Does accreditation matter?

That depends on how you define 'quality', I guess. And that in turn probably depends on why you are studying in the first place.

Personally, I am considering getting involved with a California institution that not only isn't accredited, it isn't even state-approved. Of course, it doesn't offer any degrees or certifications, and it might be defined as religious in some sense, so it doesn't really need any of that. But its non-credit courses are pretty sophisticated, taught by an all-star lineup including several Stanford professors, influential authors, abbots of monasteries and so on. Since I don't need degrees or college credit, but I certainly do need knowledge and wisdom, I'm attracted. (I'm also attracted by their fee structure: Their idea is that since what they teach is priceless, they charge nothing.)

It isn't accredited, it isn't approved, but it appears to meet my needs more than admirably. I would have no shame in associating with these people.

But this makes education personal and almost a matter of aesthetics. Unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in a wider world than that. We not only seek education for our own purposes, we try to convince other people that our education can serve their purposes. We seek employment.

It's simply a fact of life that strangers are not acqainted with us. They don't know all of our wonderful and impressive qualities. So they want to know if we are certified. That's what academic degrees are.

It's also a fact of life that strangers won't be familiar with the great majority of academic programs out there. Some are credible and others aren't. So the academic programs themselves need to be certified by some body, whether a government or an accrediting association, that's known and trusted. That's what accreditation and its international equivalents are.

My point is that while non-accredited education might meet individual needs for personal edification, it won't meet social needs in the wider community unless it's recognized by other people as being credible and valuable. If the latter isn't important to you, then why bother earning a degree? Just take classes.

In most places in the world, laws regulate the award of academic degrees. Normally that requires that an academic institution be recognized by some government office, usually a ministry of education. If a school just sets up shop without the proper government approvals, then it is probably operating outside the law.

The obvious problem is that your prospective employer can't directly see your skill set. That's why employers want to know about your previous experience. In some jobs, they want to see portfolios of your past work.

Of course, if you can leap those hurdles, then why waste your time with a degree in the first place?

If you want to show an employer a diploma and have him conclude something positive about your skill set, then the employer has to have some faith in the credibility of your diploma. He can get that faith either from personal knowledge of your school, or from knowledge that somebody he trusts has already checked it out for him.

That the school that issued the degree has been checked out.

Assuming that what you say is true, then the non-accredited school might give you a better education.

The difficulty is with that qualifier: 'assuming that what you say is true'. Unless we are already personally familiar with your school, why should we accept that what you are saying is true?

By choosing a non-accredited option, no matter how good it really is, you are putting the responsibility for selling your qualifications precisely on yourself. Your degree no longer sells you, you have to sell the degree. But that kind of subtracts from the purpose of earning a degree in the first place, doesn't it?

 

Re: Yes, accreditation matters

Ike - I agree, sorry for my poor wording. AACSB is professional accreditation, and is only for the a department, not the entire school. Sorry if I confused anybody. My point was that above the RA is AACSB. A suppliment. Thanks.

 

I think here is still a stigma out there on DL, so I would not assume if you went to a DL school outside the US that it would be accepted. I do have to say, when I first came to this forum, I was very uneducated about the subject.

I now realize that the delivery is not what makes a school, but ironically the accreditation. The accreditation will show the standards for the school. It is the measure. Thanks to everyone!!

The only area that I am still fuzzy, but learning is the international schools that have accreditation by their government, but not by any international standard. These programs have a HUGE reputation (I made a mistake here and misspoke - really got slapped around for that one ), though they don't have the accreditation in the US standards.

These dynamics are coming about because of the DL opportunities. An Evolution.....

 

Re: A US problem?

Sorry to say so, Professor, but you are misinformed.

Each and every degree that has been earned in any of the EU countries can be used totally legally and without any need of "nostrification" in Germany! (I have written a book about that topic and I am pretty well informed through personal interviews with the responsible person for recognizing foreign (= Non-EU) degrees in the Education Ministry of Northrine-Westphalia, Germanys biggest and most important state in terms of habitants and education(al matters)).

Thus, I agree with you that we overregulate the leading of foreign degrees a little bit. In terms of US schools, for example (I´m sorry I can only talk about Business degrees, because that is my field of study where I did my research in), in general only RA schools that ALSO have an AACSB accreditation get accepted in Germany (though there are exeptions for schools that the ministry "knows", like State Universities, for example). In the middle run, that situation will change towards this new pattern: each person will be able to lead any foreign degree, but has to put the name and country of origin in brackets behind (as a lot of us do here on the board already). Actually, there are also advantages in our laws, because we do keep education and credentials up to a certain level with it.

Your other statement, that DL is not even yet recognised at all in Germany, is also totally untrue. We have an own Distance Learning (state) university in Germany + 2 state approved DL Polytechnics + several programs at state and private universities that are also state approved.

Your information is slightly out-of-date and I hope I helped you.

And to sum it up, any degree from YOUR university could be used legally in Germany without having it approved because it certainly is a (in the GB state approved, by the Royal Charter) EU university.

So easy is it...

Best regards,
Trigger

 

BRAVO PROFESSOR!!

You captured eloquently what I was trying to with your statement "...the course adds to your human capital – that is what an employer is hiring " That is what is important to me, I am interested in the knowledge capital not so much the piece of paper!!! I am not sure that I could work for an organization, longterm, that was so focused on pedigree over ability.

 

i have followed this and other discussions with great interest and finally want to make a statement free of any ideologic interests, purely based on experience. for more than 25 years i have been working for a globally operating renowned headhunting firm (K/F), based in germany and believe me i have seen and experienced a lot in my career. My sense of truth is, that accreditation, at least in central europe, is not of major importance! I totally disagree with simple arguments that unaccredited degrees are not even worth the paper it has been printed on.

These arguments jeopadize the entire idea of education, at least in a business oriented field. I have interviewed and placed people with harvard -type of degrees, and i have interviewed and placed people with how some might call it "dubios" degrees. And guess what: the non-harvard people on an average by far outperform the so-called elite. and do you know why? becasue these people have drive. these people have a goal they want to achieve and don't focus on issues that IN PRACTISE do not matter. these people do not have to hide behind a glamorous "harvard"- type of degree with all its accreditation. They put a focus on themselves!

A good headhunter and/or hr director will only focus on the big picture. they look at CVs and the total picture it gives. the story has to be right. I do not know many headhunters/recruiters/hr directors in europe that would focus on accreditation. They wouldn't even be too informed about this issue. That's why they focus on the person itself!

 

Well, well, well!

Of course, we can go 'round the houses' (a UK expression!) for ever and a day with all of this! What is happening, nationally and globally, is an attempt to 'standardise' education! From the middle to late 1800s in England whe 'mass' educastionw as introduced for the 'poor' the 'Establishment' set in place various schemes of standardisation. Around 1918 the then Chief Inspector of Schools, as he retired, wrote to The Times stating that he had presided over a system of schooling and education that had sought to 'standardised' and it hadn't worked!

The US system of regional accreditation has been under attack (rightly so in my judgement) for years! It is antiquated and does not assure quality! How do I know? Because I have recently been involved in assessing a US institution that is 'fully accredited' and by British standards the performance of graduates is roughly equivalent to a school leaver in the UK! Now, of course you can get back to me and tell me there is nothing wrong with this because this is the standard of a typical or average US degree performer at the bachelor's degree level! Heaven helps us! I'm notm for one moment stating that the british system is the 'be all and end all'! It isn't and the present Labour Government is in the priocess of crucifying all that is best about British educatiion and modelling on a US system of league tables and accreditation that is very seriously flawed. The UK is going the way of the US and, ion so doing, is ruining and education process and system of learning which, has its flaws, but is far superior (in a generakl way of speaking) than the US system!

Now before anyone gets excited, I do know what I am talking about! I've lived and worked in the US and travelled and worked in many countries throughout the world, have worked iiin industry, run my own business and been a senior academic in several Uk universities!

So, lets see where this goes!

Assessment to ensure quality and that students are not ripped off is crucial but standardisation is not!

'There are more things in heaven and earth
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio...'

(Hamlet)

We need to start thinking outside the box ragther than damning everyone to it!

'telfax'

 

BULL

 

can't help it dennis, i'm sitting on the source....

 

Ike: "Yes, accreditation matters and an unaccredited degree is a worthless piece of paper."

Cehi: To whom? How do you validate your statement. My degrees are all from RA schools, but it does not matter. I personally do not care about accreditation becuase I am previously an embodiment of a country whose university education system is/are validated by the federal governmnet.

I am sure those folks who teaches at universities that I have seen in this thread with unaccredited degrees would disagree with you. I am sure everyone assume to be right in this ever lasting debate.

 

Re: A US problem?

The problem isn't "accreditation", "royal charters" or "Europe vs. the US". It's simply academic credibility. That's an issue that arises anywhere universities exist and anywhere university degrees are presented to others.

Then perhaps it's time that the rest of the world awoke from their dogmatic slumbers.

More and more "universities" (some run by Britons) are setting up their mail forwarding in flag of convenience jurisdictions in Africa and the Caribbean. They have all of the coveted (and infallible?) ministry approvals that any European socialist could possibly want.

Well, their graduates are marching into the UK and the EU as we speak, demanding that their degrees be recognized and threatening to report you to UNESCO if they aren't.

There's a big logical hole there, filled with a huge implicit assumption.

You attack the standards and research of the "unofficial" accreditors, and then you tell us that the problem can be solved by putting everything under the control of a government agency.

What you need to explain is why that government agency wouldn't be just as subject to criticism regarding its standards and research. In fact it's worse than that.

The advantage of making accreditation voluntary and private is that if someone finds fault with what one of the accreditors is doing, then they have the option of starting up an accredior of their own.

My point is that there can be a number of different educational models that are mutually inconsistent, but nevertheless all credible in their own way. Monolithic accreditation standards would make that diversity problematic, while a system of unofficial accreditors can accomodate it.

The rise of the new liberal arts accreditor AALE might be an example of that. It seems to be the work of some educational traditionalists who weren't happy with the direction that the regional accreditors were going. Are they right? Time will tell. Is what they are doing credible? It seems to be.

I'm not sure how nationalizing the accreditation function and putting it under the control of a monolithic set of government bureaucrats could possibly improve on that.

 

Where can you teach with an unaccredited degree??

I think the point is that there is degrees out there, varying in accreditation, and depending on where you use it, it will matter.

 

Re: Re: A US problem?

This man certainly has the point.
Bravo.

T.

 

Kristi: "Where can you teach with an unaccredited degree"

Cehi: Someone had previously posted on other threads on this board, a long list of individuals with unaccredited, state approved Ph.d's who are assistant and associate professors at various accredited universities. I am not supporting or discouraging the use of these degrees. I am just validating the information that was previously posted on other threads that we were all previledged to read.

Kristi: " I think the point is that there is degrees out there, varying in accreditation, and depending on where you use it, it will matter"

Cehi: Bingo!!! I agree. That is why it is, in my opinion, a wrong assumption to say or generalize that the degrees are worthless peices of papers. Some people benefit from the unaccredited degrees, and some do not.

Thank you for your comments.

 

If the only thing you have to do is send a check in the mail and you get a degree, I don't see the point. But, I have also taken classes that are not accredited in which I have learned a great deal. I think you and I agree!!

 

Non accredited courses/degrees

kristie7: I am sure that many individuals have taken non-accredited classes and have learned a lot. The question is how do you easily show how much you have learned to the hiring company/manager. Rightly or wrongly the assumption is made that an accredited degree in XYZ with a GPA X.X shows the hiring manager that you have obtained at least a certain quality and quantity of education. A non-accredited degree in XYZ has not been certified to any level of quality or quantity.

This is why Harvard would survive (although they would be hurt by loss of federal funding). The quality of education is a given at Harvard to the “Joe Average” hiring manager. This is also why Morris-Brown College is in trouble. A school with an average reputation will find it difficult to survive with no accreditation. Half the story with Morris-Brown is the loss of federal funding, but the other half is students will find it much more difficult to find a job if they graduate without an accredited degree.

 

Re: Non accredited courses/degrees

I think this relates to the original question. If these types of classes can get someone the skills to get the job done, does it matter that it is accredited?

Now that this has come full circle, I see the point of the original question.

I still think it is important as screening mechanism for jobs, but understand the point of the question better now.

 

A person should decide what they want, what they can afford, and what they are interested in. As long as the school is legal and has a component of learning, and meets your goals, then stop worrying what people think. It only matters that you are satisfied with the choice.
James C.

 

Most degrees are earned in order to not only educate but to also be able to prove to others (typically an employer) that an expected education level has been achieved. That being the case, one must be concerned with what others will think of the degree otherwise you could end up with a degree that doesn't satisfy a critical need.

 

Standards matter

Triggersoft

My sentence “Apparently, distance-learning self-study is not recognised yet in Germany!” was too general. I should have said it was not accepted by certain Regional (Lander) Government’s Education Authorities in Germany, at least that was the situation when I was dealing with it a year or so ago in respect of the complaints to me by some Heriot-Watt MBA students. If this impediment has now been removed, nobody would be more pleased than I am. It boiled down to the local officials not recognising off-campus MBA self study and their imposition of a requirement that one year had to be spent on a University campus, otherwise to designate your EBS MBA on your business card was a criminal offence. I did not keep the correspondence but I am searching on the Internet for the original exchanges of irate correspondence I received. When I retrieve it I will post the details. I can assure you I do not make things up about anything to do with distance learning or EBS.

Bill

“You attack the standards and research of the "unofficial" accreditors, and then you tell us that the problem can be solved by putting everything under the control of a government agency. What you need to explain is why that government agency wouldn't be just as subject to criticism regarding its standards and research. In fact it's worse than that.”

I share your suspicion of ‘government’ (my current research topic is the “Philosophy of Adam Smith”) but I cannot endorse your remedy:

“The advantage of making accreditation voluntary and private is that if someone finds fault with what one of the accreditors is doing, then they have the option of starting up an accredior of their own.”

Certain standards are safer if they are set, monitored and inspected by a national authority. If the national authority gets it wrong, the public servants can be replaced and the government made accountable for the compensatory regime; if a private “accreditor” gets it wrong they may disappear, leaving their damages behind them. This applies to airline pilots, surgeons, hygiene inspectors, laws, education standards and which side of the road we drive on.

Having “the option of starting up [as] an accredi[t]or of their own” reduces education standards (as “attestators of fitness”) to the level of the rival boxing (and wrestling) authorities.

Because anybody can include the word “university” in their business title (US), unless prohibited by law (UK), the scope for scams, mills and crookery is an endless topic on degreeinfo. I suggested approaching it differently. Adam Smith also for a while agreed with you Bill, in respect of the qualifying courses for surgeons (if someone could do the surgeon’s job it did not matter where they learned to do it) but he changed his mind later as he grew older and needed the attentions of a physician (what happened when the person claiming to be a surgeon couldn’t do the job?).

I am all for experimenting with different modes of learning and making the educational system inclusive of differing pedagogies. I am, however, critical of the unresearched assumptions of those with fixed views on what leads to learning. I do not fancy state interference in the classroom, curbing of academic freedom or enforcing a single pedagogy. I do fancy minimum (high) national standards in licensing universities, faculty and degree awarding powers. Universities should operate with devolved powers, not be run by the government. This incorporates public and private institutions (EBS does not receive one penny from the UK government).

You may disagree and prefer the open season, with leanings towards local accreditation (RA) mixed with national accreditation (DETC, etc). My only point is that one cost of your preference is the “mess” this has produced on this subject, probably understandable to aware contributors, such as yourself, but thoroughly confusing to those less aware of what they may be buying from “education” providers.