Could the "Big Three" attain accreditation today?

Accreditation standards change. It is significant that the Big 3 were all accredited within 2 years of each other, then it took another 30 years for any similar school to attain regional accreditation. I know of at least a few initial attempts to start similar schools, but they were told by the accreditor "don't bother."

 

Nevertheless, they still have to maintain regional accreditation standards that apply today or they will lose accreditation.

So yes is the answer to your question because they are presently proving that they can maintain the high standards of regional accreditation.

 

I agree with John. The "Big 3" were charted by their states to provide a unique service within their state university systems. I have participated in re-accreditation of more than one higher ed institution and know that each of the "Big 3" must go through the re-accrediting process, which includes a lengthy self-study procedure, site visits by the accreditation team and a review of administrative and academic programs. Most accreditation teams come up with areas for improvement at virtually all colleges. There seems to be little indication that TESC, COSC or Excelsior would not be successful if they were to apply for initial accreditation this year.

Tony Piña
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

I tried to look it up, but don't want to spend the time. Since you are so experienced, does Middle States not have a stated requirement that 25% of the coursework be from the degree-granting school? I know that SACS does. Maybe Middle States doesn't.

But I guess you would contend that there were no schools similar to the big three who tried to gain accreditation and were denied?

Maintain and attain are two very different words, are they not?

 

What is being maintained? That which was attained. How can something be maintained if it was never attained?

Your deduction that maintaining is easier than attaining is just as unfounded as the deduction that maintaining is harder than attaining.

Your logic necessarily lumps every RA school into the same boat. Penn. State University, for instance, can be accused of not being of the standard it was when it attained accreditation because it only needs to maintain it now.

I am interested to know what the point of setting a higher level to attain is, if they then lower the level to maintain. Why bother with the higher "attain" level? Your logic implies that for the best education, we should go to a newly accredited one and not a well-established school that has maintained accreditation for many years.

 

I'm not stating that they did not attain accreditation. Obviously, they did.

I didn't say that one was easier than the other. I said they are different.

I'm not saying that the standards are intentionally set so that that it is easier to maintain accreditation that to attain it. I'm saying that, in many ways, the Big Three are outside the accepted norms for accreditation.

Note that I am also not saying that those norms are legitimate, or that the Big Three are substandard in any way. In fact, I think that some of the requirements of some accreditors, such as requiring 25 percent of coursework to be done at the degree-granting institution, have much more to do with proprietary concerns than educational ones.

Another example is that some accreditors used to specify the number of volumes that the school's library must contain. Requirements like that obviously make no sense for a school like TESC, and those requirements were obvioulsy not enforced.

However, accreditation decisions are made by people. The people who made accreditation decisions in 1973 are not the same people making them today. It is possible that the people in charge then were willing to experiment with bending the rules when they believed that those rules did not enhance educational quality. It's also possible that they later changed their minds, or that new people came in with different ideas. But they would look ridiculous if they tried to revoke accreditation for a school like TESC because it didn't have an adequate library.

Finally, I am not saying that I think it is easier for the Big Three to maintain accreditation than it is for other schools. Quite the opposite, I would guess, because they have to show how they meet standards that were written for schools whose missions are quite different from their own.

 

Trivia time: The New Jersey State Library is "affiliated" with TESC. At one time, this actually mattered to TESC students (who had wider access to some library resources, particularly the electronic resources, along with state employees and legislative staff) but I believe that any NJ resident now has the same privileges--as it should be.

 

Good enough for me.

 

Hello Jeff,

I "contend" absolutely nothing, since I don't feel very contentious I glanced briefly at the Middle States Association's Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation and did not find a 25% residency requirement.

I cannot speak to the seven regionals (since I live in California, my experience has been primarily with WASC). In the accreditations in which I have been ap part, the standards for initial accreditation and reaffirmation of accreditation have been identical. From what I have read in the literature from Middle States, North Central and Southern Association, the same seems to be true for them.

While maintain and attain may be two different words, the requirements to maintain and attain in this instance appears to be identical.

Best wishes,

Tony Piña
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Incidentally, my former dean used to be in charge of educational assessment at the New Jersey State Dept. of Education. He was very familiar with Thomas Edison State College and stated that there were no abnormailities with TESC's accreditation.

Tony