A Critical Look at GAAP

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by BillDayson, Mar 1, 2001.

Loading...
  1. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    There seem to be two different views of what GAAP is floating around this board:

    On one hand there are those of us that see GAAP as an imperfect *indicator* of possible academic legitimacy. But on the other hand, others seem (at least to me) to be using GAAP as a *definition* of academic legitimacy.

    I think that this is the reason that Rich Douglas saw an apparent contradiction in my saying both that I wouldn't consider enrolling in a non-GAAP Russian program *and* that a GAAP listing was an inadaquate indicator that a Russian school was truly legitimate.

    I would reply that a GAAP listing reduces, but certainly doesn't eliminate, the possibility that a particular school is substandard or even a degree mill. It's probably foolish to even consider a non-GAAP school. But the fact that a school in a country where academic standards are suspect does has a GAAP listing doesn't guarantee its academic soundness, but only provides a starting point for further investigation.

    The problem with defining academic legitimacy in terms of listings in things like the UNESCO Handbook is that this just pushes the question of how legitimacy is determined back a step. We no longer have to worry about it because we trust that the editors of the reference have made that determination for us.

    But what criteria do the editors of the UNESCO Handbook use to make their decisions on inclusion? Obviously the editors are not an accrediting association. They are not an educational quality assurance body like the British QAA, and they don't make international site visits to investigate universities in detail.

    What the UNESCO Handbook seems to do is defer to national educational authorities. If a university is approved by the government of its home country, it gets a listing. There may be a few exceptions to that, like Berne University in St. Kitts and Nevis, but that seems to be the practice.

    OK, what happens if we are presented with a new program coming out of Turkmenistan, say? The editors check with the Turkmenistan government, and get a glowing report about how wonderful the new school is. But do we believe it? Does anyone have a clue about what kind of educational standards Turkmenistan has?

    So details are requested. And the Turkmenistan ministry of education sends a description of strict accreditation standards. Cool, except how do we know that they are ever enforced in practice? Or how do we know that they can't be subverted with a well placed bribe or two? Or that a deal can't be struck with a handshake from a powerful official?

    Even if you restrict it to the United States or Australia, you get grey areas like some of the recent DETC approvals or weird universities on Norfolk Island.

    But those problems are compounded many-fold when you move into countries where standards are less credible. If Mr. Walsh could find a loophole in Australian educational law, what could somebody find in some place like Russia?

    This is going to be a growing problem. It will reach critical proportions in less than ten years. There are hundreds of slick operators out there looking for a fast buck. They can set up their operation anywhere that has internet access. So just as we have seen a migration of American degree mills from state to state, looking for the most negligent state approval process, we will be seeing an international migration to those countries with weak or easily subverted standards.

    The problem is that while here in the United States the Hawaii and South Dakota approved schools still lack regional accreditation and are relatively harmless, those *nations* with weak approval processes will have full GAAP listings.

    That's why a more robust international accreditation process that doesn't simply accept local approvals is going to become increasingly necessary.
     
  2. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    An excellent post. I too have many of the same concerns, which is why I decided awhile back to limit my search of doctoral programs to US regionally accredited schools only (I'm 99% sold on Capella University, BTW).

    I had considered UNISA and some UK & Australian research doctorates, and while I believe those schools are above reproach, as they say in the law, "even the appearance of impropriety"....

    Bruce
     
  3. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    I echo Bruce's sentiment... there are some serious problems with GAAP, particularly in places like St. Kitts and Nevis, potentially with Norfolk Island, and, as Bill has pointed out, the payola problem in other places.

    Sheila, prior to MIGS, was already working this angle, looking for a country where she could end-run around accreditation. How long will it take the sleazebags like Earlscroft and Capitol to do the same thing?

    One GOOD thing on the horizon is the forthcoming research that John Bear and Rich Douglas are doing in which they are actually polling registrars and employers on which degrees, accreditation, and countries will be acceptable. And it may ultimately be that consensus of these groups forms standards that are an improvement on GAAP... for example, if everybody knows that approval in St. Kitts is a joke, and it can be documented that a tiny percentage of US registrars will accept St. Kitts degrees, then maybe the GAAP standards evolve to "Listed in one of the following references unless located in one of the following countries"

    IMHO, ALL accreditation standards are imperfect and imprecise, but GAAP and RA do at least provide a theoretical assurance of *some* level of quality that's better than no recognition at all.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The registrars have already been surveyed (by John). The employers have not. Regardless of anyone's concerns about the efficacy of the GAAP concept, it is clearly the standard in use by registrars, whether or not they call it that.

    Rich Douglas
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I agree with Rich. While there are concerns in regard to GAAP, this is the system which seems to prevail among registrars.

    While considering the Potchefstroom University Ph.D. program, I enquired as to its recognition and acceptance in the US.
    Alan Contreras, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, stated that the PU degree was recognized in Oregon. Robert Watkins, registrar at the University of Texas-Austin, stated that a PU degree would be recognized at UT-A as the equivalent of a regionally accredited degree. Dale Gough, of the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers, stated that Potchefstroom would be recognized institutionally as equal to a regionally accredited school.

    The criteria used to make these decisions parallel the GAAP concept (although, as Rich has stated, it may not be called GAAP), all of which Potch met, e.g.,:

    1. Recognized by the Ministry (Department, etc.) of Education of the country in which the school is located. Potch is a 131 year old established residential South African university.

    2. Listed in the Association of Commonwealth
    Universities Yearbook (Potch is an ACU member).

    3. Listed in the International Handbook of Universities.

    4. Listed in the International Higher Education Encyclopedia.

    5. Listed in the World List of Universities.

    So, while there are concerns relative to some more recent schools, or questionable situations (St. Kitts, Norfolk Island, etc.), the more of the criteria which are met, the more likely the credibility of the school.

    Russell
     
  6. hworth

    hworth Member

    The issue of Registrars accepting GAAP credentials seems a side issue. If the Registrar is evaluating a transcript, it is because a student has applied for graduate school admission or transfer admission. The Registrar's Office does not make the acceptance decisions. Those are made by the department or admission office based on a variety of factors. In the case of graduate admissions, the Registrar's Office is merely evaluating that the prospective student has the minimum qualifications. Obviously this minimum is set very low at most institutions, but at most graduate institutions not everyone who means the minimum requirements are admitted. So the fact that the Registrars 'accept' GAAP tells us nothing about the acceptance rates for applicants with GAAP qualifications because the Registrar's Office does not make admissions decisions. Analogy: Harvard's Registrar will tell you that they will 'accept' a degree from 'RA small midwestern unknown college'. And, Harvard Medical School will tell you that they have never accepted a student from that school.

    The more important factors seems to be in licensure and hiring (especially within academia and the professions). If GAAP credentials are accepted there, then you have something.

    Hworth
     
  7. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    I think I agree with just about everything everyone has written here. Acceptance of degrees is an extremely imprecise and even erratic process -- in both directions: rules that suggest acceptance of a certain degree but reality that suggests it is never done -- and rules that suggest non-acceptance but reality that suggests it IS being done (hence the "Bending the Rules" chapter in my book.

    I certainly hope to learn (and share) more at the national registrar's convention in Seattle (assume Seattle is still there) next month, when Rich Douglas and I will be presenting the data so far collected.

    I'm still wrestling with the notion of how to deal with all this in the next edition of my book. It now seems clear to me that if I stay with GAAP as a means of separating schools into sections, it will need tweaking. For instance, it is now clear to me that for schools in the Caribbean (or with an address in the Caribbean), recognition by the University of the West Indies is a more important factor than listings on any UNESCO or other list.

    John Bear
     
  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yes, acceptance is an erratic and imprecise concept--anecdotally. But one of the benefits of large numbers is that trends emerge. Someone trying to get into an RA MBA program with a DETC degree (or perhaps an AACSB-accredited MBA with a non-AACSB accredited bachelor's) may struggle, get rejected, or sweep right on in. Individual experiences will vary. But again, trends emerge.

    The trend I see from the data is that, all things considered, holders of degrees from DETC-accredited schools will be less likely to get accepted to RA schools. Whether those decisions are made by the registrar, department, or cafeteria, this is hard to argue with.

    John cautions people about pursuing unaccredited degrees with something like "be very sure the degree will meet you present and future needs...." and that his experience has been that this doesn't apply to a lot of folks. Good advice. But then we hear from people who have put these degrees to good use. Which is true? They both are. Generally speaking, getting a degree from an unaccredited school is a limiting thing, but it might be the perfect solution to your particular situation.

    Century claims to have graduated more than 10,000 people. If they're a bunch of suckers, where's the hue and cry? If Pepsi sold that many six-packs of soda, each with one can "flat," it would be all over the news. And you can bet Coke would step right up with an ad campaign emphasizing their "all fizz all the time, double your money back guarantee." But we don't hear from all of those Century graduates because their doing just fine. We might not like it, but then we didn't pay the tuition.

    If the reality out there suggests a modification to GAAP, some caveats perhaps, then great. After all, the first initial stands for "Generally."

    According to the data, there are GAAP categories that enjoy widespread acceptance (with a bit of dropoff for national accreditation like DETC), then almost no acceptance of non-GAAP recognition. Is is much more a dichotomy than a continuum.

    Rich Douglas, Ph.D. (Candidate)
    Centro de Estudios Universitarios
    Monterrey, NL, Mexico
     
  9. Gerstl

    Gerstl New Member

    Well just to through a monkey wrench in here--are you sure these are the criteria they used. I'd be interester in you giving them this [somewhat transparent] hypo:

    "I'm getting a PhD from a school in south africa. They are authorized to give PhDs by the govt but have never given one. The actual work and dissertation is done under the auspices of an American school, unaccredited, and affiliated with the SA school. The SA school will award the degree when the US school tells them I've finished".


    Now this, on the surface, fulfills GAAP. I'd be willing to bet (some small amount--maybe a 6 pack) that the people you surveyed would be much less willing to make an immediate favorable pronouncement in this situation.

    -dave
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    But if the school wasn't a school, but, rather, a division of the SA university? And it wasn't "affiliated," but, rather, an integral part of the university? And if the SA university reviewed all learning contracts before their approval, and reviewed all work done prior to award of the degree? And if officials from the SA university held leadership roles in the subordinate division? And if the subordinate division was tasked with developing and implementing unique programs the SA university had not?

    And wouldn't it be reasonable for a school given authorization to award doctorates to actually do so? Or should they award them for awhile before receiving approval? Perhaps the school could make the first dozen or two revocable just in case things don't work out. Please. Would you feel better if it was called "Universidad del Touro Internacional Sud"?

    Touro College doesn't offer the Ph.D., has GAAP-level recognition, and has taken in a school on the other coast that offers non-residential Ph.D.'s. There seems to be some oversight by the home campus, but it's pretty clear the west coast operation is pretty autonomous. The west coast operation doesn't have its own accreditation; it has been included in the home school's. Oh, and the west coast program is a "university," yet part of a parent "college." A neat trick, all in all.

    Rich Douglas, Ph.D. (Candidate)
    Centro de Estudios Universitarios
    Monterrey, NL, Mexico
     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    That's probably true, in general. After all, 'GAAP' started out as a description of American university registrars' normal practice when confronted with unusual degrees or credits, didn't it?

    But that wasn't the issue that I was addressing. It could conceivably be the case that every American university was required by law to always use GAAP criteria, but it might simultaneously be the case that those criteria are inadaquate to reliably distinguish sound universities from "less than wonderful" schools.

    I'm not questioning that some variant of GAAP criteria is widely used. I'm questioning the reliability of the GAAP criterion, regardless of who is using it.

    Which is only as reliable as that particular education ministry. That probably varies from excellent to worthless, with many in between, subject to political interference, unprepared to oversee unusual distance education models, or simply underfunded and understaffed.

    That may or may not be a decent quality indicator depending on what it takes to get a listing. Does anyone know? Does the Association of Commonwealth Universities do their own university assessments, or do they defer to the local nations' ministries? If it's the latter, this just reduces to the previous criterion.

    And if the editors of this publication don't do their own assessments, and merely defer to the local ministries, then this too is just another name for the first criterion.

    Ditto.

    Ditto.

    My point is that a listing in a reference book does not *define* credibility. It is simply an imperfect indicator of credibility that is only as reliable as the criteria that the book's editors themselves used for inclusion.

    I don't think that it is ever the case that looking up something in a book makes it so.

    Perhaps in this case it comes close, in the sense that if university registrars all decide to use the same books in making their admissions decisions, then it becomes true by definition that a listing in those books leads to widespread acceptance. I'm not arguing with that.

    But if a listing in the book is only loosely linked to academic quality, at least in some cases in some countries, then you are going to have a wide open invitation for fraud and abuse.

    My prediction is that we are going to see a number of new on-line universities in the next few years claiming GAAP status under foreign "accreditation of convenience".
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Dave:

    I can't speak for hypotheticals (although it sounds like MIGS), however, in reference to Potchefstroom, they are 131 years old and one of the universities which make up the South African university system. Potch has been awarding Ph.D.'s residentially for quite some time, e.g., PU has faculties of theology, pharmacy, arts, education, etc.

    The program which I am involved in is via one of their thirteen accredited schools, Greenwich School of Theology (UK), which is also accredited by the Open and Distance Learning Quality Council (UK), but awards no degrees of its own. All work is completed via GST, however, promoters (basically one's doctoral committee) from both GST and Potch must examine and give approval. The degree is then awarded by Potch.

    Russell
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bill:

    I agree with you at this point. Listing alone does not guarantee academic quality, however, like any system of accountability and quality control, one must begin somewhere.

    If, indeed, GAAP is the system used by most registrars (and I'm not 100% sure that it is, I really don't know), then this would seem to be the logical place to begin the research as to a particular school's credibility. But don't stop there! Check with alumni, alumni serving in positions in the discipline one is interested in. Check with schools one might anticipate enrolling in and ask whether the degree would be accepted. Look at the GAAP school's faculty, and where they obtained their credentials. Do the homework.

    I agree, listing alone may not guarantee quality, but I do think it is a reference point.

    I also agree with you in that many less-than-wonderful schools will probably try (as some already have) to gain recognition from a country which has little or no academic quality standards.

    It wouldn't suprise me to hear of "Skipper University" being given authorization to operate under the Gilligan's Island Act. One faculty person: The Professor!

    Russell
     
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I think Bill is right on here. He talks about what should be; I'm focused on what is. He says listing in the IHU shouldn't be enough; I say it often is.

    One thing that hasn't come up in this discussion is the increasing use of credential evaluation agencies. This is an unregulated field without commonly accepted standards. But the respondents to the survey put more weight on these than even the various GAAP criteria. I don't care how bad your school is, if you get one of these to say your degree is equivalent to an RA U.S. one, you're pretty good to go.

    Rich Douglas
     

Share This Page