Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Bob Fiske, Apr 28, 2020.
BTW, I'm not knocking it. I am an undergrad-degree-seeking UoPeople student.
Fascinating. I'd be interested in your impressions and review of your experience.
I am taking the undergraduate courses at UoPeople. I don't find there is any critical difference with other colleagues' online program, except you will encounter much more young kids who might have difficulties in understanding your points compared with grown-up mates in other graduate programs.
How young are we talking here?
Ahh okay. For a moment I thought you were referring to very young kids. I took online French lessons that were supposed to be with adults and every once in a while we would have someone 9 or 10 years old join our session. Luckily they were studious and there were no issues.
UoPeople received Candidacy status from WASC
They'll more than likely make it, too. So it'll be yet another DEAC school going on to regional accreditation.
Man, that DEAC is just a TERRIBLE accreditor.
It really isn’t great to get a reputation as a stepping stone to RA, though, at least in the sense of the reputation of the schools that don’t move on.
Why not? The school you got your MS from was once NA, accredited by the DETC (now DEAC). I do get the point about schools that don't move on, but for those that do: as long as it takes for the Department of Education's language changes that eliminated the outdated NA/RA model to take hold, and for as long as people continue to erroneously view one accreditor/accreditation type as higher than another, schools going from traditionally NA accreditors to traditionally RA accreditors will just be part of the game.
In short (to the point), if the DEAC and its schools were irredeemable trash as some claim, those schools getting RA would've never happened.
I don't think that is the argument though. The argument is that DEAC is second rate which puts a cloud of suspicion over DEAC accredited schools. That suspicion goes away with RA accreditation.
This isn't a comment on DEAC vs RA, but I just don't think this is a sound argument. The pattern you describe, to an NA detractor especially, looks exactly like the cream rising to the top. Like a minor leaguer making it to the majors.
Whether or not that's true is for other people to argue about over the next 20 years of bloviating threads.
Yes, I know that's the argument Yes, "a cloud of suspicion" from detractors, but not case-closing facts. So in the other direction, supporter's positions are only further legitimized when another DEAC school gets RA accreditation.
The reality is, or at least it appears, that no matter how many DEAC schools get RA, it will never satisfy detractor's suspicions or just outright dismissal as some have. The question for the detractors is: at what point does that suspicion reach old wives tale/boy who cried wolf territory? After 50 DEAC schools get regional accreditation? More? All? I can think of about 14 or so schools that went from DETC/DEAC to RA and I believe there are more I just don't know about them. At some point, the suspicions lose gravity when faced against a mountain of evidence of legitimacy.
But the detractors don't believe there is any cream there in the first place. Much to their chagrin, with each DEAC school that goes RA proving them wrong, the detractors go eerily silent against a specific DEAC school. I can think of discussions where a DEAC school was trashed throughout, then that RA status came and the detractors disappeared, waiting for the next one to jump on.
There is no chagrin when a school is accredited? What a strange thing to say. Why should anyone be bothered by that?
When a private school is being started it can't get accredited immediately. So it seems like a natural procedure to get DEAC accreditation when that is possible. It is easier to get DEAC accreditation and so of course that would be available first. Later when more history and success can be established then they get RA.
Your whole premise is flawed in my opinion. It is similar to the flawed and false argument if I claimed that you were upset because University of the People went for RA accreditation because they knew that DEAC accreditation is horrible and useless and so they got RA. Both arguments are false.
Umm...no. it confirms their bias that DEAC is not as good, the school recognized that and upped their game to get RA.
That is how that works for many if not most.
The whole NA/RA issue may no longer be as big a deal due to the regulation changes under the last administration, but it's a globalist time and internationally, RA is all that matters, and the US dept of education has very little to zero control over that.
Plus, I think many RA schools and others don't expect the recent changes to stick.
I don't have anything against DEAC; I just recommend that people earn RA degrees for maximum acceptance. But, there are multiple problems with your argument.
A lot of new schools seek national accreditation first since it's faster and cheaper to obtain. Schools that believe they can attain regional accreditation will attempt to do so. During that period between national accreditation and regional accreditation, these schools make changes to meet RA criteria. DEAC tells us what minimum standards a school has met; it doesn't place a cap on quality. So, a school can exceed DEAC's standards, and that will not be DEAC's doing.
I don't know what the success rate is for DEAC schools earning RA after applying, but only looking at them would be self-selection bias. Of course, the schools with the goal of obtaining regional accreditation are going to do more than the bare minimum. To know if DEAC has lower standards, we would have to review all of their schools or a random selection of their schools to see if they meet regional accreditors' criteria. We can't just look at the minority of schools that applied for regional accreditation. They are not representative of the majority.
What you're pointing to there is just confirmation bias which carries no weight.
That's all misperception which is the root of the issue to begin with. The schools that went from DEAC to RA are not operating much if any differently than they were prior. Most of those schools were simply very small (and most still are relative to the majority of their RA counterparts) and hadn't yet reached the financial level to apply for and maintain RA accreditation, so DEAC makes sense for that reason and others like being recognized and such.
I disagree with the bold part, along with millions of students, instructors, employers and the Department itself which disagrees, too. Contrary to what some believe, many don't get NA degrees and then hit the streets to a life of despair and homelessness, lol.
And the Department of Ed has much more control than it may seem, or maybe the better word to use is influence, and it's there because...
... A number of schools have actually already changed their language to match the Department's move. More will follow.
People's insistence on hanging onto an outdated system that has long outlived its useful purpose is bizarre to me. Is there just an innate desire people have to always draw battle lines and have a this vs. that situation? I think we have the capability to judge schools individually instead of needing a designation to do it for us blanketly. A school being good or bad has nothing to do with its accreditation status. It has everything to do with the administration and teaching staff running it.
Who knows, but they are. That's a strange thing not to be aware of. Lots of people hope for the downfall of things and people and are negative toward things or people when they succeed. That's as old as time and the proof is easy to find. The slang term "hater" was born from that very thing. There are people still who can't let go of the propio success and are still hurtling attacks at it that are based on things that have already been defeated. That's a lower side of human nature, people do that.
"Easier" in what way? I've heard that often over the years, and it may be true, but I have yet to see any actual proof like a comprehensive comparison of standards across all accreditors with its relation to the DEAC. If anyone has actually ever done that and posted it I have yet to see it.
It's not that his premise is flawed, it's that you're understanding of it is rooted in naiveté. In a perfect world, people wouldn't hope for the downfall of things and people, but we don't live in that world, we live in a much less pleasant one.
And it's not just with NA schools. Remember how much flak Nations University got when they were still unaccredited and trying to reach accreditation? This was a school that had built a reputation of getting its graduates into RA programs and this was known, but that wasn't enough, they still got attacked. The opponents said it would never be accredited, then it got DEAC accreditation. Same thing happened with University of The People. The detractors in both situations scattered when accreditation came like they always do. So I think it's more about "hating" any school aspiring to achieve a new thing which speaks to an earlier point I made about "haters" and what they normally do.
Separate names with a comma.