Regional Accreditation Criticized in Congress

Citing a report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (http://www.goacta.org/pressreleasesframeset.htm), Congressman Thomas E. Petri, said that the dependence on accreditation for a college's federal student-aid eligibility puts "too much on a one-switch decision," and that political agendas have "strayed" the accreditation process from its original purpose.
Mr. Petri noted that he has introduced a bill, HR 5501, which would remove the need for colleges to be accredited in order to receive Federal student aid.

 

And substituted with what? Didn't they try about 12 or so years ago to identify offices in each state that would handle this? That went nowhere for the same reasons why regulating schools is such a disaster in some states: they don't care.

Accreditation is hardly perfect, nor should it be. And I often wonder about delegating the determination of eligibility for federal financial aid to private agencies. But unless the federal government is really going to get into the school evaluation business, I don't see another alternative. I mean, really. Would anyone actually give Wyoming that kind of authority? Mississippi? Even the recently reformed Louisiana, South Dakota, Montana, and Hawaii make you wonder. It's one thing to tolerate bad, unaccredited schools. It is another thing entirely to indirectly subsidize their operations through financial aid to students. Who's minding the store in this scenario?

I've downloaded the report, but it's pretty extensive (a 15.5 Mb .pdf file).

 

Monopoly Breakup???

Maybe this will break-up the dogmatic monopoly that the Regional Accreditors have on Education. Schools will have a choice, RA like, Pheonix or SA/SL, like BJU, KW. Perhaps this means that should I go back to KW for my Doctorate, I can get Federal Aid (imagine Tax Payer assistance).

(Future) Dr. RJT

 

Re: Monopoly Breakup???

To get federal aid you would first have to give up your 6 figure (as I recall) salary.

 

From the ACTA release:

These remarks seem totally self-contradictory to me.

How can deficiencies (real or imagined) in the accreditation system be eliminated by replacing the current academic quality assurance system with an "anything goes" arrangement?

I am completely unable to see how eliminating standards will improve standards.

One could make a "free-market" argument here, I suppose, but students are already free to choose which school they want to attend, and aren't required to randomly choose any accredited school. Research funding obviously is already very competitive.

But institutional eligibility for participation in student financial aid programs is essentially an entitlement. If the mills weren't legislatively excluded, they would probably have to be included. They would certainly make that argument in court, insisting that exclusion of some but not all legally licensed schools would be discriminatory.

 

Break-Down the RA Wall

Bill:

Perhaps if the states were to assume total control of insitutional approval this problem would be solved. Each state would oversee schools in their jurisdiction, CA does it, WY (dispite uninformed postings of the contrary) does it. This would elimate the need for monopolistic regional accrdreditation, tuition would go down, and affordable eduaction could reach the masses. I am a believer in captialistic freedom, if a school can not perform, then it withers.

Of course accreditation may exist, but schools would have a choice for Federal Goodies, State Liscenced or RA.

I do not have it with me, but the vibrant Dr. Dalton addresses in the CPU Catalog, and at one time, State Liscenced schools were eligable for Federal Student Aid.

 

None of this is terribly relevant, as the bill will almost certainly never become law. The National Writers Union and Author's Guild have been trying to get congress to pass legislation authorizing tax-deductions for the donation of creative work to nonprofit organizations for many years, and it has only recently--due to strong bipartisan co-sponsorship--become a viably strong bill. One congressman's unsupported idea to ditch the accrediting agencies that grant value to the alma maters of virtually every member of the House and Senate is unlikely to fare any better.


Cheers,

 

Re: Monopoly Breakup???

============================

Why not try BJU for a workout?

============================

 

Re: Re: Monopoly Breakup???

"Multiple 6 figure salary" (as I recall, but spelling errors may be missing)

 

What you call ”dogmatic monopoly” others call "implementation of standards."

I don’t see it as a monopoly because the regional accreditators are not doing it to make money. Unless you’re suggesting some sort of nefarious scheme by the six regional creditors to make money?

Would that lead to greater disparities in the imposed academic and financial standards?

Having six regional bodies ”come together” is very difficult. Having 50 regional bodies ”come together” would be even more difficult. I suppose that it could be done, sort of like issuing drivers’ licenses. Each state would have to reciprocate the standards of the other 50 states. Can you imagine some states refusing to reciprocate or recognize degrees from other states due to lower standards? < ouch >

May I ask a personal question? Do you possess any RA degrees?

 

The lack of competition at the RA level often results in a "civil service" attitude. The RA staff have no motivation to provide good service to members or applicants. For all practical purposes, they are accountable to no one.

Like the government, there are some good employees. But there is no incentive to work hard.

And there's plenty of good money at regional accrediting bodies. I've seen the salaries of two executive directors and they exceed the average salary of college/university presidents.

 

As things stand, there are already a number of recognized accreditors to choose from besides the six regional accreditors. If the regional accreditors are as repressive as some seem to think, or if their standards are as low, then there isn't really anything to prevent competing accreditors from appearing. If enough universities were dissatisfied to constitute a critical mass, they could start their own accrediting association and enforce higher standards or whatever else they wanted. Then they could apply for Department of Education recognition.

I could certainly understand that, even if I didn't agree with it. But what I can't understand is insisting that the existing accreditors don't enforce high enough standards, and then proposing a "solution" in which the government subsidize study at any and all schools, without any thought of standards at all.

All that would accomplish is making the schools with the weakest standards even more viable, and sending a steady flow of students in search of the easiest and quickest possible diplomas towards them.

 

Bill: "If enough unis were dissatisfied"--is that what gave rise to AALE? Just heard of it in conection with a post about a Patrick Henry College.

 

RA competition

Colleges will not want to go away from RA, because of the "greenbacks", that having such accreditation brings. However, that does not prevent Regional Accreditors from becoming big, fat and happy. If these RA Directors are making big dollars why and who is paying for it? My 5,000 full tuition at KW, only buys a semester's worth of classes at Phila. U., an RA school. I am not saying SL/SA is better, but doesn't it make sense that if SA/SL compete for the federal goodies, the competion would dirve costs down, and RA service levels up. I agree that state standards must be in place. Maybe the CA system should be emulated, where schools such as PWU, CPU, CCU must meet a level of criteria.

 

I downloaded and read the 55-page document. It is riddled with errors, unsubstantiated claims and conclusions, and recommendations that belie their "observations" and "findings."

They decry the rigid standards of accreditation, then blame the accreditors for being lax. ("Collegial" is the term they used."

They suggest that accreditors should not be regulated by government, but instead be controlled by market forces. They say the guard against simply buying accreditation is that standards are already at their lowest. I guess they haven't a clue about degree mills and less-than-wonderful schools.

Having schools hire their own accrediting agencies won't reduce the perceived chumminess between accreditors and member schools. I've been a part of two such arrangements in the private sector. In both cases, the "outside" auditor was clearly dependent upon the fees it charged to the organizations it audited. No conflict of interest there!

I'm no fan of accreditation, but I recognize it as both necessary and beneficial, unless the federal government gets involved to determine what is and is not a university.

A bunch of degree mills could have commissioned this "study" for all the benefits it offers.

There are so many other things wrong with both their "research" and their conclusions that it is laughable. I've only scratched the surface.

Please read it. Then chuck it. It smells of unsubstantiated propaganda offered by a group of people with an axe to grind about the regional accreditors, and who want to free up federal financial aid funds for unregulated schools (which they also decry, contradictedly).

 

Background

Bill:

I do have an RA Degree, I have an Associates of Arts Degree from Bucks County College.

I have earned 103 RA Credits.

I transferred my credits and completed my requirements for a BS Degree from Kennedy-Western University, a State Liscenced School. I will graduate officially in Febuary.

I am currently pursing a Masters Degree, pre-candidacy, from Pacific Western University, in CA; a CA Approved School. I am currently compiling an ACE portfolio for up to 5 credits. I should offically complete the MSc., 18 months from now (courses, and Thesis; MSc = 40 credit hours).

I would evententually like to earn an MBA; I am contemplating my options: KW Executive MBA, Jones University, Heriott.

Education is a never ending journey; for each effort I feel I have put forth considerable effort. Also, I do not feel that the courses I completed at Kennedy were any less demanding than at Phila. U, or Bucks. As the matter of fact, I worked my butt off doing the 110 paper. Bottom Line, I'd never want to go to a school that didn't require real coursework, and was not state liscenced or approved. Kennedy and PW meet both.

Regards,

RJT

 

Re: RA competition

It is false to assert that K-W can be cheap because they're not paying the RA organization. K-W is a degree mill. They put a minimum amount of resources in education that is why they can be cheaper. The big expense for a school is paying salaries. K-W keeps their salaries at a minimum.

This whole argument is seriously flawed. It is normal mill-speak nonsense.
1. The RA's are organizations made up of the schools themselves. You are being either misleading or are not aware of this simple fact.
2. The unaccredited schools are a very small minority of the total schools.
3. Students would still want to go to the best schools they could. That is because most of them realize that the better the reputation of their school the more utility their degree will have.

The simple fact is that schools will not abandon RA simply because it is the best option open to them.

 

Bill:

KW has about 50 pt. time faculty:

Kennedy-Western faculty have earned their degrees from universities such as BYU, Harvard, Stanford, and Texas A&M and affiliate themselves with organizations that focus on new technologies and theories, organizations like ASQ, American Society for Quality, Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers and American Marketing Association.

Degree Mill hardly. Reasonably priced? You bet.

 

The overhead costs of accreditation cannot impact the costs of an accredited school to any significant expense. Even $100,000 for each visit, every 5-10 years, with even more costs associated with maintaining the records necessary to sustain accreditation cannot possibly affect the bottom line.

The notion that tuition costs would rise simply because of the accreditation process is absurd.

Of course, they would rise as a result of the school doing the things necessary to become accredited. But that really drives at the heart of the issue, doesn't it? Schools like the one's RJT attended are not accreditable. For them to become so would certainly be expensive. It's called running a university.

(BTW, if RJT wants to claim some form of legitimacy because he holds an associate's degree from an accredited school, good on him. Because that's as far as his real education can progress, given the subsequent choices he's made. Claim a master's; have an associate's. That about does it.)

 

The same stupid claim that accreditation drives up costs "unfairly" is made by the religion school in Newburgh, Indiana--so if you pay extra you get a bumper sticker on your diploma giving (it? you? the school? the degree? the Evansville Girl Guides?) "accreditation" from a Brit university. Faugh and blather!

Now here's the stumper. Why on earth, if RJT has an associate's plus 103 RA sh's, did he or does he not transfer his lil dogies to TESC, Charter Oak, Excelsior, or any number of other RA--or NA--or Strine--or SA--options?

Once again, the more I read the less I know.