Is the American accreditation system too complicated?

[sanantone]

Here and on the other forum, I think we take it for granted that we understand the ins and outs of accreditation. We're education nerves and DIY'ers, but the average person is not going to take the time to deeply research the higher education system and may not even think to look these things up. I've seen job ads that ask for nationally accredited schools. I know they're not looking for ITT Tech over MIT. In my doctoral program, my professor and classmates did not know which organization accredited our school. Many people go to accredited schools but make the mistake of not researching programmatic accreditation. This can lead to ineligibility for licenses and certifications. I had to explain to my students at a nationally accredited school that the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, San Antonio Police Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, and Bexar County Sheriff's Office would not recognize their degrees, and they were shocked and disappointed.  

In the U.S., the federal government recognizes accreditors as valid, but accreditation is left up to numerous private organizations. I haven't looked all over the world, but I think it's most common for the government to regulate post-secondary schools. 

These are the areas where I see the most confusion. 

National accreditation sounds better than regional accreditation, but the opposite is true. Why do organizations that accredit schools nationwide have lower standards than organizations that only accredit schools within a region? It's kind of odd. 

Programmatic accreditation. Is it needed? Which accreditation is needed? If it's not needed, then is it preferred? Why are there multiple organizations accrediting the same types of programs? Which one is better?

Why do we have CHEA when only U.S. Department of Education recognition matters for financial aid purposes? What does it mean if an organization is not recognized by the U.S. Department of education but is recognized by CHEA? Is international affiliation with CHEA the same as recognition? What does it mean when an accreditation body is neither recognized by CHEA nor the U.S. Department of Education? Does that make it a scam that accredits diploma mills? Then, how come some governments require NASP-approved programs when it's not a recognized accreditor? 

Will regionally accredited schools accept credits from nationally accredited schools? Can I get into a graduate program at a regionally accredited school if my undergraduate degree is from a nationally accredited school? Why do regionally accredited schools discriminate against nationally accredited schools when the U.S. Department of Education does not have a tiered system? Furthermore, can I get into a graduate program if my undergraduate program didn't have programmatic accreditation?

[cookderosa]

I do think it's possibly too complicated. I think it took me a long time here (where people talk about accreditation) before I got up the nerve or interest to see what everyone was talking about, I mainly ignored it because in my head I'm thinking "who cares?" but of course it's important! It's so nuanced, that it can trip up anyone who doesn't spend a good amount of time learning about it - and I don't think it has a big draw as far as "interesting things to learn about."

[armstrongsubero]

It is complicated but its in your interest to find out especially with the amount of money people in America pay for education. If I'm buying something that I'll be paying US 50-200k for I better know every nook and cranny.

Some people just are lazy and take these things for granted.

[Jenniferinfl]

It is intentionally complicated- here in the US businesses really rely on the ability to be able to mislead consumers. Think about how many less products we would have for sale if you weren't allowed to lie or mislead consumers?

I put nationally accredited for-profit colleges and the sellers of useless diet supplements in pretty much the same category. Why either of them are allowed to exist is beyond me. Well, not really, I know it's so a bunch of people can make a bunch of money off of gullible people.

[sanantone]

SACS is the only regional accreditor that won't accredit 100% online schools. Other than that, regional accreditors will accredit just about any type of school as long as it meets minimum requirements. In my opinion, we don't really need the niche institutional accreditation national accreditors provide, but it's mostly a free market system. If an accreditor can earn recognition from the U.S. Department of Education or CHEA, then it's considered legit. National accreditation is usually faster to earn, so that's what many schools start with. The decent schools eventually earn regional accreditation while many low-quality schools stick with national accreditation.

[jsd]

SACS [...] won't accredit 100% online schools. 

i didn't know this. even the ABA is about ready to come around on this. What the heck is SACS doing?

[sanantone]

SACS [...] won't accredit 100% online schools. 

i didn't know this. even the ABA is about ready to come around on this. What the heck is SACS doing?

SACS will approve 100% online programs, but they will not accredit 100% virtual schools. The American Public University System was originally in the South, but they moved to West Virginia, which is under HLC, because SACS would not accredit them. SACS requires a campus that offers ground courses.

[dfrecore]

It is intentionally complicated- here in the US businesses really rely on the ability to be able to mislead consumers. Think about how many less products we would have for sale if you weren't allowed to lie or mislead consumers?

I put nationally accredited for-profit colleges and the sellers of useless diet supplements in pretty much the same category. Why either of them are allowed to exist is beyond me. Well, not really, I know it's so a bunch of people can make a bunch of money off of gullible people.

Some schools offer things that people want that can't be found at "regular" schools.  And diet supplements are for people who want them.  The government doesn't need to protect us all from ourselves.  They can barely do their functions that they're supposed to do, let's not give them more power.

Plus, if a company wants to exist, all they have to do is move to another country and then sell them on the internet.  There's no possible way for the government to control everything.  Look how well they did during prohibition, or the "war on drugs."  They don't have what it takes.

[armstrongsubero]

Nationally accredited schools arent all bad.

University of the People and Nations University are all NA.

Aspen University, Ashworth College and Penn Foster all NA that also offer low monthly payments.

They arent all so bad.

[sanantone]

The FDA stops companies from making unsubstantiated health claims. After that, it's up to the consumer if he or she still wants to use a product. If a supplement has been found to cause serious health problems, then the government will have it pulled from the shelves. For example, there have been popular compounds found in diet pills that have led to deaths, and the FDA banned them. People can go online and find these drugs, but far fewer people are using them because they can no longer be found through legitimate sources.

When the FDA says that something will kill you, most people will listen. A small minority is crazy enough to go chase a dangerous drug in the black market. Addictive substances are in their own category. 

Regarding predatory colleges, the government actually has a lot of power that it will not exercise. The government could easily stop giving financial aid to for-profit colleges, but they won't. All of the expensive, for-profit colleges would not last without Title IV because their students would not qualify for bank loans. On the other hand, if the government stripped financial aid from expensive, nonprofit schools, many would survive off of endowments.