Two Schools Lapse on Accreditation

Wait, are you concluding that NA and RA are equivalent? Based on what?

 

Agreed. The concept of an education and a degree keep getting conflated here.

As far as I know, there hasn't been any research into comparing the quality of education found in DETC-accredited schools with that found in RA schools. (A difficult comparison, since a few dozen DETC-accredited schools would be compared to thousands of RA schools.)

I stand by three points. First, it is easier for schools to get DETC accreditation compared to RA. This is supported by the comparative timeframes involved, the candidacy schools pursuing RA must endure, and the fact that several schools pursued both simultaneously and, in every case, got DETC accreditation years before RA.

Second, DETC accreditation's efficacy is suspect. It has accredited some really bad schools. It has ignored its own rules and accredited schools that were in direct and current violation of DETC's own standards. And it was years (and years and years....) before any of DETC's accredited schools made the leap to RA. One that I'm aware of, but my memory may be slipping there?

Finally, degrees awarded by DETC schools are less accepted than those from RA schools. This is supported by (1) John Bear's research with admissions officials, (2) my research with HR managers, (3) DETC's own surveys of graduates, (4) tons of anecdotes where degrees from NA schools are categorically unacceptable, and (5) the absolute absence of examples in the reverse (where degrees from DETC-accredited schools are accepted but RA ones are not).

I'd toss in the incredible defensiveness and anger brought about by people who want to deny this, but what's the point? They'd just deny that, too.

Can you get a damn fine education at a DETC-accredited school? Maybe, I don't know. I've never done it, I've never seen it measured. Which is why I don't comment on it. But I do think DETC is a demonstrably second-rate accreditor that lacks the old-school underdog charm of days gone by. It's just a place to go for schools that cannot get RA. And if a good education is to be found at DETC-accredited schools, it is this fact that hurts the brand the most.

 

NARIC, NARIC UK will not evaluate DETC degrees. They only evaluate RA degrees from USA.

So on International level there are challenges just as at home.

Here I re post Dr RD table:

seen RD post this elsewhere:

 

When the U.S. Department of Education first recognized DETC accreditation, it confused many foreigners because they incorrectly thought that if the U.S. government is recognizing it, then it must be the national gold standard of education, but it's not. And foreign governments and accreditors are now starting to understand this, which further diminishes the utility of DETC degrees. Many foreign countries won't freely accept DETC degrees, simply because the U.S. government does.

 

1. If the idea is that 'ALL RA schools/classes/programs are academically superior to ALL 'NA' schools/classes/programs', then not only is the idea unbelievable on its face, the exceptions recognized in the second two sentences would seem to render the first sentence logically false by universal modus tollens.

2. If the idea is that 'SOME RA schools/classes/programs are academically superior to SOME 'NA' schools/classes/programs', I think that we can all agree that's true. Unfortunately, that paraphrase isn't very informative and it probably doesn't capture Kizmet's communicative intent.

Which leaves a couple of more interesting possibilities.

3. Perhaps the idea should be that 'ALL RA schools/classes/programs are academically superior to SOME 'NA' schools/classes/programs.' In other words, while acknowledging overlap, there's still an assertion that there's a low-end residue (of unknown size) of 'NA' programs that don't meet minimum RA academic standards.

This one is certainly more plausible than 1. and it might actually be true. I'm not sure that I'm ready to believe it though. I can think of a few doubtful practices occurring at a handful of RA schools that I've never heard of at 'NA' ones.

4. And perhaps the idea should be that 'SOME RA schools/classes/programs' are academically superior to ALL 'NA' schools/classes/programs'. In other words, while acknowledging overlap, there's still an assertion that there's a high-end elite (of unknown size) of RA programs that are academically superior to anything found in the NA rosters.

Again, 4. is certainly more plausible than 1. and it might be true. But I'm not entirely convinced with this one either. I think that it's clearly true in the case of DETC specifically, since there's nothing like an elite highly-selective full-immersion B&M liberal arts college in the DETC lineup, and there's nothing like a leading-edge research university either. But once again, Rockefeller University, the American Museum of Natural History, the Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute and their high-end non-RA fellows do create some problems for this interpretation and may indeed render it false, for research PhD programs at least.

Seeing as how the universal and existential quantifiers aren't working very well, it might be possible to give the initial assertion some kind of statistical interpretation. I guess that one could make an argument that while the RA and 'NA' populations have similar high- and low-end boundaries in terms of educational design, delivery and content, the distribution of RA and 'NA' schools within this universe is very different.

This is the most promising approach in my opinion. It does seem very plausible to me to hypothesize that a disproportionate number of 'NA' schools are clustered down near the low end of the academic quality distribution, while the RA distribution has many more schools up towards the high end.

But... this is a distance learning board and it's concerned with DL programs. Many people here might be offended by my saying this, but I think that the distribution of DL programs is clustered down towards the low-end too. We rarely if ever see DL bachelors programs trying to emulate the elite highly-selective full-time full-immersion bachelors programs like a student might encounter at Amherst or Harvey Mudd. (The University of California is working on DL bachelors programs that they promise will maintain UC's high standards and won't tarnish the brand, so that might be changing a little bit soon, perhaps.) It's very difficult if not impossible to point to any DL doctoral program with the research productivity and intellectual excitement of its best on-campus relatives. A disproportionate number of RA DL programs seem to be easy-admissions offerings in high-demand vocational subjects.

So, while the statistical version of the argument might in fact serve to distinguish the RA and 'NA' populations as a whole, I wonder whether it would produce such clear results if the RA sample was restricted to DL programs.

 

1. WGU dropping DETC is not a sign that DETC is not a good accreditor.

They also dropped three other regional accreditations over the last ten years. At one point in time they were accredited by all of the regional accreditors plus DETC and were the only school in the country that had done the due diligence and paid the fees to do so. This was one of the major reasons I signed up in 2007.

Therefore this is a cost cutting move only (as I think someone else stated already).

2. Only the people on this forum, like forums and academics care about the accreditation thing.

If Harvard decided to not be NEASC accredited, no one would care because it's Harvard.
If someone has a degree on their resume it's going to be generally respected by the common folk.

3. What people do care about is school image/perception, which is not the same as accreditation status.

If you go to a state school, private school of merit or Ivy school you're pretty much good. If you go to UoP you're kind've ok cause of the large alumni base.. If you go to random online school you may or may not be ok.

Hopefully I'm still read by enough people on the forum (not on ignore) that this at least partially kills some of the silly vitriol.

Best,
ITJD

 

Fair point.

Absurd point. Many, many employers care, often saying so in their regulations. Same with universities. It matters.

No kidding. Thank goodness everyone goes to Harvard and not any of the 4,000-plus other tertiary institutions in this country. That keeps things simple.

Who are the "common folk"? And remember, many of them will be impressed by a fake degree, which is why the diploma mill industry is estimated (by John Bear and Allan Ezell to be in excess of a billion dollars per year. Again, it matters.

Wow, where to begin? Let's call it unsupported conjecture and go easy on it.

In what way could any of that have accomplished your objective? A few unsupported opinions? Where are your facts?

 

Current Harvard students would care a lot, because if Harvard dropped its institutional accreditation from NEASC, its students would no longer qualify for federal scholarships or loans.

Of course, Harvard could seek an alternative form of institutional accreditation, perhaps NA from ACCSC or ACICS, to remain qualified. But Harvard students, faculty, and alumni would be stunned and shocked if anyone even suggested this. They would care a lot.

 

WGU is adding two states to their
Governors Announce Plans for WGU Missouri, WGU Tennessee

Are these all the same RA or need to add RA?

 

WGU is based in Utah, and has RA from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Schools. Apparently this accreditation applies to the state branches too, because WGU Texas and WGU Indiana also claim accreditation from NCCS (rather than from SACS or NCA). The same will probably be true for WGU Missouri and WGU Tennessee.

 

@ Rich Douglas - I'm ignoring the points made that were intentionally flip.

Universities fall under "academics".

As far as employers caring, in the five or six times I've seen them care over the course of 20 or so years of hiring across government, corporate and non-profit sectors it's been caring in the sense of..

"Hey this person went to (insert name of well known school here) and this person went to (insert name of school here) lets' take the guy that went to well known school."

Not once have I ever heard, outside of this forum or academia "hey, this guy went to awesome school and this guy went to awesome school that was better accredited."

Reason for that is any school that a decent employer is hiring from is properly accredited and it's not part of the conversation to begin with. It's a minor point, but one to note as if a well-known school lost SACS for example, or chose not to pursue it, the alumni group would still hire from the school at the very least and I'd bet your bottom dollar that the regulations would change if the alumni group had political swag.

The common folk are the 70% of the population without a college degree in the United States and the significantly higher percentage of people in the world that haven't sniffed college that still produce something and get along in life. My point about this forum, like forums and academics is simply made because we're all inclined to put extensive merit into organizations that we believe in. We all have degrees. Of course we're going to say the accreditation matters; even more than it probably should.

I believe in two types of facts. The first type is based on experiences. These are the best possible facts but hard to quantify for academic reasons because they're based on something called reality. The second type is called research or evidence. That's when you take facts and present them in a way that is intended to convince someone else that your interpretation of events or things is accurate.

If I have to convince you of what I feel is true, then it's not true for you. It doesn't affect your paradigm or what you do for a living so it's wrong.
If what I say rings true to me or someone else, then it's true for them. It affects my world, and my paradigm so I have to operate and believe differently.
No bull here and I'm not calling you out at all. Just is what it is. This is a forum, not a research paper and I don't need a references page to convince me i'm right, nor do you need to believe me.

Reason I posted was to offer a counter point. At 4+ pages a thread tends to lose itself.

@CalDog

The Harvard points I make occasionally get taken out of context. To your point, I'm sure the students would care, but then the accreditation thing lends to financial student aid, which leads to escalating tuition costs due to availability of loans.. so um.. circular argument. The system exists to further the existing system.

Thanks guys. Appreciate the discourse.

 

Five or 6 times over 20 years?

"Real life" isn't hard to quantify. On this very subject, John Bear did it. I did it. DETC has done it several times. I'll leave it to others to decide which preponderates, your unverifiable personal experiences or research with admissions officials, HR professionals, and graduates of DETC-accredited schools, all of which has been published and/or presented publicly.

This is conjecture from someone who has published no research on this topic, nor cites any. Readers will have to decide whether or not the argument persuades.

Okay, how is that relevant? Most people hiring college graduates are college graduates themselves. And in many companies and organizations, candidates must get through a screening process by HR even before that. If the company or organization makes distinctions around types of accreditation (and many do), then graduates of DETC-accredited schools are not going to do well in those situations, by definition.

But you present no "facts," not even by your own definition. Data (a more accurate term than "facts") are normally classified as quantitative or qualitative. John, DETC, and I have all done quantitative studies on this subject, amassing copious amounts of data, analyzing them, and then making claims based on those data. Qualitative studies, on the other hand, involve rich descriptions of lived experiences, where the researcher gathers these deep and complicated experiences often directly from the sources--the people who went through them. (Sometimes even from the researcher him/herself.)

You give us neither.

That leaves us with the persuasiveness of the story you tell. But you give so few insights as to make that impossible. I guess we could just believe you, but even the logic of your points breaks down rather quickly, so why bother?

No it isn't. But if you post unsupported conjecture, don't be surprised if someone with actual experience in what you're talking about calls you on it. You're right, though, anyone can post just about anything. But there's this thing called a "Reply" button that creates the phenomenon we're seeing here.

 

Mr. Douglas -

I'm finding it hard not to read a certain tone in your writing. So I'm going to shore this up briefly.

In writing what I've written, I've offered an opinion. It's well-meaning and not intended to offend or insult you, Dr. Bear, or any research done on the accreditation topic. Stating things about conjecture, data, facts, life and such after I have expressed a respect for your opinion, admitted my flaws and tried to find a common ground with your position, lacks class. Same can be said for patronizing me by explaining what an effective academic argument is.

You've presented points that will resonate with a reader of a certain demographic. I have as well. Enough said. I am not interested in "winning the Internet".

Best,
ITJD

 

Then let it go. I have.

BTW, it's "Rich." I use my real name here.

 

I generally try to avoid the whole argument of "academic quality" comparisons between RA & NA (or between DL and face-to-face, for that matter), because of two fatal flaws with the discussion. First, "academic quality" is usually not defined and is certainly not based on any measured student learning outcomes. Second, due to the wide variations within the groups themselves (RA, NA, DL F2F), comparison between one group and another are virtually meaningless. As Dr. Rich Douglas points out, it is, however, demonstrable that schools can get DETC accreditation faster and cheaper than they can get RA accreditation and that the vast majority of NA schools do not become RA.

As has been mentioned, colleges and universities set up their own criteria for admission. My institution has determined that we would consider students whose credits/degrees are from institutions are accredited by an agency recognized by US Dept. of Ed. and/or CHEA. This includes nationally accredited schools. I am working out the parameters for a study to see if students coming into my institution with NA degrees perform differently than those with RA degrees.

With regard to the DETC in particular: As someone who oversee the academic side of a decently sized virtual campus at my university (4,000 students taking online courses, 1,000 of which are in fully online programs), I have looked into whether DETC would offer value above our regional accreditation from SACS. My school has several secondary accreditations/recognitions, including ACPE, ACF, IACBE and ABA. Each of these adds particular value above our institutional regional accreditation, so we expend the time, effort, resources and funding to pursue them.

Unfortunately, DETC did not seem to offer any value to my institution that was not already achieved by regional accreditation with SACS. So, while I have nothing at all against DETC and have accepted students with credits and degrees from DETC schools, I do not see the value of DETC accreditation for a school with regional accreditation. Perhaps this is the reason for WGU's decision. I have a good friend who is an administrator at WGU. The next time that I run into him at a conference, I'll ask him.

 

I was going to let this die, but I want to answer a point from an earlier poster regarding the nature of these boards, the weight of evidence, and so forth.

If you were waiting at the subway station and said to the person standing next to you, "You know, DETC accreditation is comparable to regional accreditation," I seriously doubt the person next to you is going to say, "Really, and what is your support for this assertion? What proof do you have for your statement?"

But this isn't a subway platform.

This board is focused on a rather narrow subject, Distance Learning. It can be expected that among its participants might be people who have had some deep involvement in the subject. (For noobs: I have a Ph.D. where I specialized in this very subject.) It might also occur that some would disagree with statements tossed about with a "I was just offering my opinion" kind of flair. Sure, offer your opinion. But don't be surprised--or offended--if others ask on what you're basing your assertions. And please don't respond as if you were being bullied. You weren't.

If you can't handle that, perhaps you should go back to the subway platform (or any other non-discerning environment). But if you post here, expect others to challenge statements that do not comport with whatever is already known. And if you have something solid that refutes it, then we'll all benefit from your contribution. And I'm sure we'd all look forward to that.

 

His view has the same value as yours and anyone else's; no better, no worse. Also, I'm not seeing where anything he said needed to be "verified" in the first place. In the 3 posts he made, all he did was:

1st Post = Mention his own personal experience between attending RA's and NA's.

2nd post = Agree with the concept's Rich pointed out, and clarified what he was meaning about how people react to the NA-RA discussion, which all one has to do is use the search function to see those reactions. This thread itself is mild evidence of his point, but there are certainly more demonstrative examples where people like "me again" are just flat-out against the DETC and probably NA schools in general (which is his right and one he does not need to submit verification and sources for, smh). Why are people pretending this stuff isn't happening? Heck, there is a guy who hangs around here who flatly states that online education as a whole is inferior... why is no one asking him for all kinds of "evidence", especially when the guy never attended a single online class in his life? Do the claws come out ONLY when ANY kind of non-glowing remark is even just suggested about RA schools specifically? I'm being facetious with that last part, but not entirely when you look at the overreaction to the 3 posts Max made and the typical non-reaction to actually wild claims made by other people around here.

3rd post = Explained why he's not going to get into the name game, and will only discuss schools he's had contact with or attended. Do we really want him to discuss schools he's had no contact with or has no knowledge of? That doesn't make an ounce of sense, I'm sorry it just doesn't. And besides, when someone says they're not comfortable doing something we should respect that and leave them alone.

He also corrected you on the approach you accused him of, saying he'd made "most people believe" or "no one thinks" statements, though he never did either in this thread.

Now in terms of there being embarrassments with other accreditors, are we seriously going to pretend that the DETC has been the only one? Are we seriously going to pretend that no regional accreditor has EVER had schools involved in terrible and very public scandals, shutdowns due to poor management, etc? Let's not do that. Let's be honest instead. He doesn't need to name any names because we already know some, so let's not pretend we don't. Most of the people posting here are well-versed in everything that has been going on with collegiate education for many years, enough to know about all of these things. Again, let's be honest and not pretend we don't know anything about RA school scandals or passively suggest they're not happening.

I personally don't know about everything and I won't claim I do as others might, but off the top of my head I can think of RA's like Dickinson State University who'd been handing out degrees like lollipops to foreign students who didn't even complete the required coursework (among other improprieties) and that was very public. I can also mention University Of Phoenix's financial Aid/enrollment scandal, Mountain State University's reported poor academic quality, poor administration, and dishonest crediting practices, or Ashford University's multiple public blowups of similar vein. We're also all well aware of many RA schools who've broken all kinds of rules to field a better sports team, some of those schools have received the "death penalty" like SMU did, with others receiving harsh penalties like Ohio State University and Penn State University. These things are all on record and we're all well aware of them, and I'm sure there are plenty more. Let's not pretend we don't know. And none of those things are embarrassments? Guys, give me a break.

Let's look at what Max didn't say in any of his statements; this is key and the reason why this hunt against him is totally ridiculous:

-He never said NA was better than RA.

-He never said NA was on par with RA, he only said in his experiences he found SOME of the NA schools he attended to be as good or better than SOME of the RA's he attended. That's no different than someone saying that some of the Buffalo chicken wings I had in Idaho (considered 2nd rate for Buffalo wings) were as good or better than some of the Buffalo chicken wings I've had in Buffalo (considered first rate for Buffalo wings)... and who are we to tell him he's wrong? Who are we to ask for "verification" for his personal view (which he isn't trying to convince anyone else to adopt anyway), as if he needs to verify that to begin with? Is this seriously happening here? You've gotta be kidding.

-He never said the DETC was a first-rate accreditor.

-He never said the DETC hasn't made a ton of mistakes.

But what he IS saying, is that other accreditors have had their fair share of issues. He's right about that, and we know it, let's not pretend otherwise.

Now, had he actually started listing schools he had no experience with, and then provided no evidence for his feelings on those specific schools, then there would be grounds for some kind of verification, but since he didn't do that you're really grasping at straws. Besides, in the past whenever he's actually named a school he DID have an experience with, all people did was attack him on it anyway, just look up how people reacted to his experience with New Charter University and his experiences with Ashford. One knucklehead had the audacity to suggest he'd never even attended one school when they didn't even have a reason to do it any more than he'd have a reason to suggest that person never attended his own. So what's the point? Should he submit transcripts, course syllabi, and Professor information? Smh. This is all just ridiculous. As he said himself, no one else is being held to that standard here, and quite frankly they shouldn't be. There are people here who've decided that no matter what he says, he can't win. So why don't we all just decide to either agree or disagree with something and let it be? You know, the way we do with everyone else and everything else.

Gee whiz.

 

Oops, somehow this post accidently got posted before I was close to completing it, and there's no longer any 'delete' option. Let me try this again. The results will be in the next post.