Welcome to European-American University  
You are not Logged in! Log in here.

Key routes to a degree:

Home > Alcott Center for Educational Research >The responsible choice?

The responsible choice? 


Some considerations in choosing between accredited and self-regulating universities

Faced with the multitude of online programs offered by universities, how does the consumer make a responsible choice? Quality has become a buzzword in contemporary university marketing, along with the word "accreditation". Yet the more the state shouts about quality and "consumer protection", the more it becomes clear that its statements concerning quality are not actually about quality at all.

"The credibility of voluntary accreditation has sunk so low that we have to do something dramatic if it's going to survive."
Dr Robert E. Atwell, President, American Council on Education, January 28, 1994

Professor James Tooley of the University of Newcastle in the UK puts the argument directly,

"Once a brand name becomes formed and known, customers — parents and children — have to be reassured about the quality of the service on offer. This government, and the previous one, thinks that the only way parents can be thus reassured is to have a hugely expensive and cumbersome apparatus of nationalised curriculum, nationalised testing, nationalised inspection, nationalised targets and nationalised league tables. But the problem with these state surveillance measures is that they become politicised. So, for example, instead of it being a matter of educational importance which testing procedures are used, what works best and what is most effective at raising standards, it becomes a matter of finding testing procedures which pass political muster; similarly the politically correct inspection procedures are mired in subjectivity and waffle. And throughout it all, mediocre schools can acquiesce in their mediocrity, and can always blame central or local government, or the class of children in the school, without addressing their own incompetence. In the for-profit private education sector, such an approach is not an option. The schools or colleges have as their raison d’être the provision of quality educational services. If they don’t do this, they’ll go out of business.
[Source: James Tooley, "Should the Private Sector Profit from Education? The Seven Virtues of Highly Effective Markets", Libertarian Alliance, Educational Notes no. 31, available here.]

State quality processes are inward-looking means for the establishment to self-certify, and the information which is then provided to the public does not enable any kind of objective assessment of quality to be undertaken by those outside the establishment. In the U.S.A., regional accreditation, which is conducted by agencies approved for the purpose by the Federal government, does not seriously examine outputs such as student satisfaction or teaching quality. It examines only inputs - does the institution have a library, what are its policies, what are the faculty qualifications? This makes accreditation an ineffective tool for judging quality, because inputs do not guarantee the quality of the output product. Employers have increasingly realized this as they have found that the competencies of mainstream graduates often do not live up to their expectations.

“Accreditation does not ensure quality—and it often visits all sorts of ills upon colleges,” said ACTA president Anne D. Neal. “Congress rightly wants to make sure that federal student aid funds don’t go to “fly by night” operations. But there are other better ways to achieve that result—at less cost and with less damage to higher education.”
[Source: "Higher Education Accreditation a Failure, Needs Overhaul", American Council of Trustees and Alumni, available here.]

Many state institutions survive propped up by public money rather than being allowed to fail as some certainly would if subject to true market forces; where state accreditation is withdrawn it is generally conditional and temporary on financial, not academic, grounds, and in extreme cases students can always be decanted to other state institutions. In addition, the standardization of programs that state regulation promotes serves to lower standards, not raise them. This deliberate obfuscation is the hallmark of a crude bid to maintain a state stranglehold on education and to brand self-regulated (or, more correctly, market-regulated) private providers not willing to submit to state control as inherently disreputable for that reason alone, with a constant failure to distinguish between legitimate self-regulated universities and diploma mills. In reality, the state's alleged "protection" is no more than the aggressive enforcement of a conservative monopoly against the self-regulating sector and market interests. Even accredited universities will privately admit that the attack is based on untruth. In the words of the University of Phoenix, a US-regionally accredited, for-profit institution,

"To speculate that profits trump academic quality is myth, born out of elitist concepts of what should constitute an institution of higher education."

The only major external studies of government-recognized accreditation in the United States in recent years have been conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) whose initial report may be read here and 2007 update here. In "Can College Accreditation Live Up To Its Promise?", George C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris come to the conclusion that,

"Putting the matter in a nutshell, we conclude that accreditation has not served to ensure quality, has not protected the curriculum from serious degradation, and gives students, parents, and public decision-makers almost no useful information about institutions of higher education."

In "Why Accreditation Doesn't Work and What Policymakers Can Do About It", ACTA gives examples of politically correct interference by accreditation agencies in school operation, and demolishes the argument that accreditation ensures quality,

"Accreditation does nothing to ensure educational quality.

In passing the Higher Education Act, Congress linked accreditation and federal student aid to prevent students from squandering money on diploma mills. According to the Act, recognized accreditors serve as a “reliable authority” on the “quality of education or training offered.” Accreditation was thought to be a good proxy for quality. But this assumption was wrong.

Today, virtually all colleges and universities in the United States are accredited (sometimes by more than one accrediting body); yet, there are widespread concerns that college quality has been on a steady decline. According to the September 2006 report of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education: “Unacceptable numbers of college graduates enter the workforce without the skills employers say they need in an economy in which…knowledge matters more than ever.”

On the rare occasion that accreditors do suspend or terminate an institution’s accreditation, it isn’t due primarily to educational concerns. Typically, institutions are sanctioned because of financial shortcomings—an area the Education Department already investigates without the need for accreditation teams."

ACTA continues,

"Rather than requiring some objective verification that a program actually contributed to student achievement, the accrediting associations exhorted colleges and universities to devise a means of assessing their own “institutional effectiveness.” Claiming that mandating certain standards of student achievement would violate institutional autonomy, accreditors have allowed schools to satisfy the criteria by merely showing that they have adopted some program to assess themselves...

Colleges and universities simply do not lose their accreditation because of a judgment by accreditors that the curriculum is weak, the faculty poor, and the students don’t learn much. As David Justice, an administrator at DePaul University, has explained: “The truth of the matter is that regional accrediting associations aren’t very good about sanctioning an institution for poor quality.” As the accreditors see it, removing an institution’s accredited status is undesirable since it leaves students ineligible for federal student aid and requires a mass exodus to other institutions."

A further aspect to this is that the word "quality" has several meanings. One is the opposition of good versus bad - which in most, but not all, educational issues is a subjective matter - and the other is that of "difference". A leading tactic of the mainstream is to present what is different or innovative as therefore inferior or even fraudulent. However, history shows that the innovations of the self-regulating sector are very swiftly taken up by the mainstream on the rare occasions when the opportunity is provided for them (through the relaxation of their external regulation) to do so.

Examination of websites and prospectuses quickly winnows out the Harvards and Yales from the buy-a-degree diploma mills. Yet in the middle of this spectrum stands an interesting comparison. The least celebrated of the mainstream universities are the most vociferous in their attacks against legitimate schools in the self-regulating sector, because it is they who have most to lose. It is our belief that in terms of quality, legitimate schools in the self-regulated sector are frequently as high or higher in standing than those establishments that have only their accredited status to tout, and this is something that those latter establishments know all too well. A telling admission comes from DETC-accredited Andrew Jackson University's founder, who is arguing for state regulation of his presently self-regulating competitors, "Regulate the stew out of them," he said. "The harder it is, the better because what it does is reduce competition." (Tuscaloosa News, 2/11/07)

One of the difficulties in this area is that, when consumers are encouraged to place trust in accreditation processes as arbiters of quality, they may be misled into thinking "accredited = good" and "not accredited = bad." This is certainly the common message provided by the media. However, accredited schools are just as liable as any others to encounter serious operational problems, scandal and bad publicity from time to time. 

The Federal government's investigation into enrollment practices at the regionally accredited University of Phoenix concluded in 2004 that the university "systematically and intentionally operates in a duplicitous manner." 

In July 2007, accredited Touro College was rocked by scandal in a suspected bogus degree sale scheme:

"Teachers, students and administrators tampered with a private college's computer system to change grades and create fake degrees for money, prosecutors charged Monday. Among the fake degrees given were those for physicians' assistants, they said.

The 10 defendants created or altered records for at least 50 people since January, charging fees of $3,000 to $25,000 for better or deleted grades and for bachelor's and master's degrees, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said.

Those indicted include Touro College's former director of admissions, the former director of the school's computer center, three former Touro students and three public school teachers, Manhattan prosecutors said.

"One dangerous thing they did was give degrees to physicians' assistants," Morgenthau said.

Records found in the home of Andrique Baron, a former admissions director at Touro's campus in Manhattan, showed he was running the scheme as early as 2003 and possibly earlier, Morgenthau said.

"We don't know how many hundreds, maybe thousands, were involved," the district attorney said."
[Source: The International Herald Tribune Americas - 10 indicted in suspected bogus degree sale scheme at New York City college (Associated Press, July 2007)]

Again in 2007, a former vice president of accredited Salem International University alleged that "her employers retaliated against her because she refused to help them run the school as a diploma mill."

"Former Salem International University vice president Debra Mertz claims her employers retaliated against her because she refused to help them run the school as a diploma mill.

In a Harrison County trial set to start Sept. 17, Mertz alleges that students who paid tuition up front received passing grades, degrees and diplomas whether or not they legitimately fulfilled the academic requirements.

Attorney Arthur Chmiel of Charleston charges that Mertz's superiors tried to intimidate her and force her to cooperate...

"Awarding students degrees based on payment of fees rather than on the quality of their work is a deceptive act or practice," Chmiel wrote.

He wrote that granting a degree solely for payment of a fee "defrauds West Virginia employers who might rely on the supposed worth of an employee's degree conferred by a West Virginia institution of higher learning."[...]

Her claim as a whistleblower for West Virginia consumers alleges that university owner Informatics Holdings Limited of Singapore intentionally failed to enforce academic standards.

"IHL made its money from SIU in selling SIU's online courses to foreign students, and getting a great deal of this money paid by the students for their degree programs, not just individual courses, up front," Chmiel wrote. "Thus, if those students were caught cheating or plagiarizing, which in fact some were, IHL did not want these students to receive failing grades or IHL would have to refund their money.

"The fact the students were overseas is not material to this inquiry."

He wrote that there is strong public interest in preventing such conduct because of its effect on other institutions competing for students."
[Source: West Virginia Record - Former VP says Salem retaliated, calls school a diploma mill (Steve Korris, 14 September 2007)]

Accredited Southern University was embroiled in a money-for-grades scandal in 2004:

"In a grades-for-money scheme that spanned almost a decade, a former registrar worker allegedly altered the grades of hundreds of students at Southern University, the school's officials recently revealed.

After a yearlong investigation of the scandal, the country's largest historically Black college came forward to report that from 1995 until early 2003, Cleo Carroll allegedly changed the grades of 541 current and former students.

Those participating in the scheme paid to have as many as 20 grades changed on their transcripts. Altogether, an estimated 2,500 fraudulent transactions were made, said Keisha LaCour, spokesperson for the Chancellor's office."
[Source: Jet - Money-for-grades scandal at Southern University leads to probes; likely degree revocations (April 19, 2004)]

In 2007, another money-for-grades scandal hit accredited Diablo Valley College:

"PLEASANT HILL -- Eighty-four Diablo Valley College students may have paid bribes of as much as $600 per grade during a period of three years to improve official transcripts.

Unusually widespread access to the college's grade systems enabled student workers to replace F's with A's, according to documents and e-mails obtained by the Times. More than 100 people across the three-campus Contra Costa Community College District were authorized to change DVC grades, documents show.

After a 15-month investigation, college police say they are close to turning over to Contra Costa County prosecutors evidence on hundreds of falsified grades. More than 400 grades were initially found to be suspicious.

College leaders say they think a core group of student employees concocted and ran the scam. Co-workers wondered how the students afforded trips to Las Vegas, a high-level administrator told the Times.

Following the scheme's discovery, administrators went out of their way to keep it quiet, even as they asked faculty members to check years of records for illicit grade changes...

Dean Dennis Smith found two suspicious transcripts, including one on which a grade had been changed from an F to an A.   Smith called the matter "an unseemly business."

"Obviously, this is potentially a very serious issue that involves the reputation of the college," he wrote.

Documents show the changes affected grades for classes taken as early as 2003."
[Source: Contra Costa Times - Dozens implicated in DVC grade scandal (Matt Krupnick, 5/3/2007)]

And back in 2003, major scandal hit accredited Laney College:

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Scoble stood in front of a federal judge last week in the fairly new, very nice, and downright ominous federal building in Oakland. The judge seemed to be conducting the routine beginning of a routine criminal case, holding a hearing dedicated largely to the scheduling of other hearings.

Actually, though, the case is anything but routine. It is the end result of nearly four years of investigation, during which the federal government used undercover agents, confidential informants, covert audio- and videotapings, bank records, academic transcripts, and surveillance officers to go to college in Oakland.

And when it went to school, the government says, it found scandal.

The government alleges that five people, all instructors or teaching assistants at Oakland's Laney College, orchestrated a scheme that defrauded the government of more than $3 million. Dating back to at least 1988, the alleged scam involved nearly 400 military veterans primarily of Filipino extraction who received government assistance through the GI Bill while attending Laney.

Those veterans, it is alleged, in turn paid Laney instructors to falsely verify the veterans had enrolled in and received grades for classes they had never even visited.

Earlier this summer, a grand jury indicted Laney instructors Nathan Averbuck, Earl Robinson, and Wilfred Hutchinson Jr., along with teaching assistants Camilo Asuncion and Eriberto Capili, on numerous counts of fraud and conspiracy to defraud the government. Meanwhile, in separate actions, the U.S. Attorney's Office is in the process of filing lawsuits to force as many as 400 people who allegedly participated in the scheme to repay GI benefits the government claims they fraudulently received.

By sheer numbers of alleged perpetrators, the case is one of the largest ever pursued on the West Coast."
[Source: San Francisco - SFweekly.com - School of Scandal - US alleges $3 million fraud at Oakland's Laney College, 400 "students" involved (Lisa Davis, October 29, 1997)]

In 2004, major concerns led to the revision of the doctoral program at the accredited The Union Institute:
 
"The U.S. Department of Education has refused to pay at least $8 million in financial aid to Union Institute and University over concerns about the academic rigor of its doctoral program.

And the Ohio Board of Regents is requiring the college to create a more formal research methodology for students as they complete their doctoral dissertations.

The actions of the U.S. Department of Education and the Ohio Board of Regents do not affect Union's master's and undergraduate programs. But if the school does not bring its doctoral program into compliance, it could be forced to end the program and would lose the ability to receive federal financial aid for it, bringing the school's financial viability into question.

Issues with noncompliance already have extracted a toll.

Since July, the loss of funds caused the Walnut Hills-based college for nontraditional learners to dip into cash reserves to the tune of $1 million a month. That revenue shortfall, coupled with a slow enrollment decline of 248 doctoral students since 1996, forced President Roger Sublett to announce $2.1 million in budget cuts Feb. 13.

The cuts included 51 employee layoffs and offers of early retirement packages to other employees. Existing staff face salary reductions up to 10 percent and suspension of payments to retirement plans.

Jane Glickman, an education department spokeswoman, said an emergency action was issued in September after on-site visits in July and August.

"Based on that review, the federal student aid office recommended we did not disburse funds to Ph.D. students until Union could prove those students were eligible," Glickman said."
[Source: Business Courier of Cincinnati - Union Ph.D.s under scrutiny - Concerns cost $8M in aid, threaten program (Andrea Tortora, February 20, 2004)]

The U.S. Department of Education's 2001 report on accredited Benedictine University speaks for itself:

"We found the University was not in compliance with the statutory prohibition on the use of incentive payments for recruiting based on success in securing student enrollments when it paid the Institute for Professional Development (IPD) a percentage of revenues for all students enrolled in the Associate of Arts in Business Administration (AABA) program. As a result of incentive payments to IPD, the University is liable for $221,988 in Title IV funds awarded to students in the AABA program who were improperly recruited.

We also found that the University’s documentation supporting the actual number of instructional hours spent in study groups used in the definition of an academic year for its AABA program did not provide the number of instructional hours required to meet the statutory definition of an academic year. The statutory definition of an academic year is set forth in Title 34 C.F.R. § 668.2(b). The regulations in this section that apply to institutions not using semester, trimester, or quarter systems are commonly known as the 12-Hour Rule. The 12-Hour Rule requires the equivalent of at least 360 instructional hours per academic year. An institution’s academic year and the credit hours that a student is enrolled in are used, in part, to determine the amount of funds a student is eligible to receive from the Title IV programs. We estimated the University overawarded and disbursed $12,700 in Pell Grant (Pell) funds to its AABA students. (This amount is included in our finding on incentive compensation)."
U.S. Department of Education Final Audit Report (December 13, 2001)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest we be misunderstood, let us make quite clear at this stage that the purpose of these quotations is not to condemn the schools concerned, nor to present particular incidents in their past as being typical of their current operation or standards. We have no evidence that this is so. Rather, it is to make a different, and considerably more valuable point.

Nothing - not regional accreditation, not being in the public sector, not having a long and distinguished history - protects a school from the potential for wrongdoing, scandal and low standards. You will look in vain for reports of the incidents reported above being detected and actioned by the accrediting agencies concerned. And yet there are still sources which say, with a straight face, that accreditation constitutes an assurance of quality. Those who try to make out that the accredited sector is whiter than white, while the self-regulating sector is composed of nothing more than diploma mills, are dissembling in order to further their own commercial agenda. The fact is that there is good and bad in both sectors, and the only final arbiter of an institution's suitability, quality, reputation and general merits is you, the consumer.

The answer to that earlier question about how a responsible choice can be made is to look towards outcomes as a means of judging an institution, and to personalize that judgment to your own situation. If you have clear ideas about what you are seeking from your education and how you want to achieve it, you should be able to identify institutions that will enable you to meet your goals. Those goals are going to vary a good deal from one person to another, but they will often have in common the desire for an efficient, tailored student experience with a strong real-world emphasis. The public is the best judge of quality in a school because the public is the direct consumer of its product. We believe that most working adults are in a position where they can take responsibility for their educational choices and that they will benefit greatly from this process.