US Dept. of Ed - Differences Between Regional and National Accreditation are Unfounded - Same Stds

True. I have known of situations where people with University of Phoenix degrees discovered that. Including a State school not recognizing any work from the University of Phoenix even though both were Regionally Accredited. They said the person would have to repeat everything.

 

You can cite some declarative statement by the Department of Education, but that doesn't make it so.

There was a time when California did programmatic approval at unaccredited schools. It passed a LAW saying their approval was equivalent to accreditation. Didn't make it so.

Here are two examples showing why the two processes are not comparable: every example historically of schools pursuing RA and DEAC accreditation simultaneously resulted in DEAC accreditation being granted first. Second, the RAs have a candidacy period, allowing them to observe schools that seem "accreditable" for a longer period of time before granting "full" accreditation. DEAC does not. We've seen quite a few schools that mystified us with their success at DEAC, only to see their accreditation subsequently rescinded or surrendered.

These examples are outcomes-based, as opposed to inputs-based. That analysis would involve a step-by-step comparison of the two processes AND access to real-life examples, which you will not be able to get.

The usual disclaimer: I think DEAC is legitimate. I think earning a degree from a DEAC is a reasonable thing and such degrees should be acceptable. But I really resist blanket statements that communicate "DEAC is the same as RA." It just is not true. All the available evidence points away from that. Other than that declarative statement from the USDoE, is there any evidence available supporting your argument? If so, please present it.

 

But was that a blanket policy that the school had in rejecting UoP credits? I'd like to read that.

 

I don't imagine it was written. Just part of the process. I knew someone whose boss tossed out UofP applications. Part of the UofP is a joke mentality.

Its reputation was for low end academics and questionable marketing. That said, it was fully accredited and someone who graduated from there graduated with a fully accredited degree. Rather than repeating coursework, I would have advised to get into another more substantial online program.

 

There is also another factor to be considered, its professional and specialty accreditation.
Some NA colleges offer programs that are professionally or specialty accredited and may enjoy a higher level of recognition and transferability.
Such as DEAC accredited Grantham University with BScEET (ETAC) ABET-accredited program. (I remember in the past decade back reading many not so good and critical reviews for GU but since then reviews improved)
Same for some NA colleges and universities that have professional accreditation of selected programs in Nursing and other professions.
I didn't check, but I think that more NA colleges don't have programs that are professionally accredited than the ones with such programs.
In the RA colleges and universities world majority of programs usually have programmatic and specialty accreditation but not always.

 

I think this is more of an exception, I can only say about my colleagues with UoP degrees and never had any issues with transferring credits or recognition, etc.

 

I'd love to see some reliable evidence that it's academics are "low end." I taught there for 3 years and that was not my impression. Questionable marketing? Absolutely.

 

I don't know about "a majority." Again, I'd like to see real numbers that establish it.

Most programmatic accrediting agencies will not consider programs at nationally accredited schools. You can find their websites at www.chea.org.

 

It is probably mostly anecdotal observations. Here is part of the Wiki article that sourced comments by academics, etc.

"Some academics and former students argue the abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams result in an inferior education.[45][46]The University of Phoenix has been criticized for lack of academic rigor. Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University, called its business degree an "MBA Lite", saying "I've looked at [its] course materials. It's a very low level of instruction."[45] The university runs a program called "corporate articulation agreements" that allow people working at other companies to earn college credit for training they have completed at their jobs. To qualify for college credit, students can either create a professional training portfolio or write an "experiential essay".[47] The portfolio is a collection of documents such as transcripts from other schools, certificates, licenses, workshops or seminars.[48]"

 

Indeed an important factor in selecting a school and a program.

Here is a list

I think that someone who is studying Engineering will find more programs that are ABET-accredited than not.
But someone who is studying Information Technology will find out that professional accreditation is not a big value-added, so I think the majority of IT programs are
not professionally accredited but rather Certification infused/oriented.

List of Online Colleges with Programmatic Accreditation
https://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/resources/accreditation/programmatic-accreditation

Here is a list of Nationally accredited Universities
few are with programmatic accreditation:

https://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/resources/accreditation/national-accreditation

Grantham University (institutionally accredited by DEAC)
Programmatic accreditation by:
ABET, ACEN, ACEN, IACBE Anual tuition $6,540
and couple of pages of others. Very limited # in comparison to RA.

 

What is this Regional and National Accreditation you speak of ;-)

 

I think even though there are no more regional and national accrediting agencies; I still think people who know about accreditation will still discriminate against those that were initially classified as NA.

 

Wait, it didn't state they were getting rid of regional and national accrediting agencies. From what I read earlier, the DOE update simply stated they weren't making a distinction between them, as for their policies and practices.

 

Well, they no longer refer to them as regional and national on the ED website. They are all classified as Institutional Accreditors.

 

That must be new? My Army Commission had to be from a RA university.

 

While being financial aid gatekeepers is one of the most critical functions of accreditors, we're not going to see the big regional accreditors going anywhere. We're still going to see discrimination against schools that are not regionally accredited. Feel free to debate the merits of that as you see fit. Any school that drops the compliance requirements of a regional accreditor for a national accreditor, will be strung up like the wicker man.

 

I guess you missed the part where I said, "I still think people who know about accreditation will still discriminate against those that were initially classified as NA." The bottom line is that they are no longer RA and NA. If people choose to subconsciously identify them as such, there's nothing one can do about that.

 

As long as there is more than one college there are always going to be opinions that one school is better than another. If a larger percent of people believe one school is better than another then the "better" school's degree will have more utility. The people with a degree from the other school will then cry and belly-ache that it's not fair. It's the natural way of things.

 

CHEA still makes a distinction between RA and NA:

https://www.chea.org/chea-and-usde-recognized-accrediting-organizations

That matters.