ProPublica reports
The Education Department announced [September 22] [1] that it is stripping the powers of one of the nation's largest accreditors of for-profit schools.
The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, or ACICS, has been under scrutiny for continuing to accredit colleges whose students had strikingly poor outcomes.
As ProPublica has reported, schools accredited by the agency on average have the lowest graduation rates in the country and their students have the lowest loan repayment rates.
Accreditors are supposed to ensure college quality, and their seal of approval gives schools access to billions of federal student aid dollars.
As we have also reported, two-thirds of ACICS commissioners--who make the ultimate decisions about accreditation for schools--were executives at for-profit colleges. Many of the commissioners worked at colleges that were under investigation.
[1] Content hidden behind scripts, and then the text is displayed as images.
Previous: Department of Education Recommends Termination of Accreditor
A Degree from a For-Profit College is the Same as No College when Seeking a Job
Related Stories
ThinkProgress reports:
In their television ads, for-profit colleges promise to deliver credentials that will jump-start students' careers. The people lured in by that marketing end up deeper in debt than community college students but fare no better with hiring managers, according to a new study. In fact, for-profit graduates don't even gain a job hunting advantage over applicants with no college experience at all.
The study results(PDF) are based on a simple experiment that the authors believe is the first of its kind performed on for-profit schools. Researchers sent nearly 9,000 fake resumes in response to job postings in six different categories of work and compared the response rates their fake applicants got to see if a for-profit college degree would be worth more in the job market than an equivalent community college certification. Some of the fictional resumes listed no education beyond high school in order to evaluate the claim from for-profit supporters that the industry "draws some students into postsecondary schooling who otherwise would not have attended college at all" and should therefore be viewed as a useful bridge to economic mobility.
The Higher Education "Industry" takes another hit. US Department of Education recommends killing ACICS:
The department's extraordinary recommendation to eliminate the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, a large national accreditor that was the gatekeeper for $4.76 billion in federal aid spending last year, follows widespread criticism of ACICS's oversight of Corinthian Colleges.
Recently, accreditation agencies have been insisting on accountability "metrics" to counter accusations of the "worthlessness" of higher education, with the usual neo-liberal assumption that privatization would result in greater efficiency. But it appears that the profit motive may only introduce corruption into academia.
In April the accreditor stepped up its scrutiny of ITT Technical Institutes, a large for-profit chain that is facing a broad range of federal and state investigations, including fraud allegations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Follow-up to the recent discussion of worthless Swedish Degrees.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:11AM
What impact will this have on colleges? How many will lose accreditation because of this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:30PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:05PM
245 total. A partial list [wikipedia.org]>[?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:14AM
Now, maybe they'll go for lesser-known colleges, and public schools? If a school isn't actually educating people, it needs to be shut down. Burn it down, and start all over.
But, wait. That won't happen. That would require that the education department admit that it is a failure for having put our public schools in the situation they are in today.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by migz on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:16AM
Incorrect. If a school isn't educating people, don't go there. Why do you believe arson is an appropriate response? Nobody is forced to go to these shams.
Don't go, don't pay.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:31AM
Burn it down. The forestry service will tell you that controlled burns are sometimes the best way to manage the forest. Schools aren't much different. It isn't arson when the community decides to do it. Burn it to the ground.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/000/130/disaster-girl.jpg [kym-cdn.com]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:58PM
Don't go, don't pay.
Well, I wasn't going but I was paying; via taxes. So yes, I prefer to not go and to also not pay.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:27AM
It's not about you, Runaway! Let it go.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:37AM
No, it isn't about me. I went to one of the best of schools in the public school system. In my home state, it was considered a "wealthy" district, because the school taxes were terribly high in comparison to surrounding districts. For all that money, we had fully equipped chem labs, biology labs, an amphitheater, all the audio-visual stuff imaginable 45 years ago, our driver's education had five cars assigned to it, we had an olympic sized pool, track, gymnastics - and much much more. At that time, my high school could have been considered a "flagship" of public education, it was that good. We had STEM covered, as well as the arts. Debate team, chess club - you name it, if there was in interest, there was an extracurricular activity associated with it.
No, it isn't about me. It's about the children and grandchildren. The public school system is an absolute failure in many parts of the country.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:02AM
Runaway, calm down, we are not talking about High Schools. None of them are accredited. Higher Education, you know, like higher than you have had, what would have made you able to participate in the discussion of Higher Education? Not that there is any thing wrong with only having a High School Diploma. As long as you continue to learn, and do not instead display your lack of learning on the internets for all to see. Just saying.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:44AM
"None of them are accredited."
Perhaps not in Podunk, or wherever. My high school was accredited. http://www.nationalhighschool.com/accreditation/ [nationalhighschool.com]
But, maybe you have a point. If the public school system has given up on being accredited, then we might begin to understand why so many students are poorly educated today. All this time, I thought the standards had simply been lowered. If high schools aren't even accredited today, that means there are no standards.
And, while you're gloating over the "higher education" jab - I'll remind you that if you don't have a solid education when you finish your first twelve years of schooling, all that you can hope for in the next four years is remedial education. And, yes, I do remember hearing educators complaining about freshmen who didn't even know how to read. Remedial reading, 101. Remedial math, remedial everydamnthing.
Now - about that lack of learning. Do you have any more of it that you'd like to share with us?
When you get to college, you should be ready to hit the ground running. You've no business enrolling in your first algebra course at that point in time. You've already been "left behind".
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:12AM
You forgot "remedial internet posting". You should take that class at your nearest community college, post haste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:33AM
How about post script?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:32PM
Perhaps not in Podunk, or wherever. My high school was accredited.
There's no standardized accreditation process for secondary schools [wikipedia.org], especially public ones. Private secondary schools have long used various organizations for accrediting purposes, but public school standards are managed by individual states. Some states have various parameters and designations, and some use the words "accredited." In some regions of the U.S., there's also a strong history of public schools applying for accreditation from private accreditation boards as well (as private schools and colleges do).
In any case, these things aren't universal.
If the public school system has given up on being accredited, then we might begin to understand why so many students are poorly educated today. All this time, I thought the standards had simply been lowered. If high schools aren't even accredited today, that means there are no standards.
TFA is about federal government accreditation of colleges and universities. By law, the Department of Education is required to maintain lists of accredited tertiary institutions. No such list has EVER been maintained at the federal level for secondary schools. Local and state standards (as well as regional custom) determine the way schools are ranked, whether they even use the term "accreditation," etc.
Anyhow, regardless of the TERM "accreditation," all states have some sort of STANDARDS in place to determine whether public schools are considered to be functioning well. Those standards may be high or low. And having taught in public schools, I can definitively say that just because a school has been designated as "accredited" by a state body does NOT mean it is a very good school or provides a quality public education.
In any case, it's simply wrong to state that public high schools "have given up" on accreditation when many of them were never accredited -- and never even bothered to be evaluated -- by private accreditation bodies as colleges and universities (and most private high schools) are.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:14PM
Oh, by the way, as I was writing my last post, I was thinking of public schools in general (including primary and middle schools). Many public primary and middle schools don't bother with accreditation, but public high schools often do, mostly because some colleges and universities use "diploma from accredited high school" as an admissions requirement. Otherwise, I think many wouldn't bother. (If you'd ever been through an accreditation process, you'd realize that it's mostly 95% BS about formatting things correctly and making sure school documents reflect certain policies... mostly when educational "standards" come into play, they're either so vague as not to matter or they place arbitrary requirements that are more about meeting a checklist than about quality in education).
Anyhow, I guess the important part to your point is that accreditation bodies are often quite lax in criteria when it comes to educational quality -- they effectively have to be if they are to accommodate state standards across many states, which will have various curricula standards. Bottom line: good state and local standards are often more important for educational quality than whether you can put "accredited high school" on your logo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:54PM
The school district I went to lost accreditation for a few years. It meant if you graduated during that time your diploma might not mean much. I knew people who lost scholarships.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/education/29clayton.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:39PM
I don't believe I've ever encountered those 2 words juxtaposed so before. They hardly make sense. Do you have to give 10% or your education to the government, or something?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:33PM
Where I grew up, the school systems imposed a school tax on your wages. The employer withheld federal income tax, social security, state income tax, and the county school tax. The school got funds from the state, but those funds weren't enough to run a decent school system, by a long shot. Schools are supposed to be locally run, so the taxes should be local. Those areas that are content with a crappy school system can pay for a crappy system, while those areas that demand good schools can pay for them. That's kinda like democracy in action, I think.
Where I live now, there are no school taxes. The state takes all the money, then decides how to spend the money.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:38PM
The idea of a "school tax" is that you have tax money that the politicians aren't supposed to put towards anything other than schools. Of course, they find ways around it. This also helps create hatred for the school system among all those residents who don't have kids by putting an obvious price tag on them.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 30 2016, @10:57AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:52PM
By contrast I went to the fail-est of the fail schools. I was poor as hell growing up. Often I would only have one pair of pants for a whole year, which is enough I guess but other kids do notice. I ate free lunch for years, it was terrible and unpalatable at times, and I was grateful because it beat being hungry. My High school was 99% Minority, 1% white, to a point where people didn't bother learning my name, they just called me "White boy." There were daily gang fights, and only about 36% of the students graduated. The state came in to take it over at some point, but done just as shit job. There was no cars for our driver's ed, and the guidance counselors were too busy keeping kids from dropping out to discuss your college aspirations with you. There were parts of the school were you just didn't go, like the restroom.
Was this school failing kids? No, the kids already were failed by their parents at this point, all the school could do is triage. Were the teachers awful and apathetic? Not even close, they were some of the best people I ever met, real role-models for me, driving more than an hour every day to go into a ghetto and teaching with a passion even if the kids did not care so much. Was I personally adversely effected by my surroundings? Somewhat. But I am doing quite well now, I'm not in a prison which for most kids there would be a stunning success. But I also graduated college and I work in Software Development, I own a home (2 actually) and I have very good financial prospects.
And all the money spent at these "failure factories" is well worth it in my opinion if it helps even one person such as myself.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:28PM
The Dept of Education didn't cause the problems in the public schools on their own. Not even close. The first question to ask when there are people suffering (in this case, every non-rich child in America) is "Cui bono?" and in this case there are some clear answers:
- Testing companies and their executives
- Textbook companies and their executives
- For-profit charter school systems and their executives
- Religious school systems and their executives
- Corrupt state government officials that get kickbacks from the for-profit charter school systems
- People who sell materials for home-schoolers.
- Rich people who now know their kids won't face as much competition from the children of the proletariat.
If the US were committed to the public schools not sucking, they wouldn't.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:22PM
- People who sell materials for home-schoolers.
So do you have a problem with homeschooling itself, or just those who sell "materials" to homeschoolers? Because many people homeschool or self-educate so they can get a decent education. Formal education is far from the only way to get an education, and is oftentimes inferior.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 30 2016, @02:41AM
It depends on how and why they are home-schooling:
- If they are home-schooling to avoid having to face any challenges to discredited and outdated dogma, I have a problem with it.
- If they are saying they are home-schooling because they can't be bothered to get up off the couch and make their kids go to school, I have a problem with it (this one is definitely happening, because I've met the illiterate 9-year-old that results from this kind of "education").
- If they are really teaching and learning the real truth, I have no problem with it.
The people I was talking about as a group that benefits is the cottage industry that has sprung up to serve the "discredited and outdated dogma" crowd, like versions of US history that makes America into a Christian nation.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:17PM
Wherever there's a big problem, it must be the fault of the Democratic politicians. This for-profit college scandal is a good example.
- Runaway diagnosis
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:27PM
Don't be such a twit. There are just as many corrupt Republicans getting fat off of the screwed up education department, as there are Dummiecrats. If there is any difference between them, it is that the Dummiecrats have intentionally campaigned for the dumbing down of America, and the idiot Republicans have just gone along for the ride.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:48PM
You must not live in Texas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:09PM
Close enough, I guess. It's 20 miles to the state line. My youngest son is an Aggie. No matter which part of the US you live in, it's hard to see the superiority of either party.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:56AM
Accreditation agencies are a recent phenomena, and indeed a curious one. So here you are, the highest institution of higher education, and you need some other institution to verify that you are what you say you are? This is a situation rife with potential for scams. It goes both ways! Watch this! So we have some fly-by-night (for you Millienials, that means they may have to run away in darkness to avoid prosecution) "educational institutions" that are hoovering in the student loans and the GI Bill educational benefits seeking accreditation. They get it. And we are surprised?
The real casualites, however, are actual educational institutions. I present, as a case in point, the ACCJC. Now these are stone-cold killers, accreditors who would as soon spit on your dead corpse as admit that you are teaching anyone anything. And they are made up of failed professors who moved into administration and then failed at that, so they went into accreditation. If you doubt what I am saying, just look into the curriculum vitae of Barbara Beno, head of the ACCJC. And her husband. OK, Soylentils, how do you spell "corruption"? Yes, job for your spouse, at least. But of course it is worse, much worse. The ACCJC is legit, unlike the ACICS which only differs by a few letters and syntax. The ACCJC took aim at the City College of San Francisco, threating to revoke their accreditation not because of the lack of education, but mostly because they were offering too many non-credit courses (this is usually public service, and not an issue in accreditation), and because their financials were "iffy". Where the hell does an accreditation agency get off evaluating an institution of higher education on its "financials"? Total stepping over its mandate, its competency, and what it is that an accreditation agency is supposed to do. Barbara Beno is broke, flat busted. Since she is such a poor manager of money, how can she be a judge of how community colleges manage their own revenues?
So I suggest, yes, the fall of the charlatans , the Universities of Places where they do not have a University, ((I would not mention names, but some place in a state that does not like that its main paper has endorsed Hillary Clinton would be a good start), the Corinthians )who were not leather after all), and all the diploma mills like ITT and worse, these are bad in the sense that they are crimes, but worse in the sense that they hurt students and ripped of tax payers, but the real, and intended impact is on the traditional institutions of learning. Did not these incompetents accredit themselves, in essence? And is that not what actual Universities and Colleges do as well? So now the authority is undermined. And that was the intention all along.
So how do you tell if an accreditation agency is legit? Well, I would recommend staying away from any that have active court cases against them, like the ACCJC or the ACICS. Of course, this does not mean that any school under these agencies is not legit. This is something very hard to measure. How can you tell that graduates of a school have learned to question assumptions? How can you tell that they recognize and act on ethical issues? How can you tell that they are not neo-fascist alt-right hyphen-Citizens? Well, those of us who teach, we know. Explaining it to Administration? Difficult. Explaining it to an accrediting agency composed entirely of failed administrators? Impossible. We in the Western US and Pacific call this the "Jack Pond Rule". With extra Beno.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:25AM
And yet we have people wanting the stamp of government for everything from licensure to drug safety.
Uh-huh.
As if these buffoons would have gone on for so long without the government mandate.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:44AM
And yet we have people wanting the stamp of government for everything from licensure to drug safety.
You make a good point, since indeed a government stamp is almost never a sign of good education, at least at the higher levels. But this may be what is going on? Shyster diploma mills that offer no actual education want some stamp of legitimacy in order to fleece the plebs? Where to get it? From the government, of course! What kind of government would accreditate such low-life institutions? A corrupt one. (Seriously, I have heard from some legit academics who "went underground" that one of the practices of such diploma mills is that if the student paid tuition, they deserve to pass, regardless of performance. What other criteria would you suggest for ascertaining the quality of education that any specific institution provides? Government standards are only bad if they are bought out by defense contractors. Which they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:31AM
Standard libertarian answer- boring old professional and trade organizations, reduced criteria for establishment to foster competition, and honestly guilds.
It seems institutions have traded accreditation for reputation, and the bar for entry of competing schools is excessive (no reason why what amounts to trade school should have to comply with regs for universities).
Yes, there will be abuses, but especially with increased communication, they can't go on for so long.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:00AM
It seems institutions have traded accreditation for reputation, and the bar for entry of competing schools is excessive
Hmm, interesting point. However, who ever said that trade schools should have to meet the same standards as collegues and universities? I hold business schools responsible for this, primarily. They allowed people like Donald Trump to pretend to be educated, when in fact they were only trained. Education and training are very different things. Training is for slaves, tools, people who you want to be able to preform a specific task for you, for whatever reason. Education is supposed to produce free persons, able to think and act for their selves, not for some master!
But this does bring up the point. The "accountability" movement in higher education is aimed at measuring slaves. As such, it is diametrically opposed to the purpose of higher education, and if it measures anything, it will be measuring the wrong things. In so far as government take these metrics seriously, it will destroy higher education as we know it. Reputation is accreditation, and anyone who thinks differently is a canard, a poltroon, a cad, and a wastrel. You have been officially served. I expect your seconds to contact my seconds, and I will meet you on the Field of Honor, where reputations are made, and accreditors die. Good DAY, Sir!
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:00PM
However, who ever said that trade schools should have to meet the same standards as collegues and universities?
Well, me, I guess. Sorry bout that if something I said a long time ago unintentionally derailed the unholy hell out of a separate conversation. Its a VERY good idea.
This probably drops the docs a bit but the local county funded tech I went to is accredited by the HLC (because like every "real" school in the upper midwest uses HLC) same as state uni system and practically every private old "aka real" college in the state.
I mean HLC accredits EVERYONE in the middle of the country. You can transfer from a welding program at a county tech to a medical college to a seminary to Notre Dame to multiple state uni systems, its simply awesome.
This makes transfers super easy. So you can pay $X credit for "history SJW indoctrination 101" at the local tech, or $2X at the state uni extension campus, or $4X at the private college or presumably $16X at one of the medical colleges.
ON the OTHER hand, nobody accepts anyone elses calculus classes. At least not 20 years ago. WTF. After my 4th time thru calc (high school and 3 higher ed) I just zoned out and tested out and boosted the ole GPA. Despite never using calc on the job, 20 years later I still remember a bit having taken it four times. Because HLC colleges and unis accept credits not necessarily classes. So Calc 101 at county tech counts as "4 general credits or 4 elective credits or 4 math electives" but not as intro to calc.
Most other classes did transfer, mysteriously. Sometimes I was chill about transfer failures, the whole point of taking automata theory at the state uni was because the private college didn't offer it so the transfer appeared as "400-level CS elective" on my transcript.
Merely being in HLC doesn't guarantee credit transfer works but it helps. I researched it before hand and got a 64 credit AS degree for like pennies on the dollar at the county tech, transferred like 56 credits to the state uni campus and took some classes unavailable at the private college I finally graduated from. Its not rocket surgery.
I am led to believe that at least occasionally some credits will transfer between institutions even if they don't share the same accreditation. But its rare NOT to transfer between members of the accreditation union.
I guess HLC is relatively new and grew out of the ashes of an identical but differently named system in the past. But yeah its like reason #5803571057 to love living in the middle of the country instead of the shitty coasts.
As a side note I found it hilarious that the more money I paid the less adult supervision we had. The county tech classes were taught entirely by professionals in the field or teachers who just happened to be at tech instead of a high school, no foreign non-english speaking TAs. The state uni was about 50/50 professors vs TAs. The exclusive private college was all TAs and adjuncts except for exactly one class I remember, discrete math for CS students (basically intro to automata theory which led to be double dipping and signing up at the local uni for a real automata class). You get a much better education at a community tech, but the tradeoff is no famous name or social signalling.
"I went to purdue and barely learned how to differentiate x squared from a chinese TA who doesn't speak english" is valued much more in the business hiring world than "I went to county tech and I'm a freaking genius at diffeqs". Given that you're not going to learn at prestigious schools, its a good strategy to learn at non-prestigious schools then transfer for the name.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:08PM
The ACICS is (was) over a hundred years old
But not curious. Certainly, someone needs to oversee universities.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by migz on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:09AM
Why are graduation rates and repayment rates being used as criteria?
Surely they are not relevant? One could even argue that they are positives. Low graduation rates could be due to higher standards. More likely is that these institutions accept more marginal students, who are not academically qualified. Not surprisingly, rates of attrition, and ability to pay (as a consequence of not graduation) for this group would be lower.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:15PM
A better measure of success might be: of those who do graduate, how successful are they as a result of graduation? How much do they earn? Both right after graduation and five years later? Measured over all graduates, that kind of aggregate information might tell you something. Average initial salary after graduation. Average salary after five years. Maybe a histogram of field of employment of graduates.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:37AM
all you socialist windbags out there will be blaming the for-profit schools, but anyone with an ounce of sense will realize the reason why stripping the accreditation powers is necessary is because giving out the powers was a stupid mistake in the first place
any time government meddles in the free market with good intentions there are always unintended consequences
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:33PM
Glad to see growing backlash against this culture of greed that teaches people that money is #1. Certainly, for-profit education can't help but teach that. You don't rob banks for money. So crude. Instead, you do as these schools do. Set up a school where you and your cronies are in charge, abuse public funding, and pay yourselves very, very well. Do just enough education to raise plausible doubt, give your lawyers something to work with in case you are challenged with lawsuits. It's the same in running scams in other industries. The lesson: be greedy, but not too greedy.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:26PM
Our school is undergoing accreditation just now. While the agency doing the accrediting is well-respected, the entire process (from the point of view of a lowly instructor) is pretty absurd. The agency appears to be concentrating on bureaucratic processes. Just as a minor example: I now have a new grading form to fill out, when I grade a bachelor thesis. It duplicates much of the info on the old form - which is also still required - without adding anything new. There are other examples of this, some of which I have sent back to the school admin with a note: "nope, not gonna do that".
Perhaps because we are already a reasonably good school, there has been zero change in the way we educate our students. The accreditation process has mainly brought lots of work for the administration, which of course requires hiring more administrators.
The problem is: the incentives are not aligned. The goal of a an accreditation agency should be to guarantee minimum quality standards by an educational institution. However, their pay is in no way related to this. The bill they write is, instead, determined by the number of billable hours they generate for themselves, which in turn is related to the number of bureaucratic hoops they make us jump through. The system needs to be completely different: Their pay should be tied to the number of our students who land jobs in their fields, or some other criterion of educational quality. They should have an interest in seeing our school spend money and effort on teaching, instead of creating new forms and hiring more administrators.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.