DR ANATIDAE Wrote:From DD's discussion on RA or NO WAY:

Jack:

With all due respect to Jonathan, he has asked the wrong question. The entire "RA or no-way" campaign was designed by certain undesirable elements to try to portray the promotion of legitimate schools/degrees as an extremist position. There was never any real opposition to NA or GAAP degrees. In fact, many of the members of these DL boards have long promoted such degrees, myself included...

Little Arminius Wrote:"GAAP degrees" is Bear-speak

Quote:What is GAAP?

Any school can claim that it is accredited; the use of that word is not regulated in any way by most states.  This chapter (and all the school listing chapters that make up the bulk of this book) distinguishes between those accrediting agencies that are recognized under GAAP, Generally Accepted Accrediting Principles, and those that are not.  It's important to recognize that no one in particular "determines" what GAAP is; by definition, it is the policies that are generally accepted and followed by a large majority of the relevant key decision-makers—university registrars and admissions officers, corporate human resources officer, and government agencies—that form the basis of these principles.  Because there's no official body to determine what GAAP is, it is also a somewhat "moving target."  In the last edition of this book, we reported that the inclusion of a school in the International Handbook of Universities was a criteria that most college registrars would accept as evidence of the acceptability and legitimacy of a degree.  However, our recent survey of registrars indicates that this is no longer the case.  Therefore, we've updated the GAAP criteria, for this edition (by removing listing in the International Handbook as a criterion) to more accurately reflect what the key decision-makers are now doing.  And, as diploma mills get more and more crafty, such as by locating in an obscure, developing country where the right contacts can yield "government approval," the registrars and others who collectively define the criteria will undoubtedly continue to alter GAAP criteria to continue to ensure that their standards are being upheld.

Note that in some countries, the word accredited is not used, although that country's evaluation process (e.g., the British Royal Charter) is accepted as "accredited" under GAAP.  Note too that accreditors that do not meet the standards of GAAP are not necessarily bad, illegal, or fake.  They simply would not be generally accepted as recognized accreditors.  

GAAP Criteria

To offer recognized accreditation under GAAP, an accrediting agency must meet at least one of the following four criteria:

• For schools based in the U.S., there is no disagreement: accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized either by the U.S. Department of Education, and/or by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation.

• For schools in Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, it is membership in the Association of Commonwealth Universities and a listing in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook.

• For schools in Australia, it is recognition by the Australian Qualifications Framework.

• For schools in other countries, it is an appropriate description in the World Education Series (published by PIER, Projects In International Education Research, a joint venture of AACRAO, NAFSA (the Association of International Educators) with the participation of the College Board; or a listing in the Countries Series, published by NOOSR, the Australian National Office for Overseas Skills Recognition.

Quote:In fact, many of the members of these DL boards have long promoted such degrees, myself included.

Quote:For schools in Great Britain and the British Commonwealth, it is membership in the Association of Commonwealth Universities and a listing in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook.