March 31, 2006

Dropping a Bomb on Accreditation

In its first six months of operation, the Education Department’s higher education commission has been best known — and most feared in academe — for some off-handed comments from the panel’s chairman about the need for more evidence that college students are actually learning something. Many academic leaders took that to mean that the panel planned a national standardized test for higher education — an idea that the chairman, Charles Miller, has repeatedly insisted is a misinterpretation.

Looking for a job?

See all 208 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,375
Administrative: 1,315
Executive: 170
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Now the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education has a new target: higher education’s longstanding, little understood, and much-maligned system of regional accreditation. And an “issue paper” Miller released Thursday leaves little room for misinterpretation about the perceived problems or the proposed solution: a “national accreditation foundation” that Congress would create to replace the current system.

While Miller himself did not write the often scathing report — “The Need for Accreditation Reform” was prepared by Robert C. Dickeson, a former vice president at the Lumina Foundation and a consultant to the commission — its release at his “request” signals a continued desire on the chairman’s part to challenge college leaders to rethink how they operate.

That inclination is reflected in several other papers that the commission released Thursday, too. One in particular, titled “Accountability/Assessment,” is a sharply worded laundry list of many problems that Miller and his co-author, Geri H. Malandra, associate vice chancellor for institutional planning at the University of Texas System, say afflict American higher education: a “dangerous complacency about the real quality and impact” of the system, student outcomes that are of “grave concern,” elitism and a growing chasm between college access for low- and higher income students, and a “gaping information void” about colleges’ performance, to name just a few.

Another paper prepared by Miller fleshes out an idea he has mentioned earlier of transforming existing Education Department databases into a much more robust public source of comprehensive information about colleges, which could be used, among other purposes, to help students and parents find the right college for themselves.

As envisioned in the memo, the searchable database would contain a broad range of data about colleges’ enrollments, prices and student outcomes, and individual students (or others assessing the quality of colleges) could weight the measures and characteristics that matter most to them, to essentially create their own individual “ranking.” The report has more in mind than just a tool to help consumers choose widely, though: As with most of the commission’s (or at least Miller’s) ideas, an underlying goal of the proposed database, he says, would be to “hold postsecondary institutions accountable for their performance.”

Which leads back to the paper on accreditation. The subject gets a separate treatment of its own, Dickeson’s paper suggests, because accreditation is the primary system responsible for gauging the performance and ensuring the success of higher education in the United States. If the quality of American higher education is slipping, as the commission’s other papers argue, then accreditation must share the blame.

The system performs two main purposes, the paper says: helping institutions assess themselves and improve, and protecting consumers and the public interest. And it is falling short on the latter, the paper says.

“Any serious analysis of accreditation as it is currently practiced results in the unmistakable conclusion that institutional purposes, rather than public purposes, predominate,” it says. “A system that is created, maintained, paid for and governed by institutions is necessarily more likely to look out for institutional interests.” Among the problems it cites with regional accreditation are:

A lack of transparency. “The public’s need for critical information is not being met,” because the accrediting process itself is too secretive and accrediting groups don’t require enough transparency on the part of the colleges they oversee. The dearth of information about colleges’ performance with a public hungry for comparable information about institutions’ quality has made U.S. News & World Report’s seriously imperfect rankings a de facto accreditation system.
Low and lax standards. “Accreditation currently settles for meeting minimal standards,” as “nearly all institutions have it, very few lose it, and thus its meaning and legitimacy suffer.”
Outdated regionalization. “Technology has rendered the quaint juridictional approach to accreditation obsolete.... More and more students are crossing state lines to complete their education and enrolling in multiple institutions, often simultaneously.”

“The reform of accreditation in the United States is necessary because accreditation has become too important to remain the exclusive prerogative of the very institutions being accredited,” the paper asserts. Calling for “more integrity in the process,” it suggests an alternative: the National Accreditation Foundation, “a private-public partnership,” governed by a board of college officials, members of the public, business leaders, and state and federal policy makers, that would “create and maintain quality standards” for the nation’s colleges, oversee “new accreditation processes” that are more efficient and effective, share information about accreditation decisions with the public, and take on the responsibility for determining institutions’ eligibility for federal financial aid, among other roles.

Reaction to the Plan

Not surprisingly, the commission’s paper provoked strong reactions from accreditors and other observers of the process.

Judith P. Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, a national group that oversees all of the country’s college accreditors, said she believed the report went beyond the “reform” of its title to “revolution.”

“The notion that accreditation needs to be reformed ” — which she said she embraces — has certainly been out there, and the commission members have been saying that they want more about outcomes, more consistency across regions, more transparency,” Eaton said. “I’m just not sure you need to go this far to get those things.”

Eaton, who got her first look at the report Thursday afternoon and is scheduled to testify at the commission’s next meeting next week in Indianapolis, said she was open to the ideas in it but had many questions. She was particularly troubled, she said, by the idea of a federal role in the proposed new system, given the long and honored history of decentralization in American higher education.

“Higher education in the U.S. is successful in a lot of ways,” and much of that success can be attributed to the academic freedom that institutions and faculty members have had to experiment and innovate,” she said. “Why in the face of the success of U.S. higher ed — and accreditation is part of that success — would you want to put together something that cuts at the very features that have created what is good about us?” She said the proposed structure sounded a bit uncomfortably like a “national ministry of academic quality.”

The heads of several regional accrediting groups were troubled by many aspects of the paper, from its tone ("intemperate,” said Jean Avnet Morse, executive director of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education) to its conclusions about their quality and the viability of a national accrediting system.

“Accreditation has evolved and changed over many decades to meet changing needs, and it will continue to do so,” said Morse. “This is a process that has proved its worth over a long period of time.”

She also questioned the logic of saying that accreditation standards must be low since few institutions lose accreditation. “The fact that few institutions lose accreditation is actually the result of a very labor intensive monitoring and improvment system by accreditors. We catch problems early and require reports, visits and the imposition of a gradual set of sanctions (such as warning and probation) before removing accreditation,” she said. “Another reason is that there are very extensive requirements — applied over years — before an institution achieves accreditation. Therefore, it is in good shape and we should be able to catch problems before they become serious.”

Ralph Wolff, executive director of the Western Association of Colleges and Schools, said that regional accreditors have reformed themselves over the last decade, making standards tougher and more relevant to student learning. Some of the criticisms in the report might have been valid 10 years ago, but aren’t today, he said.

For example, during that time, standards have been added in his association (and similar reforms have taken place elsewhere) that require colleges to provide specific evidence that they measure student learning, and take steps to improve programs based on the results of these measurements. “I don’t think there’s any question but that we’ve made our processes more rigorous,” he said.

A national accrediting system would fail to reflect regional differences, said Barbara Brittingham, director of the Commission on Colleges of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. She noted, for example, that the Western group deals with mammoth systems of large public universities, while her group reviews progress and many small liberal arts colleges. “There are regional differences,” she said. “We have a different mix.”

Brittingham also said that the regional organization keeps educators close to the process. Hundreds of college officials work together to draft standards and to periodically review them, and they are thus better able to understand them and more likely to take them seriously. Such intensity would be hard on a national level, she said.

At the same time, she said it was wrong to imply that the regional system resulted in a lack of national standards. On more than 95 percent of decisions, she said, the regionals would evaluate institutions in the same way. That’s because the regional directors talk regularly, most visiting teams have at least one out-of-region member, and broad consensuses exist on many issues. Even on distance education, she said, the regional groups have worked together to deal with the issue and there is no crisis that needs to be solved.

Wolff of the Western group agreed, and questioned the presumption that a national system would be better. “Nobody asks us why we have 50 states,” he said.

Longtime observers of higher education who are familiar with but not part of the accreditation system had a range of reactions to the commission’s statement. Jack H. Schuster, a professor of education and public policy at Claremont Graduate University who is visiting this year at the University of Haifa, said he shared Eaton’s concern about the possible federalization, or at least nationalization, of quality control, which he called a “frightening prospect".

Schuster, who wrote in an e-mail messge that he has “spent a career criticizing aspects of American higher education (hoping thereby to suggest viable means for improvements),” said he nonetheless considers American higher education to be the world’s best, not “despite the absence of centrally imposed standards and ‘quality control’ ” but arguably, “because of the rough-and-tumble scramble among an amazing array of institutions: public and independent, religious and secular, complex and more focused, prosperous and vulnerable.”

He adeded: “The idea of creating an all-knowing policeman for the purpose of applying acceptable quality-control standards on this admittedly messy congregation is frightening — not because it would ill serve the interests of the institutions themselves, but precisely because such a centralized regulatory system would do a great disservice to the public interest.”

Robert H. Atwell, a former president of the American Council on Education who more than a decade ago led an effort to create national accreditation standards, said he largely sympathized with the views expressed in the commission’s paper, although he said he would lean more toward putting more power in the hands of an independent group (like Eaton’s CHEA) than in creating a quasi-governmental agency.

But he warned commission leaders that in challenging the regional accreditation system, they had potentially taken on a major battle.

“These regions are very powerful when they decide to go to war,” because “the institutions they accredit become their supporters,” Atwell said. If the commission pushes a fight, “there’s going to be blood all over the floor.”

— Doug Lederman

Scott Jaschik contributed to this article.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Just What We Need

... more central planning. What will it take for people to realize that it is not only impossible, but arrogant and dangerous to run things like higher education at the federal level. Governments that practice central planning only killed 170 MILLION people in the 20th century — is that not a lesson in abject failure? Part of me would like to see national accreditation so that I can point to yet one more example of failed Folk Marxist policy.

Pathetic.

Mike, Professor at Southern College, at 6:35 am EST on March 31, 2006

National Oversight is sine qua non

While those with their lives dedicated to the artifical environment of a collegiate setting may not realize the need, transparency is a 21st century reality. It does not matter whether it is education or business and industry.

The very notion that a revolutionary plan causes some to shudder makes me wonder if they would have been the British fighting the colonists. If corporate America elevated itself with Sarbanes-Oxley, Americans now have the same expectation for accountability for higher education. To those who cannot or will not give metrics a chance, please retire and refrain from the henny penny syndrome.

We do not allow our students to be pessimistic about change management or even ideas floated about that reflect thinking strategically, so what is it as a professor or administrator or for that matter any stakeholder group: Do as I do, or do as I say?

This hypocritical and anti-intellectual yearning in higher education will bring more swift boats to the side of reform than simply taking a breath, thinking about the future for once instead of one’s pious self, and examining the evidence for thoughtful consideration rather than an emotive response.

This is not just an idea to think about — it is the future so get LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET OUT of the WAY!

Joseph W Hussar III, Business and Law Professor, at 7:15 am EST on March 31, 2006

National Testing in Higher Education

First let’s start with requirements for politicians. We need to find out who these people are who want national testing in higher education and what THEIR credentials are.

B. V. Catherino, College Instructor, at 8:15 am EST on March 31, 2006

Lead, Follow, Get out of the way OR WORK TOGETHER

In response to the previous comment, which I ambivalent to, I would add the following.

First, due to the highly educated front line workers (faculty) it is very difficulty in most environments to operate with a philosophy of “do it because I said so!” The effects of this paternalistic and often demeaning form of management are coming to an end (I hope/think/beleive) but they are not dead. Since higher education creates the illusory expecation of an egalitarian work-place, this management style destroys the morale of the increasingly more educated and professional faculty AND STAFF who work there. Why should I even try to LEAD if when I do I am told to GET OUT OF THE WAY?

So because it is often difficult or non-productive to have a single meglomaniacal leader driving a campus forward, large committees are created of very busy people from “all sides” to make sure that “due justice” is done to any issue. I have seen these work well and seen them produce useless documents that appease the powers that be but typically are not used by the people on the ground (some examples would be strategic plans, marketing plans, ad hoc commission reports etc...)

All this PLANNING often slows down the process of change AND it invites every constituency group to be involved in most decisions whether they know what they are talking about (as everyone knows, at least 2/3 of any colleges employees are all experts in marketing. admissions, student assessment, teaching. etc...)

Again, it is important to clarify, for my own safety, that I have seen this work and fail at my own institution and heard multiple annecdotes about the sluggishness of higher education in my own readings.

So the comment posed previously needs the addition of WORK TOGETHER. I think every leader has to know when to LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. So perhaps the trick is not that individuals must do one of these exclusively, but perhaps recognize where expertise is and TRUST that other members of your organization are doing the best they can and recognize that some problems will only be solved by WORKING TOGETHER towards the health of the institution as a whole, not anyones specific agenda or departmental superiority (bridges between all silo’s on campus need to be built intentionally, often and creatively).

S.G., Administrative Hopeful, at 8:15 am EST on March 31, 2006

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you....

While regional accreditation may have its weaknesses, it is an educational institution, supporting our educational educations and is very unlike the federal government, which seems to want to continue to expand its role in every facet of American life. The feds attempt to influence primary school through NCLB (No Child Left Behind) hasn’t worked. Now they want to take on colleges? No COLLEGIATE Left Behind is sure to follow. Sure there are problems, but the American system of higher education is the envy of the world — we aught to be wary of efforts to change this.

Mark Shay, CEO at EDU, Inc., at 10:41 am EST on March 31, 2006

Big Brother = Bad Education

Higher education has been warned: Take federal money to enrich yourself, and federal control will follow. Academia has taken the money, and the time to pay the piper is near.

Neal McCluskey, Education Policy Analyst at Cato Institute, at 10:42 am EST on March 31, 2006

bravo, Jack (Shuster)!

You sound like Hayek (I mean that as a compliment). Something to keep in mind when advocating increased government control of some other area of our lives. Always sounds more appealing when applied to someone else’s field of expertise.

gerry g, ex-academic, at 10:45 am EST on March 31, 2006

Establishing Standards

The sluice of dollars, public and private that fill the troughs of our universities was bound to generate the question; “what are we getting for this money?”

“How can you prove that", follows immediately.

It is a sad fact that the trend these days, is to make those questions a demand and apply consequences guaranteed to rankle the supporters of the status quo,.

Yet, the demand for national standards such as those applied to water quality or sanitary requirements in restaurants, is accepted as “a good thing". I like it, anyway.

So. Higher education has to transparently report a level of performance to meet a, national standard in order to receive accreditation? Makes sense.

This is going to be a tough one to shout down.

heldmyw, at 12:05 pm EST on March 31, 2006

What about the national accreditors?

I have not read the full report yet, but Doug’s story talks about “fixing” regional accreditors, when in our experience the bulk of problems arise because of low standards or lax enforcement by *national* accreditors — those that already operate nationwide. There is nothing inherent in a “nationwide” system that improves quality, nor does government oversight necessarily improve quality.

Even among the states, which are the entities that actually authorize the issuance of degrees (accreditors do not have that authority), there is a great gulf between states that enforce high standards (e.g. Michigan, Pennsylvania or Texas) and a state like Mississippi that allows any private business to issue degrees with no oversight at all.

What happens when an accreditor actually *does* enforce its standards and withdraws accreditation (as WASC 2-year did with Compton Community College)? Members of Congress (in this case L.A. Democrats) introduce legislation to whack the accreditor, not to improve the school.

The underlying problem is that accreditors are hopelessly understaffed for genuine quality control, and the colleges want it that way.

There is a certain irony to be found in a government that refuses to adopt national laws against the use of diploma mill degrees while at the same time insisting that we need to replace the accreditors of genuine schools.

Alan Contreras, Administrator at Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, at 12:05 pm EST on March 31, 2006

Hmmm.

Frankly one of the biggest problems with higher education is the arcane, obscure and opaque college admissions process. Most of which seemingly depends on race, race, race and whatever nonsensical requirement du jour.

IMHO the entire admissions process should be ranked on a point basis with all elements that apply to the admissions process given their points assignments and the entire process made completely transparent and utterly public.

Along with all of the point scores for every single successfully admitted student.

As for the results of such education. *shrug* I haven’t been altogether impressed by a college graduate in a few decades so go figure. Everything must be well.

ed, Dropout, at 12:05 pm EST on March 31, 2006

Accredtation

Any national system which officially defines Guam as a “state” in order make the Western Association of Schools and Colleges(California Hawaii, and Guam) meet the “three states in close geographical proximity” requirement is an international disgrace, and that’s what we have. Why not more aggressive oversight with what we have?

Robert Oliphant, columnist at Education News, at 12:05 pm EST on March 31, 2006

The old system is rotten, why would we make it worse?

Having assisted with some of the paperwork supposedly needed for the purpose of accreditation, I will admit that it appears that the existing system is not doing what it had been created to do. However creating a centralized government agency would likely increase the amount of red tape and decrease the (no matter how low already) efficiency. Most doctor’s offices hate dealing with insurance companies’ claims, but sometimes spend twice the time or more on Medicare/Medicaid claims. Yes, the system needs reform, but not a revolution, and definitely not a SOX-like fiasco. It is well known what road do good intentions pave, and this seems one of them. While some consequences of introducing a government accreditation body can be predicted, is there anyone willing to consider them all? For that matter, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes — Who shall keep watch over the guardians? Some Congressional Oversight Committee? Who are we kidding?

There are very few things that can not and had not been damaged by introduction of government oversight, and education had not been one of them for a long time.

Max P, former newspaper editor at at the college that has yet to regain its accreditation, at 12:10 pm EST on March 31, 2006

Suddenly, the nanny state doesn’t look good to you?

Anti-central planning comments from an academically oriented website are ironic.

I know so many academics that want the government support, the government programs, the government outlawing twinkies and cigarettes and hate speech, and yet want to think that they won’t eventually come for us.

We need to know that we are teaching well. We need to do a good job of self-monitoring, so that we aren’t whipsawed by shifting political winds. And we need to be realistic about the concentration of power in the hands of the left and the right- they’ll get all they can, and use it with ‘good intentions’, and they’ll screw everything up.

Dr. Dave, at 12:55 pm EST on March 31, 2006

The Postal Mentality Come to Higher Ed

If you really want national accredition, just remeber this when you are standing in line, the government runs the Post Office. Consider this, the government also gave us medicare/medicade. Do you really want them running Higher Education?

W.B.S., administrator, at 2:45 pm EST on March 31, 2006

If you take the money, be prepared to show how you use it

Let me get this straight: Universities want to continue to suck down tax payer money, and don’t want to account for how it’s being spent? That’s a big steaming pile of bullsh*t.

Taxpayers, and their representatives via the government, have the right to ask for an accounting of their money so they can decide if they’re getting the value they want for the money being provided. Governments have to provide budgets,and people who get grants from the government have to provide reports. What makes Universities that take taxpayer money think they’re so special that they don’t have to?

If you don’t want the government to tell you how to run your business (And make no mistake...Higher education is first and foremost a business), then don’t take the money. Just like the law schools being slapped hard for taking money and ignoring the Solomen amendment, Universities as a whole will get slapped and told what to do if they continue to tax payer money and refuse to account for it.

Tristan Phillips, at 2:45 pm EST on March 31, 2006

less gov’t good, more gov’t bad

My first inclination would be to shun any movement towards the further bloating of our already gargantuan federal bureaucracy. However, after noticing the preponderance of spelling and grammatical errors in this string, I may be swayed to support reforms. In seriousness, our higher education system truly is the envy of the world, and anything beyond modest alterations would be dangerous and irresponsible. Keeping the federal government out of higher education is as paramount to our nation’s success as is the separation of church and state.

Sam Bardsworth, at 3:15 pm EST on March 31, 2006

Get Costs and Tuition Under Control

Or expect to see more and more intervention by the Federal government into the operations of higher education. The slaves who labor to pay for the luxurious lives of the professoriate are getting grumpy and that’s where they turn.

Parent, slave at So Many, at 4:40 pm EST on March 31, 2006

We had fair warning.

In the very recent past our regional accrediting organizations and their spokes persons have spoken loudly and clearly about the urgent need for universitities and colleges to focus on accreditation issues. The call has been for instutitions to take care of the matters of accountability before critics of higher education, as it currently exists, take political advantage of the glacial pace of institutions and the people who comprise them. To some degree, we have brought the current situation upon ourselved for acting too slowly, or not at all. Looking more broadly at the current political environment, it is not difficult to see how our current “leaders” have taken steps to restrain or suppress freedoms in the scientific community. Add to this a drive to federalize oversight (control) of our institutions of higher education. The current blast from the Department of Education is the explicit groundwork for plans that have been implicitly hinted at for some time. These signs of governmental intrusion on freedoms is not new in the history of the world: aren’t these signs of (a move towards) totalitarianism?

A. Bradoch, Asst. Director, at 5:30 pm EST on March 31, 2006

Big Government=Bid Waste

Why should we expect a big government solution to be the answer? Witness the effectiveness of big government in FEMA and Katrina aid. It’s not just our government, what of the U.N.’s management of the Oil for Food program in Iraq. While it appears that many agree that some change is necessary, and while we should be good stewards of the public trust; I just don’t see how big government is the answer.

Matt, at 9:45 pm EST on March 31, 2006

National-vs-Regional

This story is stale. From an earler post>>>“fixing” regional accreditors, when in our experience the bulk of problems arise because of low standards or lax enforcement by *national* accreditors — those that already operate nationwide.>> Any day, I"ll take national over regional. Put the outcomes oriented education side by side and compare — and guess who benefits the most — The Student. Holding national accreditors accountable for instances of fraud or allegations by students is like holding the Chair of Southern Association accountable for date rape at Duke. Look at the data, accountability, and outcomes and the nationally accredited schools win.

CampusDirector, at 5:40 am EST on April 1, 2006

National Approach Works

No matter how convoluted things get, people tend to stick with what they know. Even though many don’t like the thought of doing things differently, our system of higher education is convoluted and cumbersome. DOE, CHEA, Regional accreditors, National accreditors, Professional accreditors, State Approval, State licensing, religious exemptions. It goes on and on. Many of these factions operate in competition or in spite of each other. In contrast, most of the world’s countries have a ministry of education who has some central authority for quality and control. We have a DOE with little authority that promotes decentralization. What’s the point of having a federal DOE? Our system of education could be infinitely more understandable and efficient if we had a national model. You could still have regions for brick & mortar schools under a national scheme. Under this model, Professional accreditation such as AMA, APA, ABA could still function under a national designation. We must get away from the old style regional accreditor system. This cabal contributes to high education costs for its member schools, restricts free access between accreditation systems and member schools, and controls much of the regulatory language currently written into law within many states. This is true for some of the more powerful Professional accreditors as well. Let’s rethink this mess so that the consumers (students and the nation) — and not the big education industry — benefit from a higher learning outcome, higher quality standards, and lower cost.

Vincent Bazza, at 4:10 pm EST on April 1, 2006

accreitation

I will stigmatize my son but piled higher and deeper is still the common layman’s response.

I agree with many of the comments. You have to pay the piper. Higher education has gorged on the federal teat and now Mama want her due. Ibashi!

As far as politicians and who are they. If you don’t know who you elected the fault is yours and once again it is time to pay the piper.

I am in total disagreement with the management of all education in this country. Much of our tax money is wasted on students who have not been taught. Our daughter referred to her high school education,"boys were pushed into farming. Girls were pushed into “cosmetology".

The Army is a tough teacher in a lfe and death issue. If the student fails to learn the teacher has failed to teach! I heard that phrase at every level of command.

Al Bee, at 10:10 pm EST on April 1, 2006

Accreditation Reform?

I’ve just now completed the first draft of the report of an accreditation visiting team that I chaired. I could make some criticisms of some aspects of our present accreditation methods and processes, but having recently led an extraordinarily able team of academics on a three-day institutional visit, I find what we’re now doing generally praiseworthy. Some of the ideas being considered by the Spellings Commission may have some merit, but this elderly, jaded, and skeptical academic wonders whether a national accreditation body governed by a board including “business leaders and state and federal policy makers” might not give us colleges and universities that operate as well as businesses like Enron and General Motors, or federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA. And, might we expect the level of “transparency” presently exhibited by our federal government?

Donald N. Langenberg, Professor of Physics at University of Maryland, at 8:15 pm EDT on April 2, 2006

Bombed comments dah

What is with you people? Instead of nagging government efforts, you should be blue printing a better protocol for education at the post graduate level. Whatever happened to research and analysis of present day problems in order to resolve them in your establishments? Wake up!

Therese Casey, French Instructor at Tutoring Services, at 5:10 pm EDT on April 3, 2006

Levels of complexity?

Perhaps the problem is, governmental entities funding a vast enterprise that they really don’t understand?

The extreme right will lead us back to the Correspondance School debacle of the early 1900s where much student money was paid to private “schools” and little was learned.

Higher Ed. as an entity isn’t completely stupid — they saw the money flowing into this new scam and followed the example of early 20th Century correspondance shams/ scams (spams?) but did try to improve the drop-out rates.

If more people knew what is education and had the capital to implement it, the value of education would quickly go down the drain. As most (governmental or otherwise) can’t define it, can’t describe it, and can’t design a good evaluation (excuse my political incorrectness: “outcomes assessment") model. . .

The serpent continues to chase its tail and most of us by-standers are safe.

Dr. F. Gump, at 6:40 pm EDT on April 4, 2006

Dropping a bomb on Accreditation

“Homogeneity may be highly desireable in a gallon of milk, but perhaps less desireable in a classroom".

While I can’t properly attribute the quote, it came to mind immediately because the teaching and learning process should not be a “one size fits all” endeavor. To quote a colleague of mine, “Students are not sausages"!

As a Dean who is responsible for attaining (and maintaining) regional and professional level accreditations, I am wholeheartedly committed to the accountability that external review brings. However, I wish that there was greater emphasis on a school’s ability to maintain fidelity to the stated mission/vision as measured by the satisfaction levels of students, employers, and other stakeholders.

Laura McCollum, Dr., at 6:10 am EDT on October 4, 2006

Shall I trust accreditation institutions now ?

Time to time I was worried about accreditation institutions. There are many reginol ones. We have no idea which one is better than the other. No information is available. Rather than to have a national institution, may be it is better just to bring some control mechanism over these institutions. I am sure something has to be done.Muvaffak GOZAYDIN

muvaffak gozaydin, AYDIN Education Consultants, at 7:25 am EST on November 30, 2006

A Rose By Any Other Name:

WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accreditation Commission accredited the university in question in 2003: http://web.mac.com/writecoast/iWeb/Site/Blog/Blog.html

Benj-, Crime Writer:, at 2:00 pm EST on December 14, 2006

False Premises

Nobody questions the sweeping generalization that is the premise of this debate: “higher education is letting loose on the workforce too many underprepared students.” And this judgement comes from...whom, exactly? Under-literate administrators in the workforce? Politicians who have themselves been out of school several decades and are out of touch with changes in the culture, in technology, and in the ways they themselves acquired their much touted “preparedness"? How many times have these people stepped into entry level jobs? Could the “underpreparedness” of new workers somehow have to do with an over inflated sense of entitlement? A lack of motivation from the mislead college graduate at the dismal failure of the economy to provide jobs that are as exciting and entertaining as classrooms are now required to be? Is it the new graduates who are underprepared or their recruiters who hire them? Moreover, If there are no gauges for measuring preparedness of graduates, then who is making these statements and what are they showing to back this up? Other issues that might account for an overgeneralized, oversimplified perception of “underpreparedness” are often ignored: these other issues don’t make good politics. They wouldn’t place the blame on professors and teachers, and they would not generate enormous amount of paperwork, more government control, and useless administrative jobs that overlap already existing ones.

Second sweepingly generalized premise (derived from first premise): “because higher ed graduates are “underprepared,” this must be because the quality of college education is worse than it used to be.” Another fair statement might be that highschools and elementary schools, now under “reform” for the past several decades, continue to churn overprivileged, under-prepared high school graduate who are “retained” by higher education because of pressure from administrators and (say this while shouting) tuition-paying parents!!!! We start freshmen years with worse students, so is it really a wonder that, without adding years to the college career, we finish up with worse students as well? Since high schools have not improved with national standards (one could argue they have done worse), then by all means, let’s apply the same failing method to higher education. In a few years we will be putting the focus on doctorates, and why so many people with Ph-D’s can’t compete with their counterparts who graduated in the early millennia. Sure. That makes sense!

Laura, Temp Professor, at 3:05 pm EST on February 5, 2007

Jobs Related to Dropping a Bomb on Accreditation

or search for jobs directly.

Barista — Food Services
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: This position will work as a Barista in a busy, campus run coffee shop. This is a ... see job

Political Science — Assistant Professor(S) — Public Administration/Public Policy (2 Positions)
Western Illinois University

Recognized as one of the nation’s “Best Value” institutions and one of the “Best in the Midwest Colleges” by the ... see job

Instructor
Columbus State Community College

Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job

Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Teacher Education: Clinical Experiences
Georgia Gwinnett College

Georgia Gwinnett College, the 35th member of the University System of Georgia, is a premier 21st century four-year liberal ... see job

Associate Dean for Research, Associate/Full Professor
University of South Florida

A top research university, USF is located on Florida’s west coast in the metropolitan Tampa Bay area, a highly desirable ... see job

Assistant Professor of Communications
Barton College

Barton College provides an opportunity to teach in a generalist Mass Communications program with an integrated curriculum. see job

CHP-N-2239 Assistant Professor — Health Science Program
Towson University

The Department of Health Science at Towson University invites applications for an Assistant Professor, Health Education, ... see job

PeopleSoft HRMS Project Manager
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Assistant Professor of Sociology
Roosevelt University

Job Summary Roosevelt University invites applications for a tenure-track-position in sociology at the rank ... see job

Research Specialist I
Princeton University

Position Summary: The Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics seeks applicants for a research ... see job