Is there any information on a side by side comparision of the different accreditation agencies. I would be interesting, and I have never seen anything like it. Somthing, for example, in a table that shows the different accreditors down the Y axis, and the criteris on the X (or vise versa), then variables, like % of full time teachers, ratios, etc. I am not sure of the different criteria, so I would be interested. If anybody has the information, post a linK!!
I've never seen anything like you're requesting. If such a thing existed I would be concerned about it being misleading. There can be large difference between official criteria and how the criteria is enforced and interpretted. I'm afraid that a chart that you speak of would be very misleading because of that.
As excellent a suggestion as this may be, Bill, let us not forget that many bogus accreditors are in the habit of listing many legitimate schools (typically without their knowledge) among the dregs. Therefore, perhaps we should be more specific and state that one way to compare accreditors is by comparing the lists of schools that actually applied for and were granted accreditation.
People, please be realistic. Accreditation means holding on to written standards that creditors and Board of Education requires but most important of all - paying rather hefty fees to local or state Board of Education. Every year. You may be higher level then Berkley or Harvard, but if you do not pitch in 50, 100 or more K of $ per year, you will not get it. Do you try to tell me that OJ would be walking free if he had no money for a good attorney? No offence, but schools became like hospitals and churches – no money,, no honey. This is why you need to charge from 150 to 750$ an up for a credit point. This is not what teachers get! This is what it costs to function as accredited school these days.
I understand your point, but think there is more to accreditation than paying the bill. Each group has a set of standards, i.e. certain percentage of class taught by full time faculty, etc. I thought it would be intersting to see a comparision.
And if it was just about "paying the bill," Kennedy-Wester, St. Regis, and quite a few others would have ponied up the bucks a long time ago.
Gus makes a good point. So I'll restrict my idea to Dept. of Ed./CHEA recognized accreditors. I think that you can get a pretty good idea what accreditors like ACICS, DETC, ATS, TRACS, AALE, AACSB, NASAD, ABA, NASM, ABET etc. are all about by looking at the lists of schools that they accredit. It's a little harder with the regional accreditors, since they accredit so many schools that vary so much. Perhaps looking at the least prestigious of them might illustrate where their bottom-line lies. That's probably what is most telling about any accreditor: the least impressive school that meets their standards.
I don't think looking at the school would show what the standards are exactly. For example, the percentage of full time to par ttime faculty. Many criteria are probably not published, like the text book selections, etc. (I am not sure if that is a criteria, but if iit was, I would doubt you would find out about it from the school).
Fees for regional accreditation are quite reasonable - you can chech the WASC fees at http://www.wascweb.org/senior/search.htm I read a few months ago that one of the major cost drivers for universities are their library costs.
Actually, state boards of education are not the accreditors (the New York Board of Regents is the possible exception). The regional and national accreditors are actually private entities that are recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education and CHEA. However, your point about paying the fees is well-taken. Tony
