ASIC Accreditation

Isn't it more nuanced than that?

Your statement is technically true in the US, that degree-granting authority comes from the individual states, not the accrediting agencies. But the accrediting agencies do very much determine what is and is not a university--and what degrees those universities are allowed to offer. For most states, the licensure issue isn't that big of a deal, and in some (how many?) accreditation allows licensure to be waived (or granted on the basis of the accreditation).

There are accrediting bodies in other countries that determine what is and is not a university, I think. Wouldn't the British QAA be one? Or the NVAO in Netherlands and Flanders? Perhaps not. Perhaps these bodies function within a similar duality to what we have here, where legal authorization to operate is separate from being recognized as a university. But it seems bodies like these, or Costa Rica's CONESUP, do that, whether they're public or private.

Probably a distinction without a difference, though. For most people, unaccredited schools are not recognized, whether or not they have state authorization. And state authorization is sometimes unnecessary for accredited schools. I think it's one of those situations where if you have to explain it, it's probably not a good thing.

 

Well-summarized. Costa Rica - loads of "legal" schools with the CONESUP stamp - not so many with the added imprimatur of SINAES - that's more like what we think of in North America as equivalent to institutional accreditation. There's one approval to grant degrees and another to grant degrees that have standing. But ASIC is neither. Neither function is its job and ASIC plainly says so.

 

You know that, Steve. I know it too. But not everyone does -- so it's worth repeating, I guess. ASIC includes that information, as regards itself, in its materials. I believe some schools out there would like folks to believe differently in this regard, though.

 

Though in the UK you can't use university as a name with ASIC approval, that needs either a Royal Charter (very rare these days) or an Act of Parliament even for private institutions. Without these you breach the 1988 Education Reform Act, from memory.

 

I think we have to differentiate between Institutional and Programmatic accreditors especially when we are talking about professions that require licensing. I think here professional accreditors instill legitimacy and attest to it
and without it, a person may not be able to practice their profession or even maybe in violation of the law in some cases.
Also in a few states, I think Maryland is one of them, license to operate university and to confer degrees is contingent upon accreditation. ( there are provisional licenses for new universities) If my memory serves me well.

 

I think we all know the attendant issues and are arguing for sport. Out.