Breaking News-Nationsuniversity withdraws DETC Accreditation

In all US states, having state approval is the test of whether a school is operating legally. What exactly state approval means varies widely. In some states, state approval has some measure of quality control while in other states state approval is as simple as getting a business license.

 

A not-for-profit school could stay in business without charging tuition or fees. It would need alternate revenue streams, of course.

Foundations, grants, the development of an endowment, state budgets (for public schools) are all potential sources.

But there is little reason for running a tuition-free school, even if you could do it. Going to school involves an exchange of capital. The student offers money and scholastic achievement. The school offers instruction and recognition (in the form of a certificate or degree). But if a school abandons the pursuit of one form of capital--tuition fees--what does it seek from students instead? Besides scholastic achievement, of course. And, as noted earlier in the thread, what would prevent a flood of applicants, all seeking equal access?

Schools offer scholarships, waive fees, and do other things to help students cope with the need to provide the required capital (tuition). Doing so on a case-by-case basis allows the school to support some students and be supported by others. I'm sure a school with a massive endowment like Harvard does not need the tuition it collects. But it collects it nonetheless. If it didn't, it would appear to be yet one more perk for the wealthy--a free ride for the people who already own the conveyance.

 

In theory, yes, state approval is all you that need in any US state.

But in practice, the "measure of quality control" required by certain states for approval is -- recognized accreditation.

So unaccredited schools cannot legally operate in some US states, because accreditation (or candidacy) is a prerequisite for state approval.

 

This is correct. A school actually can lose money on every student and stay in business -- if it has access to deep pockets. Private schools with large endowments are one example; state schools are another.

But note that such schools commonly limit their admissions. Stanford, for example, only admits a small fraction of their applicant pool; so does UC Berkeley. They may have deep pockets, but they still can't afford to educate every interested and qualified student. By restricting admissions, they limit their losses to what they can afford.

In contrast, shools like NationsUniversity or University of the People are open admissions. If you lose money on every student, yet admit every student, there is no limit to the potential losses.

 

^^^ but what would stop them from limiting admission at some point in the future if the need arose?

 

If they aren't, DETC is. DETC does not want to put its "seal of approval" on a school that will promptly collapse under the weight of new applications.

The fact that these schools are not accredited strongly suggests that they are deficient in some respect. Perhaps this is it.

 

Nothing. They could start doing that -- just as they could start charging tuition (which Nations already acknowledges as a future possibility).
But if they limited admissions, or charged tuition, it would be a major departure from their current model.

In a perfect world, a school like Nations or UoPeople would be (1) free; (2) open to everyone; and (3) accredited. In the real world, it may not be possible to get all three. You may be able to get any two out of the three, but in that case you may have to compromise on the third.

 

I have a feeling UoPeople can do it. They have backing by large corporations (HP) and guidance by proven entrepreneurs.

My sense is they will still be "free" even after they get DETC accreditation.

 

But I think it may be unfair to assume the schools wouldn't be aware of these things or wouldn't have measures in place to address them. To allude to something I mentioned earlier, UOP already has at least some measures in place to address costs, so it wouldn't be a stretch to consider that they may have more for the future.

As for lack of accreditation, you may be right about Nations considering how long they've been at this, but UOP by comparison has not been at it for long at all. I'm not sure if they've ever attempted RA accreditation, but this is their first full-length shot at NA (DETC) accreditation (they voluntarily withdrew before) so I don't think their current lack indicates much other than newness at the game.

 

Accreditation a pre-condition of state approval? And what accrediting agency is going to accredit a school that doesn't even have state approval yet?

 

Probably no legitimate accreditation agency. But it doesn't matter. The state itself can make accreditation (or progress towards accreditation) a pre-condition for approving a brand-new school. And some states do this.

And once a school is established, then accreditation can certainly be a pre-condition for continued state approval. States can and do demand that a established school obtain accreditation as a condition for state license renewal.

Kennedy-Western/Warren National is an example. The State of Wyoming required established schools to get accreditation, as a pre-condition for continued state approval. KW/WN couldn't get accredited, and so their state approval was not renewed, and so they shut down.

 

Well - yesterday was one of the very few days of the year I don't have Internet access and this happens! :sad:

First -- I was WRONG! I admit it. I said in another thread (I can't find) that I felt Nations would be successful this time round.

Second -- Naturally, I'm disappointed. Still don't quite understand the exact nature of the snag they've hit. I hope they can resolve it, but if it has involved withdrawing their application (as they say) I'm not too hopeful.

Johann

 

Don't sweat it, Johann. I was wrong once too, back in 1999. :smile:

 

Yeah - but this is my second time! :smile:

Johann

 

For comparison, NationsUniversity currently charges a $480 annual "technology fee" to US residents, plus a one-time $25 "registration free". That's $1,945 in fees for a 4-year Bachelor of Religious Studies degree. Nations also estimates the costs of textbooks at $900, which brings the total up to $2,845. As with UoPeople, the "tuition-free" program may be relatively inexpensive, but it is not entirely "free".

Nations also notes that there could be "a possible modest increase in technology fee or the addition of a tuition fee" over the course of the 4-year program.

 

Me too, I was wrong. I was so sure they were going to have it this time around but I was so wrong. It seems even those who are not students at NU were ''pained'' by the untimely death of NU's accreditation bid...

 

Right! No more Wyoming for these guys, either:

American City University
Preston University
Rutherford University
Fairmont University
Newport International University
American Central University
American Global University
Paramount University
Halifax University
Columbia Commonwealth University

Quite a cleanup!

At one time in Wyoming , you could legally incorporate your very own University -name of your choice - and print your diploma. Wyoming was a very incorporation-friendly state and it was easy to create your Wyoming company from anywhere. At first, there was very little restriction regarding names. After a while, the State authorities clamped down on the naming procedure and "University" was one of the words you couldn't just use whenever you felt like it. Later, the "accredit or move" policy was adopted.

Johann

 

Not bad for a guy in his seventh decade of living. :smile:

 

From NU: NU withdrew its application for accreditation with a national accrediting commission. NU officials believe all requirements had been satisfied for accreditation, yet the last obstacle could not be resolved by the deadline imposed by the accrediting commission.

Does anyone know what this last obstacle might have been?

And, if NU had indeed satisfied all other requirements, even if they were not able to address this last obstacle by DETC's deadline, could they not have sought an extension, continued the process and had everything in order by the next DETC meeting?

What seems out of sync here is that they apparently invested a great deal of time/money/energy/etc., had only one issue left to address, knew they would be unable to meet the deadline; then, rather than seek some type of extension, they quit. Am I missing something here?