Accreditation stifles innovation

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Kizmet, Jul 9, 2018.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  2. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    By all mean adapt but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    The baby in this case would be the purpose and mission of the accreditors. Does anyone recall what that was?
     
  3. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    The simple fact is that we, as a society, don't really "need" accreditation. States are perfectly capable of ensuring that schools are actually teaching and in determining if a school meets the requirements to award degrees. Religious exemptions open a giant hole there, however. As does the fact that some states simply have a terrible track record for allowing sub-par schools to exist.

    I'm not usually one for insisting on more government control. But I'm also against private monopolies. The fact also remains that I'd trust a New York registered (state approved) school over certain faith based or nationally accredited schools in states that let schools run a bit more wild. And no school, in my opinion, should be allowed to rely on federal dollars as much as many of them do.
     
  4. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    Does this also include professional accreditation (i.e. ABA, etc.)?
     
  5. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Of course.

    I see no reason why a state can not determine for itself if a law school qualifies one for the bar. MA and CA do exactly that. The only utility in ABA is it, in theory, assures standardization across state lines. So if I graduate from an ABA accredited school in Louisiana, I can still sit for the bar in Alaska.

    Of course, that isn’t universal. New York’s bar examiners maintain that NY standards may exceed ABA standards and they did when it came to certain weekend JD programs not qualifying you to sit for the bar even though you had an ABA accredited JD.

    But state reciprocity isn’t as well defined as other professions. ABA accreditation might only mean you can take the bar in any state, not be admitted on motion in any state.

    My point here is that the cult of ABA offers us little more than outlandish costs.

    New York doesn’t allow correspondence or online JDs to sit for the bar, even if you get one from an ABA school. States will do what states want to do. And it would be just as easy to say “if the law school qualifies you in its home state, it qualifies you for the bar in all states” without the need for an external service on top of state review.

    If it wasn’t a true monopoly, I’d probably feel a bit differently. If there were four or five or eight law school accreditors, each of them valid, maybe it would be different.
     
  6. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    There need to be minimum standards, hence accreditation. However, we dont need to have all these numerous accrediting bodies piling on regulation. The students are the one who suffer the most. Universities in poor neighborhoods are going concern issue because they can afford all these additional accreditations to attract students. That is why i am again these western accreditation organizations going into their world countries. They do a huge disservice to poor people.
     
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I'm with you up until the last bit. U.S. institutional accreditors aren't really focused on international expansion, the regionals do a little of that but not much, and DEAC pulled back from that years ago. If you mean organizations like ASIC, well, even they are not that big.
     
  8. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    I was thinking about AACSB, AMBA, and the other one for Europe. What happened when they go into undeveloped countries, is that it widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The universities in the poor rural areas won't be able to pay for these western monikers. However, the universities in the big city where the dictators and, corrupt officials can afford to send their kids can stamp these acronyms on their schools
     
  9. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    AACSB, and other programmatic accreditors, are probably the best example of what private accreditation should be. There is no real penalty for not having an AACSB accredited business degree. And there are alternatives in the U.S. You can have a IACBE, AABSP accredited degree or even one from a school that only has institutional accreditation. It has some impact on accounting licensing in some states but nowhere near the monopoly of ABA or, increasingly, ABET.

    Regional accreditors add tons of regulation and they cost a lot of money. They also fuel a market surrounding accreditation itself. Tired of working for an accreditor? No problem! Resign and consult schools on dealing with the red tape that accreditors create.

    Two states have been recognized as Regional Accreditors for higher education; New York and Oklahoma. Oklahoma's DOE recognition is inactive. New York still operates but only accredits a small number of schools.

    There is no reason that states are not ensuring minimum standards. And since states dictate acceptability for licensure, they are in the position to vet that better than private organizations.

    If every state had an accrediting function in its DOE and being accredited by that was considered "regional accreditation" then many of the existing standards would move forward seemlessly. What we would gain would be the opportunity for individuals states to innovate or be more open to alternative approaches to education. The idea that New Jersey might allow something to fly with one small experimental school is much more likely than trying to convince a private organization with a cookie cutter policy that requires hordes of lawyers and consultants, plus many many dollars, to acquire and maintain.

    It isn't accreditation that is the problem. It's accreditation as we know it in this country that is a problem.

    The system also has the multi-tier issue that makes RA vs NA fights possible.

    If California would follow New York's example and become a regional accreditor, I suspect that some of the current issues around some of our favorite innovative programs would be resolved. Accreditation, as we know it, stifles innovation. This is true. This is observable. This is actually the intent. It just doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
     
  10. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    Private accrediting agencies are similar to private professional associations that lobby the government to increase entry requirements. They do this to eliminate competition from other fields that are "encroaching" upon their scope of practice. The medical field is one of the worst. Doctors don't want nurse practitioners or psychologists to prescribe medication. Nurse practitioners, occupational therapists, physician assistants, and physical therapists have increased educational standards. Nurse practitioners want the DNP to be the standard. It's insane.

    Where recognized accreditation doesn't exist yet, certifications temporarily fill the void until professional organizations can get states to license an occupation. It was nearly impossible to get a job as a behavioral analyst without a BCBA certification. Now, my state and others license behavioral analysts and require BCBA certification. I predict the same will happen to genetic counseling. It's nearly impossible to get a job without ABGC certification, and ABGC only certifies those who graduate from ACGC-accredited programs (ACGC is not recognized by the government as an accreditor yet). I heard that some states are already licensing genetic counselors, and they're using ABGC to do their regulatory work. There aren't many ACGC-accredited programs, and none of them are online. But, don't fret. There will be more in the future, and ABGC will rake in the dollars once every state requires genetic counselors to become licensed.

    Correction: There is a new hybrid program.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  11. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    I just read on Texas' licensing website that they aren't even grandfathering behavior analysts who don't meet BCBA's requirements. This means that people who have been practicing for years can no longer do so unless they go back to school.
     
  12. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    To be clear, the New York State Board of Regents is not a regional accreditor in that it covers only New York.

    "The New York State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education serve as the nationally recognized accrediting agency [​IMG] for 15 institutions of higher education in New York State. One result of this accreditation is that these institutions are eligible for Title IV funds under the Higher Education Act if they choose to participate in these programs." http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/accred/accredinfo.htm

    Here's the 15 schools accredited: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/accred/handbook/directory.htm
     
  13. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    While officially they are NA, WES treats them as RA.

    Their region is simply limited to New York. Additionally, the Board of Regents is recognized as a regional accreditor for their accreditation of vocational programs. As the Board of Regents awards an MD to graduates of medical schools that do not award that degree (think medical degrees that are awarded as Bachelors, though I once encountered a DO who used this program to get an MD), I think it's safe to treat New York as an exceptional case. Having a PhD from Rockefeller is not the same as having a DBA from the University of Management and Technology in terms of how that degree is evaluated.

    Here's the MD thing, in case you're curious: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/med/med-mdconferral.htm

    But thank you for highlighting that we can't even be consistent in our chaos in this country. RA or the highway except for that one technically NA that accredits a highly respectable school (and formerly an ivy league university) and isn't considered NA by any of the degree evaluators who matter.

    None of this changes the fact that it demonstrates that states, if they are so inclined, are perfectly capable of meeting this charge at a fraction of the cost of larger accreditors. Ever look at a fee schedule for DEAC? In addition to the massive fees, you need to fly their evaluation team to your location business class.

    If folks want regional accreditors, fine. But they should absolutely not be tied to financial aid. Leave it at the states. Keep the fees low. Watch as new and exciting things start to happen.
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  14. Reading this thread, I have to agree that accreditation becomes a problem for low income students. This raises tuition costs and prevents people from going to school.
     

Share This Page