Facebook University

Well, no. QA is certainly a function of accreditation in the U.S. We need accreditation, to an extent, because it is what determines if a program will allow you to access federal and state financial aid. QA is certainly a component of that. However, do you think that ITT Tech is assured the same quality as Harvard? Why not? They are both accredited by recognized institutions. Yet, we have varying levels of quality assurance. The lowest hurdles are arguably the national accreditors. Yet, low as they might be, there are schools that could not overcome those hurdles to accreditation even if money were no object. And plenty of fine NA schools could not become RA unless they completely overhauled their entire systems.

Also, if the whole point of accreditation was QA then why does DEAC offer a separate non-accreditation QA review?

You do realize that schools require accreditor approval for additional degrees, right? I mean, if I open Neuhaus University in Virginia and am approved by the state and accredited by, say, DEAC. Yes, I have institutional accreditation. State approval is required before I can even consider DEAC accreditation. But if, years after operating, I decide to add a Master of Science in HR to my course offerings that change will require the approval of both the state and my accreditor. If I simply get state approval and then post it on my website I would be putting my DEAC accreditation in jeopardy which, by extension, would jeopardize my access to Title IV funds as well as veteran programs.

Such is not the case in the U.K. Private accreditors provide no such access and, as such, don't try to exercise that level of control over a university.

ASIC's government recognition is incredibly limited. ASIC accreditation does not imply degree authorization. They don't claim that it does. Nor does ASIC Accreditation provide access to funds. The scope of their government recognition is for immigration purposes only. So it would be like looking at a U.S. based school that has U.S. SoS recognition for a J-1 visa and saying it that such recognition is the same thing as institutional accreditation. Now, ASIC is free to branch off and do other things. They can accredit schools that have no immigration interest in the UK whatsoever. They can offer QA services to universities that have no ties to the UK in any way, shape or form. They can sell sandwiches at metro stations. But that doesn't change the fact that the scope of their accreditation is incredibly narrow as far as the UK is concerned.

No. I think that ASIC accreditation is a basic level of QA review, similar to DEAC's AQC, but almost certainly more focused on accounting and financial matters moreso than strictly adhering to curriculum review. ASIC is trying to ferret out visa mills and outright scams. Even the shadiest of schools on their list (like Warnborough) offer coursework. There is no one there who appears to be selling degrees in the style of Almeda.

No, I'm simply not of the opinion that everything in this incredibly grey area is either black or white. While you seem keen to label everything as either "scam" or "legitimate" it is a much hazier environment than that. It is possible for a school to be wholly legitimate but to have a curriculum of poor quality. It is likewise possible for an illegitimate venture to have exceptional curriculum (even if it is stolen and/or never used for instruction). The ASIC accreditation of a school like AIU tells me that they may very well expect me to do coursework or complete assignments. I don't think I can just pay them and get my diploma the next day like I can with Almeda. But it is entirely possible that you work hard for a diploma mill degree. So no, ASIC doesn't assure that it isn't a diploma mill. But people keep painting ASIC as if it is a scam itself. One is certainly entitled to their opinion. But I feel that opinion is born out of ignorance for ASIC's role. It's not unlike the people in the U.S. who think ACICS (the U.S. accreditor) is a scam because of ITT Tech. And yet, both have government recognition for their respective roles. But those roles are different. The desired outcomes are different. And they operate in drastically different higher ed environments.

 

Indeed. I also just want to point out that "easier" does not necessarily mean "worse" and "more difficult" does not necessarily equate to higher quality.

It's "easier" to get into Naval Intelligence than many police agencies at least initially. Enlisting is fairly simple. And, if your ASVAB score is high enough, you can get a contract for an intelligence rating "A" School. The physical component (basic/recruit training) comes after you're accepted and it's fairly difficult to wash out. But for the police, there are some pretty hefty physical testing requirements just to get in to the academy.

I don't think that anyone would argue that the Navy is "better" than a police agency. They both have their difficulties but they are a bit different.

So I don't intend for my comments about "lowest hurdles" to imply anything broadly about institutional quality.

 

That's actually a great analogy.

 

The American Graduate School of Business, AGSB, in Switzerland, is ASIC accredited and a member of the American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation, AAHEA.

USAT, the University of Science, Arts and Technology, Montserrat, is an AAHEA member, ASIC accredited and member of the Quality International Study Abroad Network, QISAN. It’s also listed as an affiliated institution by California University FCE.

Warnborough College, ASIC accredited and member of AAHEA. Paramount California University, PCU, was ASIC accredited, an AAHEA member and recognized by or affiliated to California University FCE.

PCU’s list of faculty included Fred DiUlus – director of AAHEA, academic consultant for ASIC and member of faculty, TransPacific University (ASIC accredited). Also listed was Yanni Zack, who together with Orien Tulp (USAT) is listed as faculty on archived versions of Victorville International University/Charisma University’s website. Paramount California University had an affiliation agreement with Warnborough.

Global Vision University is ASIC accredited, member of QISAN and AAHEA and recognized by California University FCE.

In ASIC’s International directory, South American Universty is listed as having candidacy accreditation. There’s no mention of any website but the Wilmington address leads to southamericanuniversity dot com. SAU ”continually strives to deliver high standards in online education to individuals around the globe.”
That is, word for word, what Pittsford, Ashley, Nicholson, Northeast Alabama, Nixon, Windham, Regent International Innova University etc also strived to deliver. There’s a lot more recycled Axact stuff on South American University’s website.

 

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that some shady operators are using ASIC to lend some legitimacy to their operations. But that doesn't mean that ASIC is, itself, shady. Schools have done the same thing with ACBSP and ABHE membership (not accreditation).

When someone asks if a U.S. based program is "accredited" they generally want to know if the program is accredited by an accreditor recognized by either the USDOE or CHEA. If your program isn't accredited by such an accreditor then it sits in a dismal pit with the other "unaccredited" schools. The utility of your degree is impacted with this lack of accreditation. A state approved degree may only have any meaningful utility in the state where it is approved, if even then.

In the UK? Not so. if your school has a Royal Charter or was established by act of parliament then that is all the legitimacy it requires. Want to "bring it back" to the US? Go for it. That's what determines whether WES gives it the sought after status of "recognized" or just writes it off like worthless paper. Third party accreditation, as we know it in the US, just doesn't enter the equation.

I think we can criticize some of the schools ASIC accredits and, by extension, criticize ASIC for accrediting them. But we can also criticize ACBSP for some of the more questionable unaccredited schools they accredit in Switzerland. That doesn't mean ACBSP isn't recognized for what it does or that they are a crooked outfit. It's true, though, that when I see an unaccredited school with ASIC accreditation it makes me go "hmmm." Then again, when I see a foreign school with a funny name and ACBSP accreditation my first question is "I wonder if it has institutional accreditation or the equivalent in their home country."

 

If there is some kind of Axact connection then I'd say it's not just shady, it's really quite dark.

 

If a purported accreditor/quality-assurance organization can't detect and weed-out "shady operators", then prima facie there's a problem with its process.

If the "shady operators" are endorsed unwittingly, then the accreditor would seem to be incompetent and its accreditation worthless.

If the "shady operators" are knowingly endorsed, then the accreditor would appear to be an accreditation mill and its accreditation worthless.

 

How is there a connection? There may be a connection among some of the schools. That shouldn't be shocking at all. If one sketchy school gets ASIC accreditation then why would it be a big shocker if the owner of that sketchy school gets his other sketchy schools accredited? That's more of an indicator that sketchy schools are taking advantage of public ignorance of what ASIC does than the idea that ASIC is in on the con.

 

In the U.S., a main function of accreditation is to determine what is and is not a recognized, degree-granting university. ASIC doesn't perform that function.

 

Well, their accreditation IS worthless outside of the very limited scope for which it is recognized by the UK government. I'm not sure why you seem to be having difficulty with that concept. PMI accreditation is fairly worthless as well. PMI has had each of their attempts at recognition by CHEA deferred. So, it's an accreditation by a private entity that doesn't even have the imprimatur of the "accreditor of accreditors." Aside from ensuring your program gets you recertification points toward a PMP (or other PMI certification) PMk accreditation is pretty functionally worthless. I've never seen an employer post a job looking for someone with a masters degree in project management from a PMI accredited school.

The same can be said for a number of programmatic accreditors. Does it matter if your liberal arts degree has programmatic accreditation? Probably not. Does a lack of it mean that an RA (but not programmatically accredited) liberal arts program is inferior? Probably not. So, again, more worthless accreditation.

Is ASIC good at what it does? Well, the UK must find some value in ASIC and the British Accreditation Council (BAC). Both serve a similar function. Both have governmental recognition for an incredibly narrow thing. Both accredit some odd little outfits. And both, in many ways, are completely worthless outside of their very limited practical function.

 

Nor does any private UK accreditor.

But again, DEAC has a non-accreditation QA program where they will submit your coursework to peer review. It isn't a substitute for accreditation. It's a verification of some baseline quality. But it, like ASIC accreditation, fall into the same camp in my opinion.

 

Yes, accreditation is a QA function. The distinction I'm making is that ASIC doesn't do the other, major function of accreditation: determining what is and is not a recognized university. But some shady operators (and some posters on this board) are trying to blur this important distinction. That's all. In the U.S., this distinction is vital. As John Bear cautioned in his books for decades, "Yes, but accredited by whom?"

When people in the U.S. ask "is it accredited?" they're wanting to know if the school is recognized. They have no idea what accreditors do in terms of QA. So when schools get ASIC to "accredit" them, then try to make hay with it around here and other places where "accreditation" means something else, that needs to be confronted. Because it's misleading. ASIC is academically meaningless, just like ISO 9001, PMI REP, or any number of other forms of recognizing an institution.

 

I'm expressing some doubts about this:

International Colleges Directory | ASIC

Five of the 'universities' on that list are purportedly located in California. Of those, only two appear in the BPPE's directory, and one of those two is currently subject to legal action by the BPPE intended to close it down for various alleged deficiencies. Yet somehow all of them are accredited. That raises some questions I think.

Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education

 

Don't know if we're talking about the same institution of course but one is in the BPPE list of denied schools, for the following reasons:

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/schools/denied_schools.shtml

Date of final denial, 02/02/15. I guess it's entirely possible though that things have improved since.

 

It sounds like we're making the same point. ASIC is academically meaningless. But that doesn't mean it is illegitimate or that there is some grand conspiracy afoot. If a school obtained any sort of ISO certification, that's great, but it means nothing in terms of whether the university is recognized as a legitimate university in its home country.

The problem is that many here want to paint ASIC as a "bad" entity. I don't believe it is. Nor do I think them to be "good." I think the organization, and the services they offer, are largely neutral. There are clearly legitimate institutions accredited by ASIC. And there are some shady institutions accredited by ASIC. And if ASIC purported to be an accreditor on par with a U.S. based accreditor, we'd have a problem. But what they do in the UK is extremely limited and they are frankly using the word "accredit" in a different way. The shady institutions are using that different usage of the word "accredit" to try to lend credibility to their activities. That isn't a misdeed on the part of ASIC. That's someone exploiting their services. Again, not terribly different from when a shady school claims ABHE "membership."

No, it doesn't for all of the reasons I have already explained and for the reasons that Rich has also covered. ASIC is not a fly-by-night accreditation mill. it doesn't tie to a private mailbox in a strip mall in Kansas. It's a private accreditor in the UK that is recognized by the UK government. The thing is that accreditation does not confirm or establish a school's recognition in the UK as it does in the US.

But you seem to be having a very difficult time seeing what ASIC is from a UK, rather than a US, perspective. An issue which is compounded by the fact that you've chosen a narrative and will not allow any fact or figure to sway it.

Have fun at the top of the mountain.

 

FWIW, I think there is a line in ASIC's wikipedia entry that summarizes it all rather neatly:

 

I was referring to this:

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/actions/soi_998592_second.pdf

Perhaps. But that example still doesn't appear in the BPPE's directory. One of the conditions for legal operation as a post-secondary educational institution in California is approval by the BPPE. One would think that legal operation in whatever jurisdiction a school is located would be a fundamental condition for its accreditation.

If an 'accreditor' judges that a particular 'university' meets its accreditation standards, but the BPPE judges that it isn't even suitable for California approval, then the accreditor's standards for acceptability would appear to be significantly lower than the BPPE's.

 

This is what ASIC looks at.

Information for Colleges | Areas of Operation | ASIC

Almeda is apparently a source of inspiration in other ways, though, at least to Global Vision University.

Online Masters Degree Global Vision Degree Programs University, California

https://web.archive.org/web/20150320112037/http://almedauniversity.org/graduate/mdegrees.html

 

That's great. It's one thing when a mill copies/pastes something from a legit school. It's another when an allegedly legit school copies/pastes from a mill.