VUL introducing new doctorate in May

[eLearner]

Different, but how much different is a point of debate. I've seen the claim countless times over the years, but I've yet to see a standard-by-standard comparative analysis to substantiate it...

Of course now we're supposed to be in the age of "institutional accreditation." I'm not sure that actually means much of anything except someone wants us to think there's less of a difference than there used to be.  And I'm really not sure that there was any significant difference, then or now because as you say, I've never seen any type of side by side analysis either.  And I'm not talking about standards of things like how many books do you have in your library, I mean academic standards.  I don't know how these things are measured but it seems like it could be more than a little slippery.
The pros and cons of having regional accreditors go national (opinion) (insidehighered.com)

That article is interesting, and the first thing that comes to mind is the impact it would have on national accreditors. As they mentioned in the article, regional accreditors already have been accrediting outside their regions. However, their bread and butter has still largely been with the major schools within their immediate territories, and that's likely a product of having accredited those schools for so long and having established strong roots with them, some of them being the first schools those accreditors ever backed. But if they operated outside their territories at the same level that NA accreditors do, I can't see how NA accreditors could survive. I'm sure some people would rejoice over their demise, but throwing the baby out with the bath water has never been a wise approach. 

If they all died out, most of the schools, including the good ones (and they do exist) would likely be gone, too. That means more opportunities taken away from people who need them, and that's never something I'm on board with. Many of the small NA schools operate well but are too small in financial resources and staffing to afford the cost of regional accreditation, so with no place else to go, and with the chances of surviving unaccredited so incredibly slim, most would have to shut their doors.

Back in 2015 it was reported that Duke spent over 2 million dollars on accreditation over the course of a few years, and a big chunk of that was devoted just to handling accreditation functions. Some outlets have disputed that number, but regional accreditation can still account for as much as 10 percent of a school's expenses, and when you're already a small school that doesn't bring in much money, that 10 percent can be way too much to handle.