I was extremely disturbed to learn of this push to change accreditation
procedures. Not that I don't think that things can be improved, but that
this move is frightening in its implications.Yes, financing of
higher education needs help. Part of the reason things are in such a mess, is
the lax standards afforded to for-profit schools which encourage students to go
into debt while not providing them with adequate support or education wherein
they can get the jobs necessary to repay the debt. The success rate of these
schools is abysmal and the education is sub par.This change would
only encourage more institutions to pop up in an effort to secure federal
dollars without providing adequate education. I am heartened by the
other comments on this board. Reform needs to be enacted to make higher
education more accessible and affordable, but not at the price that this
legislation would exact--the de-valuing of all of higher education.
As misguided an op-ed piece as the DN has ever published. Standards need to be
tougher, and 'competition' will only allow shady schools to shop for
Yes yes - let's deregulate and allow more and more shady for profit
colleges to come into play to tap into the seemingly unending source of federal
funds for college loans. Let's get more graduates with questionable
degrees and more debt than they will be able to pay back in their lifetimes.
Sounds like a win! For some a college degree is the gateway to
future success. For many it is a debt that hangs around necks like a shackle
without a key. Outside of the medical field, most of the "job
creation" is around technology. Most of these jobs do not require a degree,
but skills that any Tom, Dick or Jane can learn on places like codecademy or via
a MOOC like Coursera for FREE. Yes FREE folks. I spent years getting a MBA
from a well known / pricey institution, but most of the skills I use on my job
these days are self taught. Bottom line, we need more regulation
around for profit colleges, not less. We had the housing bubble. The
education bubble is well underway. Kudos to Mike for trying to pump a few last
breaths into it. (not)
"Allowing competition among accreditation bodies is necessary to promote
innovation in higher education."When your assumption is that
'competition' is good and necessary by definition, then this
concluding sentence is always a foregone conclusion. The author offers no other
reasoning for interfering with the accreditation of tertiary institutions than
his assumptions. Personally, I'd be worried about private enterprise
entering into the competitive spirit by lowering standards, as happens in every
other area where human greed is allowed to roll in the mud unsupervised.
Companies could charge extra for that service. Maybe there should be alternative
environmental monitors, too, allowing polluters to shop for the agency that will
approve of their innovative, creative approaches to despoiling the earth.
This is absolutely the wrong way to go. We need to make accreditation much
tougher, not make it easier. It's like banking regulation, leave it to the
states and they'll make the standards laxer and laxer in order to attract
more business. We already have way too many schools that take student's
money and leave them with no marketable skill, and no real degree, but with
lots and lots of debt.
I have at several points in my career lived on so-called Federal soft money.
Under that arrangement the grantees spend as much time describing what they are
going to do and describing what they have done, as they do actually doing
something.This is what's happening in both higher ed and
secondary ed. The accreditation agencies feed this process which bulks up
administration out of all reasonable proportion. Administration makes premium
pay as a reward for negotiating the arcane jungle of accreditation. I
don't know that I agree with your proposed remedy, but something needs to
be done to change this waste of man-years.