I lifted this topic from degreeboard. http://forums.degreeboard.com/showthread.php?t=8860 http://www.aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?fuseaction=show_view&doc_id=2905 I agree with the AACRAO folks on this one.
The GAO report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0622.pdf I have not yet read it but looks interesting.
Yup. The government is all wet on this one. I wonder who AACRAO means when they talk about for-credit schools? Certainly not RA ones. Perhaps NA schools, where we've seen an explosion in the number of schools offering degrees--and in degree levels and disciplines. If we could be confident that NA schools were held to comparable standards facing RA schools, no problem. Except..... This seems to step on an institution's prerogative to refuse transfer credit from qualifying schools. Well, what if the credits to be transferred come from courses that don't fit the schools' degree programs? Or if they're not taught at a sufficient academic level, or don't cover what the receiving institution does in its courses? Transfer of credit isn't as simple as verifying the accreditation of the other school.
So do I, overall. I do believe, however, that RA institutions should not be allowed to so cavalierly turn-up their noses at NA coursework and/or degrees, just generally. And I also believe that NA students should have the same access to federal funding as do RA students. But I'm not sure the kind of legislation that is proposed is the way to achieve that. AACRAO, I would say, has it right.
Re: Re: GAO issues report on credit transfer Why not? If I walk into MIT with RA transcripts and they ROFL as security escorts me out then that's just tough on me.
Re: Re: Re: GAO issues report on credit transfer Good, and hard-to-argue-with point, there, decimon. But would that really happen... at least for reasons of the coursework being substandardly accredited? I mean, MIT itself probably issues degrees which, if presented as requisite to other of its degrees, would undoubtely cause the same reaction. But, if so, it's because the coursework is inapppropriate as requisite to the applied-for degree... and that's as it should be. But if the coursework is appropriate, and is accredited by a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditor, then I think that while MIT should certainly continue to be able to reject it as accredited-but-still-insufficiently-rigorous-by-MIT-standards, I just think it shouldn't be quite as easy for MIT to do so -- to do so so cavalierly -- as it has been able to do in the past. Maybe what I'm suggesting is that it should be forced to show cause or something. Look... I haven't really thought this out all the way, so my arguments may not yet be sufficiently well-formed to counter what you're saying... which does have merit, by the way. I guess maybe I'm just saying that there should be a baseline assumption of acceptability; and that when the applied-to institution says it's not, then there should be some pretty darned good reasons why. The problem, of course, is that it's all so subjective; and the system, overall, will probably be hurt more than helped by trying to create new standards and rules for making the decisions... which is why, in part, in the end, I agree with AACRAO's take on it, just generally. As a peripheral-but-related issue, I will add that I sure hope (and I say it that way because I have not yet read any of the proposed legislation in question) that the proposed legislation draws the line at accreditors that are approved by USDE and/or CHEA. I mean, I hope said legislation defines "accredited" as that. To force institutions that are accredited by USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agencies to accept coursework and/or degrees that is/are accredited by agencies that are not would make the proposed legislation worse by an order of magnitude!
In most Acts of Parliament creating universities in Australia, there is generally a clause stating that the university is able to accept any candidate its wishes. So if they accept a candidate for a post graduate degree with an undergraduate degree from a degree mill, then so be it. Cheers, George
And to take this one step further, look at the relative sizes of the Australian and U.S. higher education systems. Australia's government sees fit to allow their (relatively) few schools to make their own decisions, but the U.S. Government thinks it can somehow apply a consistent standard across thousands of schools? Absurd. This kind of policy will lead to running things at the lowest common denominator. Or, it will drive some very selective schools away from participating in Title IV programs, the federal government's biggest hammer in this fight. Another possibility is that schools will reject transfer students from unacceptable schools entirely. Not admit them without accepting their credits--not admit them at all. Harvard: You mean we have to accept these credits from an ECPI associate's degree program? Fed: Yes. Harvard: Bye! And take that ECPI washing machine repairman with you. Yes, I know parts of ECPI are RA, but many are NA, and some are not accredited at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: GAO issues report on credit transfer There are some New York towns I've been told not to return to. But not in some years. I'd just like to add that I'm arguing against what would have been, and possible is (I'm 60 years ancient), to my benefit. Well, okay, against my better pith I'll add one more thing. Most of the undergraduate degrees earned by people in this forum will not get them into the higher rated graduate schools. Most of the Ph.D.s earned by people in this forum will not carry the status of Ph.D.s from the higher rated schools. Right, wrong or otherwise, that's just how it is. If any of us wanted more than that then we should have worked harder back in high school. That's just how it is.
It should be noted that the GAO report and the current version of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act would not force any institution to accept transfer credit. It simply says the schools can’t arbitrary deny credit based on accreditation. This is consistent with the official position of CHEA. The goal, which is even supported by Ted Kennedy, is to reduce the amount of debt students incur by eliminating the need to repeat courses.
What am I missing? Let's say Princeton is now denying credit to your students on the basis of accreditation. With the passage of this bill they will have to evaluate your school, and all others, on an individual basis? By school, by course or by what?
Princeton could establish any procedure it feels appropriate except denying the transfer credit solely based on the type of accreditation. AACRAO's objection is that it would be too labor intensive. But the fact is that DETC and other recognized accrediting bodies must go through the same process with the DOE as the regionals. So if they accept RA credits without question, why not NA credit? Neither the DOE or CHEA consider RA to be a superior level of accreditation. I've never even seen a regional accrediting body officially claim that their accreditation is superior. (If one has made such a claim, for my own information, I'd be interested in the cite.)
David Boyd, Could you address the effect the proposed legislation would have on professional as opposed to institutional accreditation? Could, for example, an ABA accredited law school be compelled to accept Taft University credits when admitting a former Taft student?
I don't think so. No school would be forced to accept transfer credit. The ABA school could simply say that they don't believe that distance education is an appropriate modality for law study.
It seems to me that it would have that effect. As things stand, a university is permitted to trust particular accreditors to ensure that desired standards are met. If legislation is passed that prohibits universities from relying on the accreditors, then universities would have the choice of either (1) admitting students who might not meet their standards, (2) having to directly document deficiencies of those individual schools that lack the trusted accreditation, or (3) giving up eligibility for whatever federal programs are linked to the new legislation. Why is basing admissions and credit transfer policies on accreditation arbitrary? That seems to be a very questionable premise that was just snuck in there without any argument at all. I don't want to take cheap shots at Sen. Kennedy, but it's not surprising. This is basically legislation to nationalize the accreditation process. It would take educational standard setting out of the hands of the academic community and put it into the hands of faceless politicized Washington educrats. While the various accreditors might continue to exist on paper, the only standards that universities would be allowed to recognize in practice without risk of serious financial penalty would be whatever standard the US Dept. of Education accepts from its least credible recognized accreditor.
I think that most of your points are well taken. But I do think that it’s arbitrary to assume that all courses at regionally accredited schools are of good quality (and therefore should be accepted) and similar courses at other accredited institutions are not. As a general rule I lean toward a libertarian view. But since the regionals have set themselves up as a cartel and taxpayers' dollars are involved, sometimes government action is appropriate.
