ARTS achieves CHEA recognition.

You can Google too. ASIC was approved by a Ministry to attempt to ensure that schools that were involved in granting visas were actually providing some education versus fraudulently existing for the purpose of issuing foreign student visas (or equivalent).

ASIC itself has had some controversy. If you want to believe after looking at the list of schools that are accredited by ASIC that PhD graduates those schools will be turning up in UK schools as professors with the equivalent of a degree issued from one of the UK universities.... You are welcome to believe so.

What makes you believe they are fully accrediting doctoral programs at the standard of US accrediting agencies and UK equivalent? Are you feeling that beyond the charter to determine that an institution is providing educational services versus fraudulent visas schemes they have become an alternative accreditation system in the UK in a way similar to a parliamentary charter, etc. Are you believing that the list of schools accredited by ASIC is equivalent to the University of Liverpool for instance?

 

Well, a quick glance at the institutions ASIC accredits demonstrates that this institution accredits schools that I would personally consider to be legitimate and worthwhile and others that appear quite questionable.

Never said that. What I did say is that I don't know much about the institution. Merely because I don't roll over and applaud that individual's every pontification doesn't mean I automatically land on the other side.

My assumption is that ASIC offers some sort of quality assurance. They make such claims all over their website. I have no idea what that entails, and I specified that I was not terribly familiar with the organization. I don't assume that merely because it does not have approval by the fed it is illegitimate. That is why I asked what criteria you used to make your determination. And in the few docs I have been able to find, ASIC has broadened its operations beyond safeguarding from visa abuse-- something you seem to ignore.

I doubt very much that an organization like EIU is the equivalent of Liverpool. But I have no doubt that Westminster UK is equivalent. Seems like a mixed bag to me.

 

So, do you believe for substantive reasons that ASIC is doing more than ensuring an educational institution is providing some instruction versus out and out fraud?

Do you believe them to be evaluating faculty and course materials to the same level that the UK government does or that a recognized US based accreditor does?

 

I have repeatedly asked questions of you, and you have repeatedly ignored those and asked your own. What is the criterion that you are using to determine that ASIC is illegitimate? I noted above that my assumption is that the institution provides some measure of quality assurance-- not an irrelevant or worthless.

 

Unfortunately, whatever expertise the individual possesses is, in my estimation, vastly overshadowed by his hostility to religion and his rather statist views on education. Having read his dissertation, I'm not impressed with his "expertise."

That was my initial suspicion. Unlike others, I don't think that is a bad thing.

Sign me up.

This is the question!

 

@Michael Burgos the long and the short of it is that it will go a long way to establishing the credibility of ASIC as the equivalent of accreditation as we understand it (and as Europe understands it), if institutions accredited by ASIC can get a DOT edu on the basis of that accreditation.

They can get a . EDU with ACQUIN accreditation from Germany.

That of course is not the same thing as utility but it will establish it as an acreditor so to speak.

There is no evidence of an institution being able to do that. There are a couple with DOT EDU but they were apparently like LBU grandfather. And surely they would have gotten it if they could.

 

So, the credibility of an accreditor is determined by whether it's recognized by the USDE? That is, of course, the only route to a .edu domain. That is not my perspective, and I doubt very much that one may consistently and legitimately defend such a view, especially in terms of theological education.

 

As I understand it, Charisma University first got a dot EDU after obtaining ACQUIN (German) accreditation for its school in the Caribbean. It now has TRACS but didn't at the time.

In any case, that educause won't issue one should be enough to discredit a notion that CHEA recognizes ASIC as an accreditor. ASIC is a UK entity tasked with certain functions. There is no evidence that it is accrediting substantial entities. Not saying mills necessarily. I imagine LBU is one of their better schools.

 

As I recall Charisma University showed up with a DOT edu prior to TRACS accreditation. Possibly due to ACQUIN which they had first.

As to educause, perhaps I am misunderstanding this:

"EDUCAUSE is the sole registrar for names in the .edu domain. The Department of Commerce awarded management of the domain to EDUCAUSE in October 2001.

Eligible institutions and holders of .edu domain names can register and manage their .edu domains at the .edu Administration Portal.

EDUCAUSE is also the exclusive provider of contact information for the .edu domain, available in the Whois Lookup database."

https://www.educause.edu/edu-domain-administration

 

@Garp, I'm glad we can now set aside a domain as a marker for legitimacy. Back to my original question, what is the criteria you are using to determine whether ASIC is legitimate?

 

Whatever you like and whatever way you want it is fine with me. If you're happy then I am happy.

 

@Michael Burgos is Forge Theological Seminary going to try to obtain ARTS accreditation?

 

Many shady operators share that opinion. Not that you're one of them, of course.