Westwood College closing down this month

I'm not sure this has been discussed but it appears Westwood College is closing up shop for good this month. Based off all info I came across they announced this a couple months ago and are letting current students finish out their term. They also have transfer agreements in place so students can peel off into a new school to complete their degree program. Westwood is a for-profit and I'm sure have overcharged and done things that are unethical. But it's nice they are being considerate of their students and not just shutting down all of a sudden like some schools have done recently thus screwing over current students.

 

I've noticed that a lot of proprietary NA schools or branches of schools have closed recently. I'm wondering if that has anything to do with the proliferation of DL programs from RA schools?

 

I'm not sure but I think it's that plus the DOE is cracking down on federal loans for schools. Like suspending future loans for infractions. Most of these types of for-profits need a consist flow of students to keep the doors open. Once that's interrupted everything starts breaking down.

 

Good points.

I also think it lends further credence to Rich Douglas's idea that the DEAC should shift their focus to programmatic accreditation.

 

Westwood College was typical of schools accredited by ACICS (and ACCSC). It was extremely expensive even though it's difficult to transfer credits from there and some government agencies may not recognize their degrees. At least most DEAC schools have reasonable tuition rates. Westwood's bachelor's programs cost around $70k!

 

$70k! That's ridiculous. I didn't spend anywhere near that for all three of my degrees. No wonder they had to shut down, not that that is the only reason.

 

Dame! Now where am I going to get my BS in Video Game Software Engineering?

 

I think programmatic accreditation for DEAC schools would be a step in the right direction.

Also, we are seeing more articulation agreements between DEAC and RA schools now which provides some interesting opportunities. I think the two things, together, could craft a very interesting landscape.

Imagine if the DEAC schools that secured CCNE accreditation for their RN to BSN programs also ensured that said degree could be used for admission to an RA MSN program, for example. All of the sudden, barriers start coming down and these degrees start having a bit more utility.

 

$70k to the people who can least afford it- for a marginal recognized degree, with limited transferability. Unfortunate people saddled with debt for the rest of their lives. Taxpayers are also out because these companies feasted on government loans.
Acics should be close for not properly regulating.

 

I disliked Westwood because of their marketing tactics where they would borderline harass you by email about enrolling. It was a common practice of theirs, and one I'd encountered myself; I'd chosen a different school, I told them this, and yet one of their EA's relentlessly sent me emails until I got bold and threatened an accreditor complaint.

All of that being said, I wouldn't accuse them of being unethical entirely just because of their for-profit status. There are plenty of for-profit schools that act ethically and plenty of not-for-profit schools that act unethically.

 

I think we should really reconsider how we steward Title IV funds overall.

First, I think that the federal government shouldn't provide financial aid. All this has done is cause schools to charge even more because they know they can count on the federal money coming in.

But why we would hand control of the purse strings to a bunch of private organizations is really beyond me. Even if the present scheme saves the government money it passes along a lot of unnecessary expense to the student.

ACICS has some issues. But we are now starting to see regional accreditors run into the same problems.

 

I don't think that's a problem at all. Quite the opposite, I think that's a very good thing.

That means that the RA/CCNE school can make the decision to accept the BSN from the NA/CCNE school for admission to their MSN program.

The RA has no real skin in the game. Whether a school accepts NA degrees for admission to grad programs (like Ashford does) or whether they summarily write off all non-RA accreditations is of very little consequence to the regional accreditors.

The programmatic accreditors, on the other hand, tend to take a very active role in how a school handles admissions, transfer credits and even faculty.

Try transferring non-AACSB business credits into an AACSB program. Some will transfer. Most credits won't, however. That isn't the school making up the rules. That's AACSB.

So let's say, hypothetically, that a DEAC school wiggled its way into AACSB accreditation. Faculty requirements are met. Course delivery methods are approved. Curriculum is up to par. I graduate with a BSBA and then apply to an AACSB MBA program. For our purposes, let's say it isn't a terribly competitive one.

While the regional accreditors don't care if that school just writes off the applicant for having an NA degree AACSB might not be too keen on some of its accreditees just having a blanket rule that prohibits the graduates of their other accreditees from attending. If they (AACSB) did allow that then it really diminishes the impact of AACCSB over all.

That isn't to say that it couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't impact competitive admissions. You might not get into Harvard Business even if your undergrad is AACSB accredited. But programmatic accreditors have, in many cases, the necessary influence to shift those policies.

That may not affect the entire university. Maybe it would only impact those specific programs. But it would be a step in a favorable direction toward reconciling our often confusing accreditation system.

 

Indeed. But aside from not suggesting that, I think such a policy statement would be a very bad idea, on principle.

Programmatic accreditors can have strict policies. That makes sense, if you think about it, because it is limited to specific programs. So, CCNE may have a strict policy but it's only going to impact nursing. AACSB is strict but only as it pertains to business.

Institutional accreditators should stick to verifying quality rather than dictating how an institution's internal mechanisms function to such a minute level, in my opinion. Otherwise we end up with cookie cutter institutions and innovation is going to be stifled.