Is the HLC cracking down on "accreditation shopping?"

News: Standing Up to 'Accreditation Shopping' - Inside Higher Ed

 

IMHO, *ALL* schools are for profit. It just depends on what column they put the numbers in.

 

Unfortunately, it's often easy to do. In some cities, for example, the University of Phoenix (and other for-profit schools) send recruiters to homeless shelters to enroll drug addicts -- because they qualify for federal financial aid and can thereby pay tuition. Some give kickbacks to their students, in the form of biweekly stipends. Hard to believe, but true.

 

MIT charges about $50,000 per year for tuition, room and board. Obviously that's a lot of money.

But -- MIT also rejects over 90% of their applicants. In other words, they refuse to do business with the vast majority of interested customers, even if they are fully prepared to pay the high costs.

Does that sound like a for-profit institution ?

 

I agree with some of the commentators after the article-- it is sad to see the HLC not embrace the fact that if an institution is failing, a mission change is what is going to be needed to reinvigorate it. Did you see the article in the sidebar about SACS putting failing schools on notice? (News: Southern Accreditor Acts on Several Colleges - Inside Higher Ed)

The problem is not for-profits vs. non-profits, but innovation and supportable and sustainable models. I wish every school had to demonstrate real, published outcomes about student success, learning, post-graduation outcomes, etc.