What is Higher Education Accreditation? Debunking Common Misconceptions
Working within the higher education accreditation space can be downright strange sometimes. It is the only field I’ve ever worked in where people are annoyed by the very thing they’re spending time, money, and resources to achieve. I’ve heard accreditation described as a ‘necessary evil’ and equated to standing in line at the DMV or having fingernails removed with fire tongs. Over the past couple of years, accreditation has also, surprisingly (to me, anyway), become a hot-button, politically-charged issue. There have been a lot of *opinions* thrown around about the value of accreditation, and I think this should be concerning. Fair warning: I’m a fan of accreditation for the same reason that I’m a fan of going to the grocery store and not worrying that the applesauce I just bought is full of old nails—it’s someone’s job to make sure that product contains what it's supposed to.
This week we’re going to list out a few of the complaints we hear most often about accreditation, as well as some thoughts about why it may not be as simple as, “Me mad. Thing bad.”
“Accreditation is pointless. We know our programs are great, and our students express their satisfaction every day.”
We get it. This seems annoying because you already have a product that you can stand behind and that your students value. Here’s the thing, though: like it or not, we, as a society, have decided what an “associate, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral degree” means. It’s the major reason people even seek those credentials. If the institution next door to yours hands out a Master of Science degree to all students who complete a coloring book, that’s bad for you, the students, and every single person who has ever earned a Master of Science degree (since their degrees are now less legitimate). Accreditation is the safety net that keeps that from happening.
“Accreditation and compliance take institutional focus away from students.”
Accreditation does require focus and resources, but what people miss here is that accreditation is for the students. Having to document and explain results (or lack thereof) forces institutions to look at the truth of their operations and address it. In no way does this harm students. Again, consider going to the grocery store. Does having to comply with FDA food production regulations take focus away from making applesauce? Maybe. But it’s worth it if your consumers don’t end up with lockjaw.
“Accreditation will make us deviate from our unique mission in order to comply with more generalized requirements.”
Again, we get it. Perhaps, in a perfect world, each institution would have its very own accreditor, perfectly tailored to its specific programs and procedures, but that’s not where we live. Our actual world is more akin to the shoe rental counter of a bowling alley. Yes, we all wish we could have the most comfortable, arch-supporting, heel-snuggling shoes ever worn, but, at the end of the day, their main job is to make sure we don’t crush our phalanges with a 14-pound ball. Accreditation applies consistent standards to diverse methods of delivering education, and that can feel frustrating, especially if you have a very unusual or niche program. That being said, nobody I’ve talked to or worked with has ever seen an accreditor substantially change a school’s mission or identity.
“Accreditation stifles innovation.”
Maybe, but this might not actually be a bad thing. We’ve discussed this in another blog, but change should be made cautiously in an area of society as critical as higher education. It might be innovative to offer a medical residency program completely via smartwatch, but I’ll tell you right now, I don’t want a graduate of that program being my surgeon. Innovation is crucial for progress within higher education; accreditors don’t deny that, but they do require you to explain why your innovation is sustainable, measurable, and, ultimately, beneficial. Yes, it requires more work, but that’s the cost of doing business. Nobody should get to launch potentially harmful programs just because they’re new and different (lookin’ at you, Theranos).
“Accreditation is too expensive!”
Again, correct. And, sorry for what I’m sure is an unpopular opinion, but: good!
If the cost of accreditation is prohibitive for your institution, you probably can’t afford a teach-out plan and likely aren’t operating sustainably. The people who are going to suffer are the students whose programs are cancelled mid-degree, and who are now saddled with credits that they can’t transfer into another institution.
“Accreditation isn’t legitimate. Institutions pay dues, so it’s in the accreditor’s best interest to turn a blind eye and cash a check.”
This could potentially be true if the buck stopped with accreditors, but it doesn’t. Accreditors have oversight, too, and, as recent events have shown, this oversight isn’t just for show. The consequences are real. Also, accreditation evaluators are, themselves, members of peer institutions. If anyone has a vested interest in holding their peers accountable, it’s the people whose reputation would be damaged by association.
“The accreditors have it out for my institution!”
Probably not. Accrediting commissioners and evaluators are made up of individuals (many of whom volunteer their time and expertise) who have spent their lives working toward bettering higher education. Accreditors aren’t shadowy conglomerates. Many evaluators are instructors, parents of students, or students themselves who want to see fair, ethical practices upheld in the field they love. This is something they’re passionate about in the same way you’re passionate about your institution’s mission; they’re not against something, they’re for something.
Truthfully, I can understand the frustration expressed in each of these complaints. We’re all busy pursuing our missions and trying to make the world a better place! Nobody’s champing at the bit to review documentation, reports, and internal data tracking. Nobody wants to spend hours breaking down their processes into narratives or providing evidence for a lengthy Self-Evaluation Report. How can we reasonably ask institutions to undergo all this red tape when their primary focus is educating future generations?
Let me counter my own question with another question: Can we afford not to?
I know the actual doing of accreditation and compliance is arduous, but the alternative is pretty scary. Without accreditation, we are stuck taking an institution’s word as fact 100% of the time. Maybe you’re fine with that idea. I’m really not. Higher education is complicated, and students shouldn’t have to have a PhD in Educational Infrastructure before they can successfully enroll for their bachelor’s degree. Accreditation is one of the ways that students can safeguard their time and money. Yes, it also helps nudge institutions towards good practices, but, ultimately, it is about protecting students. Does accreditation involve red tape that can sometimes annoy well-meaning institutions that just want to achieve their missions in peace? Sure. But that red tape also forms a safety net for students who want to confidently invest in their educations and enjoy applesauce without getting tetanus.
