ASIC and Foreign Credential Evaluators?

As someone who evidently has significant expertise in this area, what do you make of ASIC's standards for international accreditation?

 

Take a look at the application of the standards throughout the years. Axact entities getting accepted would make me question the accrediting body's application of the high standards to international schools. As a pastor, you probably know that there are denominations that have wonderful doctrinal standards...on paper. Many liberal denominations take very conservative positions. Their members even recite the orthodox creeds!

 

I think the schools in its international directory are a mixed bag. But then again, I think the schools in TRACS' directory are a mixed bag too. I have my doubts that ASIC is redefining the terms in its standards to mean precisely the opposite just as a modernist church would redefine the historic creeds. Can you provide some meaningful evidence that ASIC is doing that?

 

Since I have not stated this as a fact, I do not need any evidence to back it up. I said that the presence of so many extremely questionable schools ending up on the accredited list in the past would raise some doubts for me.

 

Every accrediting body can make mistakes. That would even include the regionals. The question is whether they can learn from those mistakes and continue to implement rigorous standards. Another question has to do with the specific role that they have been assigned in the country of operations. ASIC isn't treated as a programmatic degree accreditor in practice. It simply isn't treated as a degree standard accreditor in the UK. It's short-term study (Visa) verification focus places them outside the pale of such guarantors of quality. Can they meaningfully play this more expanded degree quality guarantor role in the international market? No, because they're not even playing this role in the UK! Can they be entrusted with some oversight over non-degree granting British institutions? Perhaps.

 

I don't think they claim to be a programmatic accreditor. Rather, they accredit whole institutions. My gripe with the appeal to the visa verification business is that their standards for international accreditation exceed that and deal directly with QA. What do you make of those standards?

 

The standards may be good from what I've seen but their history makes me doubt whether the application truly meets international quality stamdards. You're right. They portray themselves as an institutional accreditor. But I was pointing out that they would not even be suitable as a programmatic degree accreditor unless they had some experience with this sort of thing in the UK (They never had this role in the UK). And based on the horrible past, it's hard for me to see a case for ASIC going international with degree quality standard assurance.

 

The reason why I focused on the programmatic accreditation aspect has to with what we've already established here. Being "institutionally accredited" by ASIC is meaningless in terms of institutional or degree recogntiion around the world (even the UK!). So whatever this institutional accreditation means, it cannot mean that you have received something that could potentially be recognized by credential evaluators from around the world. The next question is: Can ASIC function like a programmatic accreditor in an international context? I don't think so.

 

I think one needs to identify what is the purpose of the degree. If this degree is just for personal development and to be able to present this degree without people thinking you purchase it, maybe ASIC is OK. If you want to use it for a job in the government, immigration or teaching, if you are in the US or Canada, this means a positive evaluation from a NACES accredited institution period. ASIC is not going to pass the NACES test. But not everyone needs the degree for a job but just to use it in a business card and tell people that they have a PhD so maybe ASIC OK.

 

If you take an established programmatic accreditor that has received official recognition from CHEA (for example, ACBSP) and isn't just on the "CHEA International Quality Group" list that anyone can join, you may still end up with some non-government recognized degree (granting that your your college only has this type of accreditation), but you can legitimately claim quality assurance, at least for that programatically accredited degree. I don't see the same benefit with ASIC. Having an ASIC-accredited degree provides no benefit over a non-accredited degree. ASIC was never given the same role as a programmatic accreditor in a US context. It claims institutional accreditation benefits but the practical result of this accreditation is rather disappointing. I'd feel more confident if the "business card PhD" was at least programatically accredited by a genuine body in charge of such things as degree quality assurance. And even that would not amount to full accreditation in credential evaluators' eyes. The British ASIC does not even fit that role.

 

I think the standards are fine, but not always upheld, for various reasons. When I look at the US schools and organisations in the international directory, I see two where the former Dean of the School of Business of a university that was in ASIC's international directory 10 years ago is now active. Same thing with American International Theism University and California Pacificatory University. The owner has had other entities accredited by ASIC in the past (and was active in some capacity at the same school as the previously mentioned Dean of the School of Business). Accreditation based on past performances so speak, or maybe, accreditation among friends.

 

True that, but the question is perhaps 'How many?' When I look at the schools in that list there are indeed those that offer various courses and diplomas that will lead to for example entry into the second year of a Bachelor's programme etc. But there are also quite a lot in terms of pure language schools, providers of career services, providers of vocational education, those that offer level 3 diplomas only etc.

 

As things currently stand, the UK Schools under ASIC largely provide lower level regulated qualifications plus training that’s irrelevant to higher education. This constricted, non-degree offer does not easily jive with what you see as you scroll through their International Directory with advanced degree-granting university entities from around the globe. The dissonance is hard to ignore. I’d love to ask about this gap, if I had a chance to talk to the people in charge of the operations.

 

I imagine that for some of these schools the accreditation provides the benefit of some level of quality assurance and an ability to market yourself as accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the government of the UK. What probably is not helpful to consumers is the fact that sometimes the real scope of that accreditation is not clear and can be muddied with all of that CHEA stuff to appear like a CHEA approved agency. I think we have seen that in the past.

It must be more affordable than the equivalent of US institutional accreditation.

I wonder how many of those schools have seen a significant increase in enrollment based on it?

ASIC might as well attempt to get CHEA recognition. Although, in a USA context I am not sure what they provide that is different than other approved agencies provide.

 

There are many schools in the UK directory that offer advanced degrees (e.g., Westminster Seminary UK; London School of Medical Sciences; London College of Professional Studies)

 

@Michael Burgos

Interesting that Westminster Seminary UK states:
"Non-degree courses are accredited by the Accreditation Service for International Schools, Colleges and Universities (ASIC), an internationally renowned quality standard for schools, colleges, universities and online learning providers."

They have a partnership with Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in the US (perhaps for degree courses).

Does ASIC actually accredited degree courses in the UK or do they only accredit degree courses in their international schools? Is that a limitation on what they can do in the UK?

 

The interesting thing about ASIC is that they have institutional accreditation purposes in the UK but the CHEA recognizes them as programmatic here in the US. So having ASIC accreditation could be beneficial for schools outside the UK since they are CHEA-approved. This also helps with the cross-validation of international programs with partnerships similar to Azteca/UCN as far as accredited institutions awarding their degrees based on work completed at another school or program not fully recognized.

 

I don't believe they are CHEA approved. I stand to be corrected but to my knowledge they are simply a part of some CHEA group.