure, that I am engaged in any kind of decrying while denying.

Assuming for a moment that you do not have the bias of which I accuse you, and that your characterization of the problem as unfair is not disingenuous, then based upon your hat-in-hand apologist's approach to the debate, I would consider you to be an optimist regarding the needed change.

I, on the other hand, have hope, not optimism. Optimism differs theologically and philosophically from hope in its acknowledgement to the point of acceptance and resignation of what is, along the road to expressing a wish that it weren't so; whereas hope contains within it the foundational element of lament, first.

It is the time-honored tactic of the optimistic to dismiss the complaints of the hopeful as mere whining... a bit like what you've done here. But the "whinings" of the hopeful are nothing less than the utterance of their despair; an utterance which doesn't pretty up either the situation or the utterer; an utterance that lays bare our understanding of the problem, and is an expression of who we are and what we are experiencing, warts and all, as a result. That's lament; and nothing could be further from "D-E-N-I-A-L."

The value of lament is that it announces real hope, which is quite different from mere optimism. Optimism can't see the reality of despair but seeks, instead, to cover it up; to beautify it; to acknowledge, accept and be resigned to it, yet desire improvement anyway. Optimsim has become, in the words of theologian Douglas John Hall, "the official religion of North America." But hope recognizes the reality of despair; and doesn't treat the articulation of its cause as a mere whining of the deluded and ineffective. Lament's ironic and unlikely way of announcing hope's presence and promise in spite of the realities of the situation moves forward those who claim it to real change, instead of giving apologists an excuse to just assume that such change isn't possible as optimism empowers. Among the things which keep optimists from understanding the difference is the invisibility of hope's object, "for who hopes for what is seen." (Romans 8:24)

Assuming you do not have the bias of which I earlier accused you, then your optimism acknowledges (and I dare say resigns you to) a reality which, indeed exists; but it also keeps you from believing it can or will ever change... to the point that you chastise those like me who disagree.

My hope, on the other hand, moves me to a kind of presumptive proactivity which only seems like denial to an optimist who can't see my despair; and that proactivity forces the hand of the opponent to either acquiescence (which I'll take, any day, since it still gets me where I want to go, by hook or by crook), or confrontation (to which, armed with the inherent fact of national accreditation's being provably on par with regional accreditation, I am prepared to respond; and over which I am therefore equipped to prevail).

If we don't presume the relative equality of all forms of USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditation, then of what value is their imprimatur?

 

Sorry, but this makes no sense.

There are quite a few job listings that specifically state "regionally accredited degree" as a prerequisite for employment.

There are a majority of higher learning institutions in the US that will not recognize a non-RA degree in granting advanced standing or admission to a graduate program.

And there are professional associations (I believe APA is one) that require regionally accredited degrees to grant membership to professionals.

While one can certainly, if one wishes, act like a DETC degree is as good as an RA one, that approach won't be terribly helpful with an RA school, an employer, or a professional association that doesn't recognize or accept DETC degrees. In the words of Malcolm X, "You can put a shoe in an oven, but that doesn't make it a biscuit."

Furthermore, DETC itself, right on its FAQ, essentially defines itself as the "Alcoholics Anonymous of Accreditors" by saying that it takes on, as part of its job, the "rehabilitation" of formerly (or in some cases, currently) shady institutions. You don't hear the regionals making any such claim, and such justifications for their actions certainly don't help the DETC's credibility.

Blindly saying "I'm going to act like DETC degrees are equivalent to RA and then maybe someday they will be" is certainly a reasonable choice for someone with a DETC degree. However, advocating that view for people seeking degrees and (incorrectly) stating that DETC degrees are equivalent to RA degrees when real-world experience and data clearly shows that to not be the case is nothing short of irresponsible; for the uninformed, the decision to pursue a DETC degree could severely limit career options in some fields or locales.

That said, acceptance of DETC degrees does seem to be improving, so there may come a day when DETC and RA degrees really are equivalent. But for that to happen, DETC will likely need to make some changes, to acknowledge its past mistakes, and perhaps to clean up its current roster somewhat. And there's absolutely nothing to indicate that's happening.

If people really want to encourage greater acceptance of DETC degrees, then the way to do it is to put pressure on DETC to clean up its act.

For example, when was the last time you heard of an obviously unwonderful school such as Clayton College for Natural Health even being considered by an RA? That would be never, i think, because the RAs have better processes in place that eliminate the unwonderfuls before they even get to serious review. But DETC seems unwilling or unable to do this, in part because, as stated above, they seem to welcome (or at least, not actively discourage) shady schools to apply. Compare Clayton's application to DETC with Warren National's application to North Central; Clayton is being considered, while Warren National never even got a real foot in the door. And that sort of thing is one of the reasons why, rightfully, people have a perception of DETC as substandard.

Likewise, people who are concerned and want to effect change can also put pressure on DETC schools (and DETC itself) to encourage schools to hire more professors who are published, publishing, and doing active research. Here again, the absence (or relative absence) of that aspect of academia in the majority of DETC schools will, rightly or wrongly, affect the perceptions of many as to the relative quality of the schools.

So while I do believe that we can, over time, work to gain greater acceptance of DETC schools, the DETC itself must take steps to improve its credibility, and the schools it accredits must also do so. Simply (metaphorically) covering our ears and going "lalalalalala" when someone says DETC degrees are inferior, and acting like they are equivalent will not have the same effect, as much as someone might like for it to do so.

 

When there is evidence that degrees from DETC-accredited schools are treated universally as comparable to those from RA schools, I will enjoy seeing it. Until then, talking until the (virtual) air in the room is exhausted won't change that.

 

Did someone just find a way to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with the Corn Refiners Association and collegiate accreditation?

Bravo..

Tonight at six. Space aliens, Barack Obama and semi-drive trains.

 

Aspen Accreditation

One accreditation Aspen University has that is most impressive is from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). This notable mention is buried layers deep on their website instead of on the front page with DETC and CHEA. In nursing circles, CCNE or NLN accreditation is more valuable/recognized than RA or DETC accreditation.

http://www.aspen.edu/nursing/index.htm

BTW, my ban was lifted. My apologies and greetings to all!

 

I, for one, would not assert that these are substantially comparable accreditations. I do not even care whether the acceptance of reputable NA-accredited credentials are universal which, unfortunately, they are not. What I do care about is my reality and the utility that a DETC-accredited degree will provide me in the circles I choose to navigate professionally. I personally could not give a squat about acceptance, or lack thereof, in academia, as I have no desire to pursue a career or otherwise comingle in an academic environment. In my previous life I spent over 20 years nurturing and navigating a successful career in Hollywood, the pinnacle of pretentiousness and arrogance, so I have had my fill of this kind of stuff for one lifetime. Thanks, but no thanks...

 

True. I believe the whole website will be overhauled. Many changes are in the midst. Dr. Lady is the right man to lead to Aspen.

Abner

 

This is why I rarely join the NA RA debates anymore. There is a certain level of condenscending behavior, and terms like "Mickey Mouse" would usually be thrown out by someone who knows who he is. Enough already. NA has some limitations, but change is inevitable. What I do now is concentrate on change rather than engage in circular argument. I would rather spend my energies in things like the Texas victory. Do I need to? No, NA suits me just fine. I also have a couple of hundred RA credits as well as an AA from a B&M. It is up to the person and what he makes of his "piece of paper", RA or NA. Dr. Lady is living proof of this.

Abner