DETC and Accreditation of Doctoral Programs

Someone posted in a thread that there was word of DETC planning to accredit Doctor of Arts programs. I contacted DETC and here is their response:

This includes JD programs and the like. However, with regards to other doctoral programs, they wrote:

This information was provided by Rosalind Garris from the DETC. So, it doesn't seem like accreditation of doctoral programs is in the works for now.

 

The Committee's acceptance DETC accreditation of professional doctorates is also discussed in this thread: DETC gets relicensed + approval for doctorates.

There has been discussion here also about the idea that if DETC are to accredit other doctoral programs, then they need to first go ahead and do so and subsequently ask for approval (rather than get approval first). In other words, they need to actually demonstrate an effective accreditation process before they seek approval.

 

Is is a Matter of Reputation?

I've done a search on threads that mention DETC just to get an idea of how they are perceived by posters on this site. Clearly, the majority of posts suggest that they (DETC) are second or perhaps third tier accreditors. Why is this? I don't seem to find any indication of a bad reputation. After all, even some regional accrediting agencies have accredited schools that several people question. For example, I've read threads where posters decry lack of rigor in University of Phoenix programs. They are regionally accredited. Now, I'm not interested in starting a fight over Phoenix. I'm only using it as a reference point.

There is also another national accreditor, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Schools of Technology (ACCSCT), that accredit a number of schools that provide distance education. Yet, such accreditors are rarely discussed. Can posters "in the know" tell me what the concerns are with the DETC.

Thanks.

 

I don't claim to be “in the know” but I'll try to answer:

• Acceptance of degrees from DETC-accredited schools for graduate admissions is low. This has been established through surveys by J. Bear and R. Douglas (and perhaps others). Hopefully these studies will be reported in detail some day. Only a fraction of the thousands of regionally-accredited colleges and universities can be expected to accept degrees from DETC-accredited schools for graduate admissions. And there are only 26 DETC-accredited schools that offer graduate degrees, so the choice is very limited if you want to stay “in the family.”
  
• Acceptance of degrees from DETC-accredited schools for employment in industry may be higher, but this remains uncertain -- with only limited anecdotal evidence either way.
  
• DETC has accredited some schools (e.g. Azaliah University, ACCIS, Columbia Southern) that are widely considered to be a disgrace because of past associations and practices.

ACCSCT is rarely discussed because it has a focus on vocational training (for technicians, beauticians, masseurs, mechanics, paralegals, astrologers, secretaries, etc.).

 

Interesting. American Military University received approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, last November, to enroll students in a Doctor of Military Studies program.

http://www.schev.edu/SCHEVs/AgendaBooks/agenda-nov2001/agendabook-nov2001.html

American Military University has not (to my knowledge) announced when they will begin enrolling students in the Doctor of Military Studies program.

 

Thanks for posting.

Doctorates in the first professional degree category are somewhat limited. Ed.D.'s & D.Min's are professional doctorates but NOT first professional degrees and therefore could not be included (they are achieved after completion of Masters level study). First professional degrees include include J.D.'s, D.Pharm, & some others such as D.C., M.D. We know DETC will not be accrediting M.D. programs or D.C.'s any time soon. What other first professional degrees (with doctoral titles could they reasonably accredit).

North

 

IMHO Gert Potgieter has summed it up very well.

I don't claim to be an expert but I have an opinion and that is basically what a reputation is, opinion. DETC is second rate compared to RA because it is second rate. The DETC investigation into a candidate for accreditation is not as exhaustive, detailed or complete. The DETC track record is only a small fraction the RA history or the number of RA schools. DETC is called second rate simply because they are second rate. But as John Bear likes to point out at this point, second rate in this case is far ahead of whatever could be considered third rate.

 

North makes a good point about distinguishing between first professional degrees and advanced post-graduate degrees. However, I've read several documents where DETC was considering accrediting the doctorates offered by International Management Centres. These were in business (Ph.D. and D.B.A.), consisting of "coursework" and a thesis. (The "coursework" was actually what they call "action learning," projects conducted related to one's work, then written up, IIRC.)

Ultimately, DETC declined to include the doctoral programs in its accreditation, citing 12 or so criteria for their definition of "professional doctorate," and indicating that IMC's doctoral programs didn't meet a couple of them. But they did consider the matter.

A recent look at both IMC's and the Canadian School of Management's websites no longer shows doctoral programs. Could this be to appease DETC? (DETC has accredited other schools offering the doctorate.) Also, the IMC offered a validation of one's doctorate by Southern Cross University in Australia (for an additional fee, of course.), and didn't really need DETC's okay to continue offering the degrees.

 

This is interesting, Rich. Didn't DETC accredit UNISA? They certainly offer doctoral programs. Quite frankly, I think DETC gains more from their accreditation of UNISA than UNISA gains from DETC accreditation. It appears that schools with no other recognized accreditation, and thus "in need" of DETC's, are essentially required to drop their doctoral offerings in order to secure accreditation. Other schools are accredited in spite of their doctoral offerings. I think DETC perceives that it gets more credibility by being able to cite its accreditation of such schools.

 

I couldn't find any information on this action through the above link. Do you have any other information or did I simply miss it?

David L. Boyd

 

IMHO, it is reasonable to argue that either party gets the better of the deal. DETC gets more prestige by accrediting a world-known university. UNISA gets a better entree into the U.S. market. (Not that they've ever shown any inclination towards it!)

It is pretty clear to me that, despite the fact they're an institutional accreditor, DETC excludes the academic (non-first professional) doctorates from its accreditation. About UNISA, it says:

Certificate and diploma programs in many subjects, and Bachelors, Masters and First Professional Degrees in the Arts, Business (Economics and Management Sciences), Education, Law, Science, and Theology and Religious Studies.

About the University of Leicester's Centre for Labour Market Studies:

Master in Science degrees in Training, Training and Human Resource Management, and Training and Performance Management; and diploma programs in Training and Development and Human Resource Management.

UNISA and CLMS both offer the doctorate, yet those degrees are excluded from DETC's description of school offerings.

University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences offers a few doctorates, yet DETC's description of what USAH offers is:

Combination distance study and resident courses leading to clinical certificates and a post-professional Master of Health Science.

Looks to me like DETC is specifically excluding academic doctorates from its recognition, despite the fact that these three schools award them.

 

What really IS accreditation though?

Ok, Dr Gert, but what really is accreditation? I am NOT trying to defend non accredited institutions or pile the smelly stuff on to the accreditation process. Thank God we neither have the hassle nor the confusion out here as you poor guys do.

I am currently doing research into regulation/licensing of alternative therapies, as 'counselling ias not controlled by any licesing body here at the moment, and of course am looking closely at the US and inparticulart the Calofornian experience. In the course of this research I received the following from a high level very well respected psych, and he will remain nameless, as it was on this condition that he responded to me - so PLEASE, no one bother going down the track of doubting what I am relaying - you should all know the rules by now in these cases ...

He said the following ...

" ... To be honest, there are many, many fly-by-night unaccredited
institutitions in the U.S. that offer "doctorates" (the phrase "diploma factories" is one I
used to hear a lot). Likewise, there are many different accrediting bodies -- for example,
off the top of my head, there are the American Psychological Association (APA) and the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) -- so that the meaning of
"unaccredited" depends on which accrediting body you're referring to.

What does it mean when a doctoral program is "unaccredited"? The last time I checked,
the Stanford doctoral program in psychology -- widely considered to be one of the best in
the world, if not THE best, was not accredited by APA (in fact, I believe the department
didn't even apply for APA accreditation): Since the department decided not to offer a
clinical program, it doesn't offer certain classes required by APA for accreditation. End
of story. And I know (through rumors) of more than one truly-awful doctoral programs in
psychology accredited by WASC that achieved accreditation by removing poor-quality
doctoral dissertations from the library and hiding the more moronic members of the
faculty during WASC accreditation visits.

So I ask myself (in response to your question), "who am I to decide about the validity of a
PhD if APA and WASC use criteria that have the above results?"

Personally, I "recognize" colleagues whose work I know to be excellent, not those having
degrees from certain types of institutions; I make referrals to those on whom I'm willing
to stake my own reputation as a professional, and would never refer to someone --
regardless of credentials -- whose work I do not personally know to be of high calibre.
Some people with only XXXX credentials have -- through a combination of natural talent,
hard work and good luck -- managed to acquire a high level of clinical skills (I regularly
refer to one XXXX practitioner for certain types of cases); others, perhaps the majority,
have at best cobbled together pretty poor-quality training and do pretty poor-quality
work. But conversely, there are plenty of very-well-trained clinicians out there from the
best of accredited schools who are, when it comes down to it, pretty terrible therapists.

Bottom line for me: whether it's XXXX or something else, my evaluation of clinicians is
pretty much a one-on-one affair.

At least in northern California, where there are many therapists of many different ilks,
one makes one's reputation and living on the quality of one's work, period. In the final
analysis, training means relatively little except, perhaps, at the very beginning of one's
career when certain kinds of credentials can open certain doors.

There was a time, not very long ago, when a court case raised the possibility that the
privilege of confidentiality between client and therapist might be breached under certain
circumstances (beyond Tarasoff). Fortunately that court case was decided in favor of the
privilege. My association with XXXX is primarily a "fall-back" position in the event that it
(for any reason) becomes untenable to do the kind of work I know I must do to serve my
clients under my psychology license. I think it would be interesting to know *WHY*
people choose to practice under ministerial credentials -- I bet there is a very wide range
of reasons..."

Maybe someone would care to comment positively?

Peter French

 

David,

Sorry about that. I cut and pasted the wrong footnote. It was actually from the November 2000 meeting. It is on page 36 at:

www.schev.edu/html/public/agendabooks/agenda-
nov2000/p4details.pdf

"BE IT RESOLVED that the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia grants approval to American Military University to enroll students in the Doctor of Military Studies degree (CIP 29.9999), Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies (CIP 45.1099), and Bachelor of Arts degrees in International Relations (CIP 45.0901), and Interdisciplinary Studies (CIP 24.0102) programs for a two year period ending November 30, 2002, with the
stipulation that the institution receive a site visit within the two year period to verify compliance with the Council’s standards".

 

Re: What really IS accreditation though?

Well Peter,
Let me just start by saying that when people talk about unaccredited California Universities, they are NOT talking about WASC. For those from other countries who might not be familiar with the US RA system, WASC is the regional accreditor that is responsible for accrediting schools and colleges in California. Many consider WASC among the hashest of the RA's. If your institution is accredited by WASC you can be damned sure that it is legitimate. (All four colleges that I have attended were accredited by WASC.) Having been around during the accreditation process of one college and a couple of High Schools, I can tell you that accreditation is taken very seriously and done very carefully at any school that WASC will be visiting.

I can not, of course, deny your story about hidding the disertations and nuttier professors, mostly since I don't know which school you are refering to. However, that would be insufficient to gain accredidation. Schools spend up to two years in preperation of the visit from WASC, and the WASC people don't just look around campus for the afternoon, their examination is quite thorough and last many days.

As for the APA that is a diferent sort all together. One can get a fine education in Psychology at Stanford and I even believe at Harvard, and yet not be able to become a licensed psychologists. The APA approves programs that lead to Licensure, just as the American Bar Association, and the American Medical Association, approve programs that lead to the licensure of Lawyers and Physicians. All three of these associations and others approve programs within schools, they do not approve of the schools themselves, that is left to the RA's.

Just to sum up, NO institution accredited by WASC and the APA, or for that matter the ABA, or AMA, is a fly-by-night/diploma Mill/Scam. It takes years to achieve these accredidations and many don't make it. Harvard and Stanford don't want to make therapists, they want to create researchers/professors who will increase the prestige of their institutions.

Regards,
Jeff

 

Re: Re: What really IS accreditation though?

Jeff, I am adequately aware of the US accreditation system nad have been for yonks pre degreeinfo/aed ... but this statement is not alone [is one of several quite similar ones] in my responses which incidentally aren't designed to elicit any responses in this vein, and they aren't necessarily from California, but they are from senior therapists and psychologists...

...it is intersting to see the picture that is SO CLEAR to us as 'enlightened souls', through others eyes.

Petr French

 

The Stanford case is clear because the Psychology department has a focus on basic research and not on clinical practice. From the Psychology department website:

• ... the Department of Psychology does not offer training in the practice of clinical psychology. The only program at Stanford that is designed to train practitioners is the Counseling Psychology Ph.D. program in the School of Education. We do not offer a graduate degree in Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, or Parapsychology. The department no longer offers a joint J.D./Ph.D. program.

 

Re: What really IS accreditation though?

This is a good question. Is "accreditation" a QA process or an official statement of legitimacy? IMHO, both to some extent. Is "accreditation" a statement of widespread acceptance? IMHO, not necessarily.

Depending on one's goals, I think that the various types of accreditation may in some cases be necessary, but in other cases may be neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure utility of a degree. Examples discussed here suggest that if you want a U.S. undergraduate degree that will open the doors of a wide selection of U.S. graduate schools, then regional accreditation is important. If you want to practice clinical psychology, then APA accreditation may be desirable (though I'm out of my field here). Similarly, ALA accreditation may be necessary for a practicing librarian.

I think DETC provides some form of QA, though the depth is not clear to me (and degreeinfo.com members weren't generous enough to pay my way to the recent DETC Conference to find out). It may also provide necessary assurance of legitimacy for financial aid or for company reimbursement programs. (For example, the company for which I work will only consider reimbursement for progams at institutions accredited by organizations approved by the CHEA.)

In any case, I should leave this to the accreditation experts...