heirophant said: "Students really need to understand the precise nature of what they are enrolling in. This only becomes more difficult when there are different languages involved. This isn't a slam on France. I'm sure that my own United States, with its wide variety of accreditors, rankings and state-approval laws is just as incomprehensible to foreigners who aren't familiar with it." On this particular point, we are in full agreement. Students should not assume that a foreign education system will be largely the same as their own. Sadly, I also see some of the signs of this problematic approach on this board. Enrollment without prerequisite research should to be discouraged. As for ASIC, I would agree that it is red flag, but only when an institution relies on their accreditation in an exclusive way. I still follow the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, since I know that some perfectly legitimate institutions have chosen to add the stamp of the British accrediting agency. As things currently stand, it is a recognized British agency, despite some of their troubling history and decisions. It's just that it's original purpose (largely having to do with internal immigration and visa issues) seems to have been lost for the international universities that have joined them. Many universities make it seem like this accreditation carries tremendous weight when that's simply not the case. If international universities simply emphasized how their degrees have been aligned with British immigration standards, the situation would be different. But we don't live in a perfect world.