10-14-2009, 08:44 PM
In a letter to California Governor Schwarzeneggar urging him to veto AB 48, Consumers Union Special Projects Director Elizabeth M. Imholz assails the unwarranted deference the bill gives to accredited institutions.
Consistent with what many here have argued for years, she confirms that accreditation is not an indicator of even a minimum level of quality, but is rather just a self-serving collective.
http://www.insidehighered.com/content/do...vernor.pdf
Consistent with what many here have argued for years, she confirms that accreditation is not an indicator of even a minimum level of quality, but is rather just a self-serving collective.
Quote:This bill exempts from coverage all institutions accredited by any regional accreditor. That means that these schools, which have a large student population, have no consumer protection (e.g. disclosure and refund) requirements—and they pay no licensing fees to the state.
In addition, other accredited institutions are granted automatic approval to operate with no state review. Accredited institutions are those that receive federal financial aid. These are the schools with the largest revenues, the largest number of students, and severe problems of abuse. Having them automatically approved with no state review will have huge adverse consequences, affecting a huge proportion of students. Furthermore, once the privilege of state approval is given, it is very difficult to remove if problems are uncovered.
Accreditation alone has been shown over and over again to be wholly inadequate as an indicator of minimal quality. Accreditation is basically self-regulation with schools paying to have themselves evaluated by groups comprised of schools. There is no sound policy basis for allowing either total exemption or automatic eligibility for accredited schools.
http://www.insidehighered.com/content/do...vernor.pdf