Federal role in degree approvals

RA tuition rates are high because accreditation is an oligopoly where the competitors are allowed to collude and maintain monopolistic pricing. That is why I like the idea of DETC, ACICS, and others.

The fact that many here have bought into the collusive conspiracy should not be seen as the correctness of it.

All that being said I am not in favor of the government stepping in and regulating education. How, possibly, could anyone think that is a good idea?

Bubba

 

to Bubbagump

I agree with you on the RA monopoly and the way accreditation is approached. I applaud the DETC and hope they can add the doctorate to their accrediting standards.

I respectfully disagree with you on not having some minimal standards set for the states to follow. Although, in a way there are already these minimal standards in place. The DOE has minimal standards that the recognized accreditation agencies must follow. So, technically, there they are. Go to the US DoE website and read for yourself.

These standards could be revised to some degree and set forth for the states to follow.

Why I think many are opposed to this, is that a lot of folks would lose their cushy positions, salaries and power.

 

I still say, have a good look at the Ausralian or UK model of national accreditation. No multiple accrediting agencies, no diploma mills, no question of minimum standards for this or that institution or accrediting agencies; just the one standard, and whatever university you may attend, they have ALL been accredited in the same way. End of story!

 

Re: to Bubbagump

But whether DETC accredites doctorates is still not the answer. Many accredited schools in the US or overseas do not recognize work done at DETC accredited institutions. RA's - no problem!

So what is the big advantage of multiple accrediting agencies when some are not recognized?

And why the worry about a government monopoly in education accreditation? They have it in Australia and the UK, and there is nothing wrong with their education standards or delivery. We entrust our governments with many 'monopoly' powers, so why not education?

We would also be worried to have competing accrediting agencies accrediting medical courses; we would only want the delivery of medical education through RA schools. We are happy to give the government a monolpoly in this decision, so why not the rest of education?

 

accreditation issues

I am lobbying congress to pass some kind of law to regulate the post secondary educational accreditation/approval/license issue that all states have to follow. Every one asks what's the big deal with the RA's and the system now. There is a big deal. These groups are self serving and closed to new schools being opened. It will create competition. IF there are going to be RA agencies, then let them float on their on boat and not on the US D o E's. IF you look at the technical aspects of the whole situation, the DOE is mandating what the RA's do any way with the exception of the add ons that each region comes up with.

Oregon has gone as far as it has because they were the diploma mill state. Now they are trying to get that monkey off their back by bashing any institution of higher learning they don't agree with. Close the Diploma Mills and Close the Regional Accreditation Agencies.

 

response to adamsmith

You go man. Our opinions appear to be similar. And you are corredt about the UK,,,no diploma mills there.

 

DETC

The DETC is recognized by the CHEA and the US DOE. Thus, should carry the same weight as the RA's. IF not, then it supports the power struggle. The RA's don't want any other accrediting agency to take the $$$$$$ and power from them!!!!!!!!!!
Bottom line.

 

Re: DETC

I'm with you again, and yes,, I will use another one of my stupid analogies.. like it or not. It's all about money and whose getting it.
Here it goes.

Regional Accreditation - Neiman Marcus/ Bloomingdales etc.

DETC - Dillards/ Foleys

State Approved - Target/ Walmart/ Mervyns/Kohls etc.

the truth is.. they all provide the same purpose... and coming from a ratail environment years back. Quality is not always by the pricetag or whether or not it has a Great Football team.. Money and prestige. They all serve the same purpose. It's what a individual gets out of it and applies it that counts.

By the way... Iv'e seen and know plenty of Sports players for the BIG 12 etc. and some of them i can't even understand how they got out of highschool. But " there regionally accredited ". and these guys manage to obtain a BS from them. Now that is a real BS alright.

US DOE should regulate in my eyes. the false schools will close or face punishment.

 

Re: RA's self-policed

The largest university in the U.S. does not have a physical library, but it is regionally accredited. It is also for-profit, yet regionally accredited.

The North Central Association has moved to better evaluate outcomes, not inputs.

Which legitimate school or schools have been denied accreditation despite their quality?

 

Re: Re: RA's self-policed

Good point, Rich.

I think it is a red hering to think that there is any conspiracies abroad to deny access to any institutions that have proper standards.

 

This whole thing is about monopolistic power and keeping a strangle hold on making money, that is what the RA collusion is all about.

However, while I am all about helping protect the suckers from the scam artists, I think you have to ask yourself a question when arguing for federal control of education. The question is: what are we trying to accomplish? Do we hate the less than wonderful institutions so much that we take a shotgun approach and take out a couple sub-par but legitimate institutions with them?

What are we trying to accomplish? I believe one of the core principles should be to make education as accessible as possible, in all of its forms. Don’t hate the scammers so much that you get in the way of someone trying to legitimately learn something.

Keeping the legislation around education at the state level lets the local governments create environments best for their citizens; and since everyone in the US isn’t a clone, that is probably the best place for it.

Focus on the learner as much as the institution, the correct question is not:

“Which legitimate school or schools have been denied accreditation despite their quality?”

But instead, "who might be denied an education given federal intervention, despite their ability?"

Bubba

 

Re: Re: RA's self-policed

Great question Rich.

 

Interesting argument, don't try and save the person wanting to learn from being scammed because he may learn something from a degree mill? We are supposed to ignore the fact that an important function of universities is credentially. An important function is presenting a credential that can be counted on by the public and potential employers to mean that the person has learned a specific body of knowledge. We are supposed to allow degree mills and incompetent students to deceive potential employers and the public into believing that the substandard degree holder is something that they are not?

 

Bill:

Who are all of these people going around tricking the poor private sector firm?

Don’t these firms have HR departments? Don’t they spend money to what ever rigor level they want to hire the best candidate?

I think your argument is miss-focused. You should be arguing to protect those that legitimately gained credentials from unfair competition, which is a sound argument. You are never going to sell me on protecting the poor capitalist firm from itself.

Additionally, you all of a sudden bring up the term Degree Mill in a rebuttal to my argument. Where did that come from? Let’s at least keep the discussion within context and not argue fallaciously. What you just did is called the fallacy of Begging the Question, where instead of rebuffing my actual argument you reasserted another argument in its place, that having to do with degree mills.

We all agree that degree mills are bad and should be stomped off the earth, that isn’t my point as I posted above.

Bubba

 

Re: reply to adamsmith

The US Dept. of Education doesn't determine accreditation standards. It just identifies those accreditors that the department finds credible so that the schools that they accredit, and those schools' students, become eligible for federal funding. There's no suggestion that all of the recognized accreditors emphasize the same things, use the same standards, or that their standards need even be consistent.

What gives the accreditors most of their clout isn't the government recognizing them, it's the fact that they represent the judgements of the academic and professional communities.

The regional accreditors are membership organizations, composed of the universities that they accredit. These include, for example, virtually every doctoral-research university in the country. The specialized accreditors are basically the professional organizations.

I don't understand why any of this is ironic or why it needs to be addressed.

 

And if people don't like the policies of the existing accreditors and believe that they could do the job better, nothing is preventing them from creating their own new accrediting body that emphasizes their desired values.

Of course, that new accrediting body would have to generate some recognition out in the wider community before its accreditation could mean anything. The word 'accreditation' means giving credibility, and in order for accreditation to work, accreditors must have credibility of their own that they can extend to their schools.

But it isn't an impossible task. The new liberal arts accreditor AALE, for example, has gotten USDoEd recognition and seems to be growing its recognition pretty efficiently.

If there's anything really ironic in this thread, it's people who moan about an evil RA oligarchy while simultaneously demanding that accreditation become a function of the government. The government is a monopoly, simply by definition.

You don't increase choices by limiting them to one.

 

Re: RA's self-policed

If it is "idiotic" for the academic and professional communities to determine academic standards, then who do you think would do a better job and why?

I'm not clear on what power you think that the regional accreditors have too much of. Accreditation is voluntary. Employers and clients are generally free to heed it or not, at their discretion.

How would making accreditation into a matter of law, enforced by government departments, protect us from what you think is the excessive power of the accreditors?

 

Just so I’m clear, I believe that RA is an evil oligopoly, but have not argued for government regulation, so I’m not sure I see the irony.

Secondly, a government by definition is a government, not a monopoly, as a monopoly is reserved for the definition of a firm’s relationship to a market.

Bubba

 

Could it just be that everyone benefits from our screwed up system? Why change it? RA works for the academics, govt. hires, and licensees; RA/NA/SA works for general applications such as business; and degree mills make money hand over fist selling paper to folks like Julie the bag checker so she can hang a frame over her TV. Anybody who crosses those lines sets themselves up for censure, e.g. the CIO of Homeland Security who touted some Hamilton Univ. degrees. But as long as everyone stays in their place... status quo?? just an idea...