Many American universities operate in other countries. Normally they have created a respected, marketable product that has ready acceptance at home and overseas. Is there one reason that some unaccredited American schools have moved to the above countries other than their lack of respect at home? I think that degrees from the schools that moved to the above jurisdictions may very well be useful to many individuals. The degrees may very well involve work at or close to what would be considered reasonable, but who cares? My one and only point is, if you can't get respect at home do you honestly expect to gain acceptance because of a foreign address. People who get upset with criticism of their degree from these schools had better realize that they are going to be getting upset a lot.
I do not pretend to know all the answers in terms of justifications. It may well be that some of these schools saw ways around accreditation issues back home. This is probably especially in the cases of Berne and Greenwich whose regional accrediting bodies may have been less friendly to DL. My guess is that with Berne the accreditation process was far less costly and they did build in a residency (like DL programs in other regional jurisdictions). I once talked to someone on the phone from Greenwich (when in Hawaii prior to NF Island) who really was quite depressed over the issue of in their case a completely DL school getting accredited in their RA jurisdiction. I was asking questions but felt more like I was in a therapy session. Dennis you are correct. DL itself brings up credibility issues in the minds of some in power, that is compounded when the school is foreign, and even more compounded when the school if from a relatively obscure foreign country. Hence, the discussion of these off shore medical schools and the fact that even if the doctor is licensed people tend to look at them with a jaundiced eye. Because of these issues graduates of schools like Berne may well have some credibility issues reagrdless of whether the school is sincere in its efforts, or that their curriculum and methodology is on par with RA schools (not saying it is but no one has pointed to anything factual that it is not). So, you are correct that the perception issue may well cause concern. In rare cases, the only thing that will matter are the persons perceived skills. I remember once telling someone that John Gray (Psych Today said someone called his theory Poop Psychology) was a grad of an unnaccredited school. The women became irate and informed me *who cares he is so insightful and innovative*. North
North In the case of John Gray, I would tend to term his field pop psychology rather than the less endearing term, poop psychology of Psych Today. John Gray is all about entertainment so he is probably one of the best educated in his field. American Military University is moving to West Virginia to gain regional accreditation. Perhaps the regional accreditors need to review their guidlines as they relate to distance education. Perhaps the DETC needs to expand to doctorates as most regional accreditors have never approved a distance only school. The expression that no DETC school has ever gone on to regional accreditation is as meaningless as saying no Lutheran has ever been pope. The reality is that distance education schools have been around, in the English model, for well over 100 years. American accreditors just haven't figured it out yet.
I think that the American universities that operate abroad most successsfully do so with American accreditation. Of course, if they are operating in a country with a robust local higher education QA system, it wouldn't matter much if they used local approvals. Except in that case they probably wouldn't be considered an American university at all, but rather a foreign university with American ownership. In those cases where the overseas higher education QA process is questionable, the motivation seems transparent. Schools that wouldn't qualify for American accreditation can get some kind of foreign approval, and then market themselves as being "RA-equivalent". I think that the growth of educational provision across national boundaries has gotten way out in front of the procedures used to determine academic equivalencies. In effect, you have wholesale acceptance of *all* schools that are approved by any nation-state, anywhere in the world. This seems to be based entirely on these states' legal autonomy, since even their champions admit they don't have a clue what kind of standards, if any, they enforce. So what had originally been the whole *purpose* of requiring accreditation drops quietly out of sight. We are no longer even concerned with the academic credibility or quality that accreditation is supposed to ensure. It will happen as long as foreign degrees are treated uncritically by evaluators who aren't sure how to go about assessing their credibility. A lot of work needs to be done in this area. The quote I posted on another thread from the International Association of University Presidents indicates that the problem is being recognized. If the IAUP actually carries out on their proposal to set up a global data-base of accreditation methods and standards for each country, with warnings about those forms of accreditation that lack credibility, graduates of schools operating out of convenience addresses in accreditation havens might find that they have a time-bomb in their resume.
In all honesty if the RA organizations did not HAVE to address distance learning at all then they absolutely would never accredit such a thing. However, the population is demanding such due to a whole long list of reasons; therefore they have been forced to do just that. If they had not, then more folks absolutely would be enrolling in good non-RA schools and foreign schools. (Not a doubt in my mind). This would eventually lead to non-RA schools being more widely accepted. And hence one of the main reasons that the RA organizations have actually been accrediting such distance programs now … out of competitive necessity and protection of their product (accreditation). Now: Why are the foreign schools so popular among distance learning students, such as ourselves? I can think of only two truly compelling reasons: Cost & more liberal residency requirements. The RA organizations are going to HAVE to react by accrediting schools at a lower cost, and by relaxing the residency requirements a bit. I’m not talking about watering down the degree, just changing its format a bit. Side note: I also don’t understand why it is so much more difficult for a school to gain RA status for a doctoral program than it is for an undergrad program. One would think that an undergrad program would require MANY more resources than the doctoral program would. (I’d hate to think that it’s just a way of “protecting” the market from too man doctorate holders.)
I have supported this argument all along. Many non-RA supporters (John has mentioned this as well) suggest that the institution is not necessarily important - it is the supervisor and external examiners that measure the quality/ credibility of someone's work. I am afraid I do not agree. Why do institutions 'jurisdiction-hop'? Greenwich searched for many years seeking partners and various jurisdictions. Why? Was it due to the lack of an RA body in Pacific? Yes, but were there other reasons? Probably. Why did the Global Virtual University seek to set up in Queensland when it hailed from New Zealand? I recollect the answer was something akin to, '...they are more progressive and sympathetic to a virtual university in Queensland than in New Zealand'. Is it easier to set up shop in Queensland? No bloody way - moreover I would suggest it is harder than in New Zealand. Then we come to the extremes of creating IBC's in countries like Dominica, Seychelles, Turks & Caicos Islands. This sort of act, unfortunately, scrapes the barrel when it comes to 'academic credibility' and clearly demonstrates a desperate attempt to feign some sort of feeble legitimacy. I am afraid that, in this day and age (and from what I have observed over the years), I have absolutely no respect for universities that shop around for the most convenient place to set up shop. Accreditation processes and peer review exist to protect everyone - play the game, or get out. Cheers, George
George, The problem arises when everyone doesn't play the same game. Certainly some RA organizations are far more conservative than others. Perhaps we need the government to take over the accreditation process which would put all the schools on the same "game board" so to speak. I'm all for playing the game ... so long as everyone is in the same rule book. - Ellis
Rich Quote: DETC schools are certainly not research universities and research universities are not going to hire doctorate-holders from DETC schools. And Phoenix, Walden, Fielding, etc. are research universities? Have researchers at the University of Phoenix found the cure for cancer yet? Is not the primary purpose of the Union Institute to make doctors and not to do research, while charging what the market will bear in the process? My point on no DETC school going on to regional accreditation was that if regional accreditors will not accredit distance only programs they are ineligible by their very nature, not necessarily by some lack of quality. A Lutheran will not become pope simply because he lacks a belief in Catholicism not because of some other failing.
Ellis - As for your side note, I'd argue that doctoral programs and undergrad programs each present their own issues. Undergrads need more student services and numbers of courses (40+ for a full BA/BS). Doctoral programs require different kinds of resources - such as specialized library resources and PhD holders on the faculty that are actively doing research work. One of my concerns with many of DL programs talked about in this NG is that institutions aren't employing and supporting the kind of faculty they should. Having an adjunct teach an MBA class one night a week, while working fulltime in industry, may work. Having an adjunct teach a doctoral course without doing significant research is unacceptable. A PhD is meant to be a research degree - it must be taught by active researchers. As for limiting the number of doctoral degree holders - that is exactly what socially responsible educational institutions do. High admissions standards and demanding course work / research do wonders at weeding out weak students. My concern - the DL crowd (especially the for-profits and tuition driven non-profit crowd) don't do much weeding. Regards - Andy
Andy, Excellent reply. Thank you. I don't mind weeding out unacceptable or "weak" students, that is fine. But, there are certainly some strong students that simply don't have access to the options currently available. I'm all for opening up options for those folks. Thanks again, Ellis
Last word - I promise. Are we sure that some regional accreditors aren't just private clubs that are looking to protect their turf. At this point I will cheapen my argument. Many private clubs did (and some still may) say that they welcomed certain religious and racial minorities into their membership. How many members did they have from these minorities? None. Did not the Union Institute receive it's accreditation while it was a distance education consortium of a number of traditional universities? In essence it was a part of the club before it started. Might we be arguing today of the merits of the Union Institute were it not for its initial accreditation? I believe that all schools should be accredited but there are issues outside the quality of education that are probably given too much consideration by the accreditors.
No. The individual, degree-granting institution was licensed by the state of Ohio before candidacy was granted by NCA in the mid-1970's. The consortium stayed intact for somewhile after that, but the candidacy was awarded to the degree-granting entity of UECU. When full accreditation was granted in 1985, the UECU was dead, leaving behind the stand-alone and soon-to-be-renamed Union Institute. You might indeed argue the merits of UIU, even today, even with accreditation. But I would point out that its faculty, most of which are full-time, are normally quite active in research, much of it sponsored by UIU.
