Change in how Aspen features its accreditation

I think years ago, organizations like CCNE or NLN never would have considered DETC accredited schools for accreditation. Even RA schools like Brigham Young University have programs that are DETC accredited. I thought I would never say this, but DETC accreditation is moving up on the "recognition meter"!

 

Wow. I thought that I wrote long and wordy posts, but damn, you've got me totally beat. You need to edit your epistles and trim out the stream-of-consciousness stuff.

Can you provide us with any persuasive reasons why we should believe that?

Here's a couple of reasons why perhaps we shouldn't --

1. Weaker top ends. Accreditors are only as strong as the schools that they accredit. DETC and ACICS don't include any research-prominent institutions. They don't include any schools that I know of with serious scholarly or academic reputations in any subject. (The NYRegents, another non-RA accreditor, most definitely does.)

2. Weaker low ends. Pretty much all of the DETC and ACICS schools are small proprietorships with very limited means. These are just easier accreditations for small schools to get. The low end of the DETC spectrum in particular includes some former degree-mills that we are supposed to believe have subsequently become credible, for no other reason than their accreditation. That in turn places a heavy burden on the accreditation, which becomes problematic if that accreditation is questioned.

And some state licensing boards. Acceptance is another valuable data point. The opinions of the academic and professional communities carry a great deal of weight in my estimation.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about in the paragraphs that follow that, or what possible relevance your theological ideas have to this thread.

But I'm guessing that you are trying to contrast Rich's highlighting what he believes are DETC's and ACICS's continuing weaknesses with your own seeming idea that the weaknesses are illusory. If the weaknesses are just the results of unjustifiably biased perception, if we refuse to accept or acknowledge those perceptions, then they might quietly go away.

My own opinion is that if DETC and ACICS really want to become accepted as higher-education accreditors (as opposed to the trade-school accreditors that they have historically been) and have their schools accepted a-priori as the equals of regionally accredited schools, then they still have some work to do. That implies that they will first have to acknowlege their continuing weaknesses and then strive to start overcoming them.

They need to be pushing their schools, particularly those that award advanced degrees, into participating more actively in the intellectual lives of their disciplines. There needs to be a publish-or-perish accreditation requirement, where schools that aren't suitably productive can lose their graduate level accreditations. (AACSB does that.) Schools need to be pushed into creating active research units. Professors can't all be adjuncts - somebody has to actually use the school as their institutional affiliation. Schools should be competing for grants and awards just like the RA schools do. Representatives of the schools need to take active part in professional organizations, showing up at conferences and holding offices. Schools need to enter into collaborations with higher-profile schools. And these accreditors really need to attract applications from stronger and less fragrant applicants, not just a succession of unknowns, some (particularly in DETC's case) with smelly degree-mill histories.

In a nutshell, if these accreditors and their schools want broader academicand professional acceptance, then they need to work on improving their reputations in the same way that the RA universities do. If they want to be accepted as playing the same game, then they will have to play the same game.

I've posted in the past about the NYRegents lineup. This is an accreditation that I believe is more successful in rivaling the regional accreditors. ACICS and DETC could move in that direction too, but they will have to acknowledge the need and make an effort.

 

Good point. DETC and ACICS schools really do themselves and their students a service by acquiring relevant specialized accreditations. Indirectly, they do the non-RA accreditors a service too, since the specialized accreditations represent independent verifications of the institutional accreditors' judgement.

The fact that Academy of Art University had already acquired NASAD, FIDER and NAAB accreditation while it was still ACICS was a strong positive in my opinion. (AAU has subsequently been regionally accredited by WASC. In retrospect, its racking up the specialized accreditations probably suggested that it was on an RA track.) I believe that the Musician's Institute down in Hollywood is an ACICS school with specialized accreditation by the NASM.

Aspen's receiving specialized nursing accreditation is interesting on more than one level. Not only does it verify DETC's judgement of the credibility of these programs, it also suggests that Aspen's DL teaching modality is believed to be effective by the nursing accreditors. That's important.

 

Nice to see we're finally back on thread-starting point.

This is the sort of debate which should characterize this place!

 

Perhaps Gregg will use something other than volume to back up his opinion, thus living up to his new moniker.

 

It really is THAT obvious, isn't it?

 

The Professor: "When the tired old RA v. NA issue was raised the consensus was/is that nobody outside of academia really gives a hoot so long as the institution is reputable and accredited.

John: Ten years ago, when this topic was debated hotly, I invested about $3,000 of my own money to do the first preliminary research on this topic. I sent a questionnaire to registrars and admissions officers of hundreds of RA schools, asking, in effect, whether 13 categories of degrees (with specific examples provided) were accepted by them always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never.

Rich Douglas helped immeasurably with the statistical analysis of the results, which were presented at the AACRAO (registrars and admissions officers) national convention that year in Seattle.

I have long wished that someone would replicate this study (or one like it) in the light of ten years of changes and new information. To my knowledge, no one has. A former (I think) regular here, Coach Turner, had begun doing such research, but I don't know what became of that.

In a nutshell, the relevant finding was that DETC-accredited schools were accepted always or usually roughly 40% of the time, rarely or never 40% of the time, and the rest in between, or situational. But that was 10 years ago.

I would have hoped -- still do -- that someone would finance and/or do this research again. A foundation. AACRAO. CHEA. One of the good DETC-accredited schools. DETC itself. It would not be all that expensive or time consuming, and wouldn't it be great to have those data.

 

For the record (and The Professor):

The last time I checked, a few years ago, Microsoft's stated policy was that only students at regionally-accredited schools qualified for student pricing, specifically NOT nationally-accredited schools.

I just checked again, and now nationally-accredited schools do qualify.

Makes sense to me.

 

OMG, stop the presses, have we actually found some common ground and consensus? I agree that DETC accreditation is not universally accepted (nor do I care), and others on the academic side seem to acknowledge these credentials do carry some relevant real-world utility and application.

What say we come up with our own Middle East Peace Process next?!

 

Wow!

I finally received enough emails about this thread to come and look at it. I acknowledge that by responding to anything here I am inviting the equivalent of a bar fight. :-(

I wish so much that I could actually engage on topics like this but many ‘less-than-wonderful’ posters over the years have demonstrated that doing so is like the fight in the second matrix movie where there are more and more Mr. Smith’s that keep jumping in..

Instead, as our esteemed President said a couple months ago, we can use this as a teaching moment. What fun! Take all of the speculation, motivations, assumptions, impassioned viewpoints, and everything else above, consider how knowledgeable many of the participants are, look at the fascinating speculation concerning my actions, and then consider that our website has not changes since 2 weeks before I started almost a year ago. They had the current website in the works when I accepted the position and they got it pushed out right before I started at my prompting.

As someone mentioned, we do in fact have a new website in the works which should hit within the next month or two..what a great lead in..

Now reread everything with the knowledge that there is nothing different.. kind of fun isn’t it?

Attack away team… my email is below.

DEL