American Sentinel goes RA

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Kizmet, Mar 9, 2020.

  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    What does it say about DEAC accreditation when so many schools are leaving it in favor of regional accreditation? That no schools are making the move in the other direction?

    And what does it say about the schools who remain?
  3. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    I see the negative possibility, but I also see a positive possibility: since a number of DEAC schools have been able to obtain regional accreditation, then perhaps these schools were not unredeemable trash--as some might claim--to begin with after all and neither is the DEAC if they were the first to recognize that and award them accreditation.

    Schools know having regional accreditation will attract more students who are convinced that regional accreditation automatically makes everything better. However, for schools like American Sentinel that are also for-profit, they will have only cleared one half of the public perception hurdle since being for-profit is yet another thing people have been convinced automatically means substandard.
  4. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    It says nothing about either.

    For years, the Society for Human Resources Management heavily endorsed the SPHR/PHR designations. These were basically essential to working in the industry. A few years ago, SHRM developed their own designations and began pushing those. Now, we are seeing more and more professionals letting their SPHR lapse and jumping fully on board with their respective SHRM designations.

    What does it say about SPHR when all of these professionals are ditching it?

    Nothing. SPHR isn't "bad." It isn't "inferior." The SHRM designations, however, are the better business move for most professionals. People like me will maintain both. Though I absolutely understand the wisdom in abandoning the old ones. That decision isn't based on whether SPHR is bad. It is based upon what gives me the broadest acceptance as a professional in the industry. That's it.

    Professionals who refuse to adopt the new SHRM credentials and keep with the old ones are not bad professionals. They're not unemployable wrecks who have labeled themselves with the Scarlet Letter of HR. They're fine. And most of them have enough experience that it is less likely to matter much. To a newer professional, however, or someone who is hoping for at least 20 more years in the industry, SHRM is the smart choice either by itself or paired with whatever else you may have.

    Same here.

    Why are schools dropping DEAC once they go RA? Because it's expensive to maintain both.

    Cornell University was accredited by the NYS Board of Regents as well as having RA for decades. They dropped the Regents about 20 years ago. Does that mean the Regents suck? Of course not. But having dual accreditation is unnecessary and they likely decided to keep just the one with the highest utility. RA is required for AACSB and probably any other programmatic accreditation Cornell has. There was no reason to hang on to the Regents. Nor was there a reason to stick with the Regents exclusively.

    Most accredited schools in the US are RA. And that is by a very big margin. NA and schools accredited by Faith Based Accreditors (as degree granting institutions) are a drop in the bucket of US higher ed. If you want to be able to offer max credit transfers, you need to be RA. If you want to offer max utility in terms of licensing, you need RA. If you want your students to have the broadest access to graduate and professional programs, you need RA.

    None of that means DEAC is bad. None of it means DEAC schools are inferior. None of it means that those DEAC schools that don't go on to get RA are bad either. That conclusion just does not logically flow.
    SteveFoerster and chrisjm18 like this.
  5. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    As DEAC schools continue to obtain regional accreditation, it clearly shows that DEAC schools are no good and never should've been accredited by anyone in the first place.

    ... Oh wait, that's not how it works.
    LearningAddict and SteveFoerster like this.
  6. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

    I disagree. I've seen so many career positions that accept degrees from NA schools and colleges that accept NA degrees for further education. I could share many instances but I'll only share three. I was hired as a police officer with my NA B.S. The department required 60 college credits. I was also employed by my state government based on my B.S. in CJ when I worked in juvenile justice. I was admitted to St. John's University as a transfer student and was awarded the maximum transfer scholarship of $15k per year.
  7. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    LOL! Now now, Max. I see what you're doing there.
  8. freddyboy

    freddyboy Member

    I think it says that the gap between the DEAC ( and I mean specifically DEAC) accreditation and regional accreditation is not as gaping as it once was. It speaks to the quality and standards of DEAC trending up.
    And frankly, it also is an acknowledgement that while the gap has narrowed, a gap is still there in terms of credit transfer and degree acceptance into graduate school.

    What does it say about schools who remain?
    Perhaps it says that they are not ready for RA, or that they are satisfied with DEAC, or a bit of both.
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The SHRM analogy is inapt. The dynamics are completely different. I'm sure you know that, so it's weird to see it used that way. SHRM partnered with HRCI for many years, with SHRM being the professional society and HRCI being the certification body. This was supposed to maintain a firewall between them so the people setting the standards weren't the same ones testing people. The two organizations shared a location and even traded staff back and forth. Still, SHRM members went to HRCI for certification in HR. Then, a few years ago, SHRM decided to break off the relationship and do their own certifications, and HRCI retained the ones--the SPHR/PHR--everyone knew. SHRM grandfathered all the old SPHRs/PHRs to their new certification. Although many HR professionals have maintained both, others chose one or the other. I would expect the majority to follow SHRM since most are members, but not everyone did. I didn't. I'm an SPHR but I gave up my SHRM-SCP. (If you've read this far and are wondering what it has to do with distance education, you should. It doesn't. That's the point.) I don't know the percentages who stayed with the SPHR, who migrated to the SHRM-SCP, and who retained both.

    No one is suggesting schools should maintain both. That's not the point of my question. The point was, why are these schools moving at all? Because regional accreditation, if it can be obtained, is superior and preferable. D-uh. So why, if that's the case, do some schools stay with DEAC. Because it is easier to get and retain. That it is inferior accreditation is obvious and always has been. Are schools that stay with DEAC and do not move to RA inferior to those schools who do? Yes, if measured by accreditation standards. So yes, it does flow logically. Except that there are many other reasons for a student to go to a school beyond its institutional accreditation.
  10. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

  11. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    Not only that, but they have the HLC waaaay at the bottom of everything, lol. That's interesting. However, it could be that they've just listed them chronologically where their oldest accreditor is put at the top.
    chrisjm18 likes this.
  12. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Rather than digging into the dissimilarities between SHRM and a university, perhaps you should have read what I had written and explained how the move from one certification to another does not mean that the prior certification is bad or that the other is objectively superior. Offering more utility? Certainly. But not necessarily superior.

    You made a provocative statement. I responded with my opinion. It's fine if you disagree with it. But when you post something that indicates that you clearly didn't read what I had written or make any attempt at internalizing it it just sends the message that you weren't interested in discourse as much as reinforcement of your position.
  13. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Try to forgive Rich . . . He seems to be getting into a pissing contest with everyone these days.
    On the other hand, Jay, you don't seem to be adverse to that yourself . . . :emoji_smile:
  14. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Admittedly, some of my more recent posts are a bit more ornery than is typical. In this case, I'd categorize this as less of a pissing contest than a "I could have saved myself a post if I realized you had no interest in actually discussing this thing."

    Alternatively, I blame it on the weather.
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I'm really not interested in debating it. I'll let my last post stand, thanks.

Share This Page