APUS withdrawing DETC accredidation

A message sent out to students, faculty & staff:

 

http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/41979-american-public-university-system-resigned-its-detc-accreditation.html

 

I'm actually surprised that they stuck with it this long.

 

This is exactly why I never recommend people go for a DETC BS thinking they can roll into a RA or dual accreditied masters - you may have plans but the rules can change in a day.

 

I'm suprised anyone believes that DETC is a worthwhile accreditation IMO. I have yet to come across one that felt like a "legit" college/university.

 

I'm glad that most people aren't surprised, because they shouldn't be. It is worthwhile... perhaps not to you, but your opinion doesn't negate the experience of millions who do find it worthwhile be they employers, students, or the regulatory bodies of the Government.

The DETC has been around for a long time, so they've certainly done plenty of things right. Certainly more right than wrong, despite the common rhetoric wielded against them in these types of groups.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. The DETC accredits primarily distance learning programs and no distance learning program be it NA or RA feels the same as being inside a B&M, but it's not supposed to. And many DETC programs are using the same format and teaching materials as RA online programs are using. They also accredit a BYU DL program, and BYU is most certainly a "legit" university.

I realize that some people just want to take shots at the DETC (shots that for the most part have no validity and are just cranky railings), but a lot of this stuff is bizarre.

 

@Norcal and Randall...

There's nothing wrong with DETC even if it can be limiting. I had to transfer out of a DETC program to a RA program because Texas changed the language of their peace officer certification post secondary education policy to combat fraudulent degrees from being used for higher pay and master certification...unfortunately they overstated the case and named the six regional accrediting agencies which screwed me...but only briefly as I was able to transfer into a RA school without too much trouble.

DETC has a niche that they fill nicely and I do not find DETC schools to be of lower quality and only marginally lower in acceptance of a degree. It's all about risk vs. potential ROI.

 

Okay, here's one. For a long time no school ever made the successful jump from DETC accreditation to regional accreditation. A few schools started both simultaneously, each earning DETC accreditation in much shorter time. Now we have one of the first to make the leap successfully resigning their DETC accreditation. Their reason: it doesn't add value and pursuing other forms of programmatic accreditation will. Okay, but what does that say about the DETC? Here's my assessment: DETC is a second-rate institutional accreditor of DL schools, providing a home for some schools that can't become RA and a stepping stone to RA for very few others. But once the superior recognition of RA is achieved, DETC accreditation is superfluous.

I've maintained for years that DETC would serve the burgeoning field of DL much better if it became a programmatic accreditor of DL-delivered programs at RA schools if--and it's a BIG IF--they could create the value-added proposition. (Say, bringing unique and specialized expertise in the ways of DL to schools who struggle with packaging their programs for an online environment.) But, no.

 

I don't know how you are able find that DETC-accredited schools have "only marginally lower in acceptance of a degree." The only three sources of information on this that I know of (John Bear's survey of AACRAO members, my research with HR professionals, and DETC's own sad survey results of its grads) say otherwise. What's your source of information?

 

But it could also be argued that perhaps the guidelines of regional accreditors make it directly more difficult for DL-only programs with no student-accessible campus and therefore no suitable physical library (two things I've heard mentioned as being a big obstacle), whereas the DETC's guidelines might be more directly suited for that situation. After all, the great majority of RA programs offering DL were already regionally accredited and had a regular ground-based campus before they offered online DL programs.

The other thing is, the DETC doesn't accredit many programs by comparison to other popular accreditors, but they certainly get a lot of applicants making the attempt. So that shows they're selective, and much more selective than they're given credit for. Have they made mistakes? Sure, no argument there. But so have all accreditors, and some RA schools carrying accreditation right now are certainly making a mockery of the gold standard that regional accreditation is supposed to be, but the RA's are allowing it to continue. None of these institutions are perfect.

If a DL-only school's intent was to first become accredited, of course they're going to go to the accreditor that is more friendly towards DL-only programs. I can also understand a dual-accredited school dumping national accreditation on the basis of money (to save more, and to make more) in lieu of what having dual accreditation can do to help students...

Well, as you know, they do accredit BYU's I.S. DL program, and I think it would be great for the DETC to do more of that sort of thing, but I don't want to seem them turn their backs on institutional accreditation because there are some really good DETC schools that either can't afford to go RA (be it resources or money) or just don't have a format that would satisfy what RA's are requiring, but they are doing the one thing that matters most: teaching students. And that's the point that gets lost in all of this. There are schools across the accreditation landscape that are on top of their accreditation, but not doing the job of teaching students.

The DETC is getting better all the time, and their flexibility has expanded for some schools to have a weekly format with guided instruction (like RA online programs have) and a number of them have adopted this system in addition to independent study. Some schools even offer both options.

 

Except for TESC, COSC, Regents, WGU, JIU, Capella, Walden, Sarasota, Union, and a whole host of other free-standing schools offering DL-only programs yet got accredited. Some of these were accredited nearly 40 years ago.

Really? It's my observation that the DETC has flung open the doors to just about any DL school interested. The "Gang of Sick" is pretty big, including schools that claimed fake accreditation up until the day they received DETC recognition (including throughout their application periods), schools with horrible reputations, and schools offering degrees clearly outside DETC's scope. Their rogues' gallery is huge.

Please provide an example (or more?) of which DL schools should not have become regionally accredited, yet did, and why. That would be very interesting reading.

"More friendly" could also be termed "easier."

How is this measured? What improvements in their processes or their outcomes can anyone identify? And flexibility isn't an improvement. It might lead to improvements, of course. So again, what improvements and how are they observed and measured?

 

That's great for those schools, but even if you could list one-hundred it's a small number compared to the amount of non-DL only schools in existence that are regionally accredited. I never suggested it was impossible for DL-only programs to become regionally accredited--we know they exist--, just that it could be more difficult for reasons specific to regional accreditors. And I wonder how many DL-only schools applied to RA and got turned down versus the number that got through (a number which I doubt is very large)...

Yes, because aside from the small number of high schools and military schools it accredits, The DETC only has 47 (46 if you take into consideration the end of University of Atlanta's accreditation) degree-granting institutions.

Well, with regard to claiming fake accreditation (are you referring to the Barrington-turned-University Of Atlanta who is being stripped of accreditation?), yes that's a terrible situation, and I feel that any school doing that should at least remove it before they're even eligible. So yes, the DETC made a mistake there.

As for schools with horrible reputations, well, every accreditor has no shortage of those that's for sure. Many of the DETC schools benefit from having no reputation, lol. For example, when was the last time you heard complaint or praise about Lakewood College? *the crowd says, "Lakewood, who?"*

Yes, I'm sure it would be very interesting. But that's not exactly the direction I was taking my last posting. I said:

Some of these schools may have been perfectly sound when they became accredited, it may have been the case with their online programs as well, but things can change and the response from authorities is not always swift.

With that in mind, It's not my intent nor my desire to start naming schools that I feel shouldn't be accredited.

Perhaps, but "harder" could also mean "superfluous". Without matching up all guideliness between all accreditors, any conclusion could be true but it's still speculative from this position.

Hmmmm. Well, with that stance you already disagree with whatever I'd say on this, but I disagree with that stance. So we'll have to agree to disagree there.

But in terms of process improvements, the DETC does post them in public documents on their website from time to time. How the outcomes are measured is something you'd have to ask them, but I get the impression that you have a pretty strong lack of respect for them and wouldn't give their information much credence.

 

I can see your point here. But realistically, I don't see DETC dropping its powers of institutional accreditation. DETC is governed by its Accrediting Commission, and most Commission members are representatives of DETC-accredited schools. They rely on DETC for their institutional accreditation, so it's hard to see why they would vote to eliminate that arrangement.

Alternatively, DETC could offer two kinds of accreditation: institutional accreditation to non-RA schools, and programmatic accreditation for DL to RA schools. In fact, this option is already available. RA just schools don't seem to be very excited by it.

****

One possible growth area for DETC: maybe they could target respected specialty organizations that want to offer degrees, courses, or certifications in a particular niche field. For such organizations, the hassle and expense of RA might not be worth it, given the small number of credentials that they expect to issue.

In such cases, DETC might be an attractive alternative. A specialty organization might find that DETC accreditation could be obtained with relatively little hassle and expense. Their educational outreach programs might then become more attractive: students taking them would be eligible for Federal financial aid, and the credits might be transferable to other insitutions. DETC accreditation might lack the prestige of RA, but this might not matter to an organization that is already well known and respected in its particular niche.

Some examples of DETC-accredited programs that might fit this category: Catholic Distance University, Babel University (which offers courses exclusively in Japanese-English translation studies), or the Gemological Institute of America. Potentially, there could be lots of specialized technical societies, churches, or associations that could benefit by moving their unaccredited educational outreach programs to an inexpensive, yet recognized, form of accreditation.

 

Or the DETC is incredibly easy. DL schools that didn't get RA? Hmmm....let's see. Prometheus. International Graduate School. Open University of America. I'm sure there are many more I can't recall off-hand. And those are just the candidates. Who knows how many others never even got that far?

Which is 46 more times as many compared to 30 years ago. (Schools awarding the bachelor's degree.) But as I posted before, it has also accredited some really bad schools (Canadian School of Management, anyone?)

I was thinking of two others, not Barrington. There was a time when Barrington got tossed out of two other states over licensure, so that's a good one, too. And the whole Revans/IMC thingy was, well, weird.

"That's for sure"? As I asked before, name some and what makes them bad.

But the problem I cited wasn't DETC's responsiveness remove accreditation from schools gone bad, but instead to the really bad ones they accredited in the first place.

Respectfully, that's weak. You're the one who said those schools were out there. You should support it or rescind it.

Okay, but you're offering up a lot of speculation with no support. I've called you on several points and provided support.

It's not about "you." You don't exist because you have no identity here. It can't be about you. And it's not about me. I'm not saying a thing about myself in this thread.

Very convenient. Would you cite/quote a few that support your contention? What I think about DETC should be irrelevant, right?

Sorry, but it is just this kind of sloppy thinking that makes the DETC question even more difficult for readers to discern. If you want to contend something about DETC, fine. Support it. My negative opinions about DETC are derived from their long history of mediocrity, hypocrisy, and misinformation. I didn't start out feeling this way about the National Home Study Council (DETC's former name). It is an acquired distaste.

 

Another perspective is that the DETC is a one-man show, and has been for a very long time.

There's nothing stopping DETC from doing both, is there?

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed.

 

Since a number of academic programs at my university have specialized/secondary accreditation, in addition to our regional (SACS) accreditation, it was suggested that, perhaps, our e-Learning Division should consider DETC accreditation.

However, after an analysis was done, it was determined that there was really nothing substantive that DETC accreditation would give to us that we did not already possess with our SACS accreditation. If there was a value-added benefit to pursuing DETC accreditation, we would have sought it--we were just unable to find it.

 

Let's call it experience shall we? I am an alumni of a DETC school and transferred into an RA program. Second, I've been a hiring manager and on hiring committees for...let's see, 12 years now. Third, I've written educational acceptance criteria for our organization (trust me you've heard of us). Fourth, I've been plugged into Federal hiring standards (part of the job) for 11 years now.

Maybe that's not as cerebral as academic surveys and research but it does tend to be where the rubber meets the road. The question is then…is my experience representative of the whole? I don’t know but I don't think I would consider some of the sources you mentioned as being impartially representative of the whole if for no other reason than they call someone like an HR Reps attention to accreditation (a topic they likely do not fully understand) to a level of minutia not typically considered and ask them to make a choice on the matter. To me that does not reflect real life. As for graduate surveys...I'd probably pay more attention if they listed their major along with their survey answers. I've said it 100 times before, the major is more important than where you went to school or that schools given accreditation (legal accreditation).

 

I have nothing against DETC, we just couldn't find a return on investment. We have accepted credits from DETC, ACICS and AALE schools.