RA’s don’t actually discriminate against DETC it turns out;just no one had asked them

That’s my point, you put up the null hypothesis, and see if you can collect data to support it, then search for statistically relevant data that disproves it (or not, but we all know it isn’t the case..) if you go in the other way you are trying to prove the negative, better to disprove the positive.

Although all things equal I kinda liked the idea of selecting school names as the survey vehicle, to stay away from false negatives and biases…

Is UoP or AIU better accepted that Aspen or ColSouth? How much better? If you go against all of RA, tier 1-4, but instead focus on the tier 4 / DETC comparison, the statistics may paint a clearer picture of what is going on… you could also focus only on 100% DL programs, to see if there is bias to DETC or DL as a whole..

 

That was the point, set up the hypothesis backwards and collect real data to disprove it. I just think this is easier that trying to prove the negative, kinda like making DETC prove their innocent instead of that they are guilty. Although as I said above, I like the approach of selecting schools, gauging their acceptance, and then evaluating the characteristics of what makes them acceptable (accreditation, DL, no-DL, so on). Just trying to keep the research unbiased and scientific.

 

As I discovered, this is also consistant with the teaching credential evaluation, which is section 3.7 of their statement of principles document.

 

I agree, if you qualify your last statement to say "some DETC schools."

Yes, there are certainly situations where a particular program from a DETC-accredited school would fit a particular person's particular situation. They should not be dismissed out-of-hand. But that's not the same as ignoring the real differences and limitations present. In some cases, it is worth those limitations in order to achieve what one seeks. (Just as it is sometimes worth it to go to choose one RA over another for reasons other than quality of education or prestige of degree.)

 

I did just that in my doctoral dissertation, using one example of a DL school from each category of recognition. The most acceptable: the RA school that evoked "state" in its name (the then-Southwest Texas State U.). Second place: Columbia "State" University, a notorious diploma mill. So there you go. (There's more, of course.)

 

Maybe if close to the same methodology was followed this time there would be an apples to apples trend we could understand (or a lack of trend we could understand)..

 

Or how about we look at it this way: identifying “super stars” that break down walls and barriers may actually help “Someone about to embark on a degree program...”

 

I'm as big an advocate for DETC as there is, but there is such an abundance of very specific data regarding the greater level of acceptance and often requirement of RA over NA, that is seems research to prove or disprove a null hypothesis on that specific question begs a reason.

Is there a single example where institutional NA is a requirement, to the exclusion of RA? I cannot think of one, but there are examples of the reverse. What is it that is open to further question on that specific point?

Maybe that is not the point ,and as such, I am off base.

 

Got me, this is the way I understand you do it to get good scientific results. As I personally am discovering, a lot of the “evidence” seems more like heresy. I don’t for a minute disagree that RA is written into many, many adjunct job descriptions and credit transfer agreements, it just turns out that the reasons why don’t hold up. Hell, I think someone posted here somewhere that they found that very wording for a DETC schools adjunct posting. I don’t think many people actually know what the words mean, and are completely baffled about accreditation. The schools for sure. Either the research will look at the trends, or the root cause. It is important not to lead in the questions or get caught up in the confusion of biases…

 

Well, the "why" question is a much wider debate, or yet, a different set of research questions with perhaps a case study methodology to delve deeper into the collective subconcious of the phenomenon. "Why", or how consistently enforced, are big cans of worms.

But to the hypthosesis, "There are no situations where a degree from a school accredited by a regional accredited organization would be acceptable, but one from a DETC accredited school would not."...it only requires a single example and there are many.

 

If we make this discussion NA vs RA (as opposed to DETC vs RA) then we must include AACSB (for example) as an NA and in that case, there are examples of when an AACSB accreditation is required without regard to the RA accreditation (ie: the AACSB is considered the superior position) and the fact that there are no DETC AACSB schools isn't really the question. NA has been considered over RA in these cases. In my field (music) we find the same situation with NASM and there have been examples of non-RA NASM schools in the past.

I think the null hypothesis must be presented as either NA or DETC but not both. The result likely differs.

I also think that this debate is not about whether DETC is either "equal to all RA" or "better" than any (though I suspect we can show some examples of a DETC that meets educational objectives better than some specific RA), we can probably show an unaccredited that does the same. I think this debate is really about "what are the facts" as opposed to "what are the perceptions". I suspect some people might like to use some of these facts to facilitate a change of perception.

We've brought this discussion through a lot of inter-related areas (RA transfer requirements, public perception of DL, public understanding of accreditation, and "the name game", and institutional reputation) and I think it's time that we brought all of these into a single study that might even seek causation (which is what I the some are really after here) and an understanding of "why don't people like xyz school".

I can see the world of DL heading in several directions, right now things look very good for those of us who support the idea. We must have some research soon to validate it though or the growth we've seen in the past few years will reverse itself.

I generally advise people that "there are better options" as well. I'm interested in proving that now. Honestly, there are better options than CUNY (an example, I have nothing against CUNY) and clearly better options for most of my neighbors than my alma mater Coastal Carolina U (tier-4 public in SC) -- that there are better options doesn't in itself mean we should disregard these as options. Plenty of options is good - we simply need to quantify the real validity of each option now.

ok - I'm rambling, I'll stop now.

 

My assumtpion is that NA in this discussion refers to national institutional level accreditation (e.g., DETC, ACICS, etc), and not a discussion between RA (institutional level) and NA at the program/professional level (e.g., AACSB, ABET, etc.).

 

Actually, you wouldn't throw in AACSB with NA. AACSB is PA (professional accreditation), as is NASM (among many other examples). Having PA for some of your programs puts you a cut above an RA-only institution.

 

I'll buy that. Aside from DETC and ACICS, who else would be in the group of non-RA institutional accreditors? I know the RAs and most of the PAs (as used here).

Does it remain that APUS/APU/AMU is the only RA and DETC institition? Is there an example from the other institutional accreditors that is both RA and NA (institutional)?

I do thank all of you for your input and appreciate the incredible level of knowledge about DL that this forum (and DD) can provide.

 

I personally think if you lump all NA’s & RA’s together that you won’t be able to pull a clear enough of a picture together from the statistics.

 

I categorically and emphatically disagree. Individual stories of success can be refreshing and inspiring, but if one is left with the incorrect idea that such happenings are routine, then the reader is hurt as a result if he or she acts based on anecdotal information. For example, Bill Gates is a billionaire and a college dropout. If I decided to drop out of school and start a software company based on his example, am I making a smart decision?

 

My argument was that if you have 2 students applying to a prestigious graduate program, one with a degree from a RA school like UOP and the other from a solid DETC school, their likelihood of acceptance would be about the same if their GRE/GMAT/LSAT scores are equal.

 

The position of each of the RA

Thanks to Desiree Gray who did this research for me this morning:

Summary: Each member institution may accept transfer credit at their discretion without regard to regional (or any other) accreditation but also considering that as a potential factor. Further, they are free to not accept credit (even from other regionally accredited colleges) as they wish.

In answer to the question, regionally accredited colleges are not specifically prohibited from accepting transfer credit from non-RA colleges; but, they are required to be certain that the credit accepted in transfer is equivalent to their own courses.

opinion: That the regionally accredited colleges are not prohibited from accepting DETC transfer credit does not imply that they are required to accept that credit. It is clear that the intention of the RAs is that determination of acceptability rests with each institution. The institutional policy is important because this is an issue of accreditation review. All RA colleges will have a policy - though it may or may not be known/understood to/by the staff.

 

No, you don't. "NA" refers to institutional accreditation, as is RA. AACSB is professional (or programmatic) accreditation. Different thing.

 

No. The evidence available simply does not support this. A UoP graduate would be catagorically denied--denied on the face of the degree without any further consideration--in almost no cases. (The degree itself would not necessarily be a deal killer.)

The graduate from a DETC-accredited school would be denied in many cases on the face of his/her degree, without further consideration of his/her other qualifications. The degree would be a deal-killer.