You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Two different news stories caught my eye recently, each with the same moral.
The first was about the state of Florida drafting a bill to compel colleges and universities to switch accrediting agencies every so often, and to threaten legal action against any accreditor that finds something negative.
Until a few years ago, such a bill wouldn’t have been possible. But the previous administration rescinded the old rule that granted each “regional” accreditor a monopoly within its region. Now a school in Florida that gets crosswise with SACS can look to the MSCHE or NECHE for a more lenient result.
So far, it looks like the other regionals are holding the line. But over time, market pressure is market pressure. If one agency starts to lose too many members/customers, the temptation to play ball will be real. Threats of litigation could have a similar effect.
Regional accreditors are membership organizations whose power has rested on a combination of a legal monopoly and the ability to grant access to federal financial aid. Oddly, the regional monopoly used to help offset the conflict of interest in a membership-driven organization passing judgment on its members. An accreditor could hold a member’s feet to the fire because the member had no choice. It’s the rare cases of two wrongs—conflict of interest and legally protected monopoly—offsetting each other. Now that the monopoly is broken, I’d expect to see the conflicts of interest gradually become more powerful. This specific Florida bill may or may not pass, but eventually, it’s likely that something will. In the short term, it’s cheaper to work the refs than to improve quality.
Which brings me to the second story, about loan cancellations for students who were deceived by inflated job placement statistics by DeVry.
The stats in question date from 2008 to 2015. I left DeVry in 2003, well before the shenanigans in question. (There was a change of ownership in between, as well.) So I don’t think something like that happened when I was there, but I recognize how it could have.
Market pressure is market pressure. During the late-’90s tech boom, enrollments there grew so quickly that there was no conflict between upholding academic standards and making money. Growth forgives many sins. But when the boom collapsed, taking enrollments with it, suddenly academic integrity started to look expendable. That’s what drove me away.
The primacy of the numbers was built into the architecture of the organization: while each campus had its own president, the admissions office didn’t report to the president. It reported to Home Office and took its directives from there. There was a constant tension between the local campus, which took some pride in delivering a good education, and the sales force. As enrollments dipped and there wasn’t enough for everybody, apparently the sales force won. But it was a Pyrrhic victory; as the reduced quality of the education became known, enrollment cratered. Now the organization is a shell of its former self.
Standards matter. Some of us used to argue that good education was at the heart of good job placement, which in turn was at the heart of the sales pitch; accordingly, good teaching was good business. That argument is true as long as the numbers are real. Apparently after some cuts, some folks decided it was easier and cheaper just to invent numbers. Reality has caught up, as it tends to do, but not before many students were harmed and many good employees lost their jobs.
Markets need rules; some things should not be for sale. We need structures that prevent market pressure from dictating what it shouldn’t. Students are hurt when we don’t.
