Yep, they just fixed the date on the show cause page here: Institutions On Show Cause NOTE, they didn't put a date of correction so I am noting it, they had the false date on the page from February 27, 2017 to May 17, 2017. 11-Weeks.
You better believe they do. I also know certain DEAC schools monitor this forum because I was approached by a couple of them over the years. I won't name names though. :smile:
DEAC accreditation should remain relegated to non-collegiate activities. It was a mistake to allow DEAC to enter the accreditation market for university accreditation standards because the regional accreditators already existed and functioned quite well. There is no legitimate purpose for the establishment of "perceived dual DEAC standards" for colleges and universities that are unable to achieve regional accreditation. DEAC should be barred from collegiate accreditation and should be relegated to non-collegiate accreditation. Allowing DEAC to conduct collegiate accreditation establishes a self-serving, money making operation for the profiteers who own and operate DEAC.
There's nothing wrong with having an accreditor that specializes in distance learning institutions. The fact that so many large traditional schools use OPMs to run online programs shows how different it can be from what they're used to doing. And some of the best values in all U.S. higher education are low-cost DEAC-accredited schools.
On the other hand, RAs divvying up market on geographic lines feel like a cartel. I think this should either fall directly to the government (perhaps states, with agreed-upon common minimum standards), or let DEAC be. With occasional therapeutic lawsuit or two, as needed.
Word. I think Harrison Middleton and Ashworth justify DEAC's existence. So do the likes of WLC by the way, on the "cheapest credible MBA" front.
Apply your same standard to the faith based accreditors and we might be onto something. If you want ABHE, TRACS et al to give your school a pretty seal to show that they are theologically sound, fine. But I fail to see why a faith based accreditor should be in the institutional accreditation business. The main point where I disagree with you is that, at this stage of the game, you need some seriously deep pockets to even consider regional accreditation. Schools like University of the People would never have a shot. So unless we are going to reduce the administrative expense associated with regional accreditation I feel that we have to have lower cost alternatives. And that is to say nothing of the fully legitimate, and very often non-RA, schools that serve a select number of specific professions. Every school I've encountered offering a program in mortuary science, for example, has been NA. And licensing requirements are increasingly favoring a bachelor's degree (over the trusty AOS). So those schools, through no fault of their own, are being forced into the bachelor's degree market. RA would be cost prohibitive. Their accreditors need to either step up and offer collegiate level study or run the risk of leaving folks behind. We need a system that doesn't leave those folks behind. "Oh well, everyone should just be held to the same liberal arts requirements" just isn't going to fly.
Actually, not to be a picker of nits, but Cypress College is an RA college, and they offer a world renowned mortuary science program. Maybe that's the only of it's kind though.
Indeed... When I said "encountered" I meant in a professional sense rather than just ones I've found on the internet. I've seen a few. And I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying that most of them are, or are not, RA based on that experience. But there are a considerable number of NA mortuary schools and I haven't seen anyone kicking up a fuss that I should only trust a funeral director with a degree from an RA school.
"*Correction: The Commission met on January 27, 2017 to take this action, not January 29, 2016. William Loveland College Loveland, Colorado Click here to view the accreditation standards that are the subject of the Show Cause Order."
As you know, even 2-3 years ago I would have argued with you on some of this. HOWEVER! You are a profit and sage and I missed it. I will say that the markets have changed, and since now ED allows any accrediting agency to include in the scope of its charter DL, per 34 602.31.a.3 and 602.31.d, having a single agency that simply provides safe haven for for-profit schools that can't cut the RA muster does not make any sense. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg14.html
I get why one would take that view. After all, there is plenty of evidence against the DEAC right now to support it. But let's for a moment assume that not all of its member schools are in turmoil. It's a fair assumption. Then, can we safely assume that similar things aren't happening at regionally accredited schools? I think we know that would be a stretch as we're all aware of many egregious acts put on by RA schools. Those acts alone, no matter how far-reaching, don't automatically delegitimize regional accreditation or any specific regional accreditor. What I'm saying is this: the DEAC is a small fry in this game. We all know that. We all know they've had their issues, and despite what's happening now they have certainly taken steps over the years to correct many of them. What does that mean for this current matter? Not a damn thing, but it's about the larger picture of what they've been doing. Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, let's at least consider the relatively small size of their scope and at least give them credit for what's been working rather than strip it all away for the few known situations that aren't working. In fairness, that's what I would hope everyone wants their authority to do when considering what to do with their standing, otherwise it would be setting one helluva bad precedent for future programs. My fear however, is that because the DEAC is so small, this may make the decision to drop the hammer on them that much easier. It shouldn't happen that way, but that's a very real possible outcome.
I think DETC existed at the beginning because regional accrediting agencies were hard to approach for distance learning. For the last 20 years, more regional accredited agencies allow schools to offer more degrees online. When I started my Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in 2003, there was not many Bachelor of Science in Computer Science online. I would choose University of Florida instead of Troy University (Formerly, Troy State University). At the point, I think the Department of Education and CHEA should recognize DEAC (Formerly, DETC). It is just a duplication of regional accredited agencies, and sometimes mislead the students who have no knowledge about accreditation and transfer requirements.
