Talk:Regional accreditation

CITA

• Header and signature added by Adavis444 (talk) on 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

CITA is an accrediting body formed by five of the six regionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.112.163 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 July 2006

Differences between Vocational and Regional Accreditation?

Although the article mentions that vocational and regional accreditation differ from one another, what are those differences? The article lacks information that provides substance to a reader to discern the difference between the two. Therefore, a bit more information needs to be included in this article to make the mention of differences relevant. The example given in the article refers to specific factors, but does not point to differences, since certain more or less emphasis may be placed on what spells quality in the school's educational program according to accreditation committee. lwalt 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very poor, for a complex subject in academia, one would accept better. It seems mainly written in the intro at least to put forward an opinion about only one of the issues dealth with by accreditation--transfer of credits. And there is no companion article about National Accreditation. (Which is how most vocational schools are accredited. --StevenBradford (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well - I would improve it, but I came here to find information. I am from Europe, and even after having attended college in the US never completely understood who or what the accrediting bodies are. How did they come about? What is their organizational structure? Are they government organizations? Are they private? What do they derive their auhority from? When were they founded? What are their standards? How does the accreditation process work? Etc. etc. etc. The article basically says that they are there, which is not very satisfactory, especially not for a European, since the entire accreditation issue is handled in a completely different manner in Europe. --Wassermensch 15:08, July 25 2009, (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

DETC

Shouldn't DETC be written out the first time it appears? And isn't it only of marginal interest to those seeking information on accreditation in general? I suspect it should be set off somehow from the main article. Unfree (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For-profits

This article is wrong about for-profit schools. There are a number of for-profit schools that are regionally accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.160.221 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to say that there are no for-profits that are regionally accredited, merely that the majority of regional-accredited institutions are non-profit. Am I misunderstanding or missing something?

However, one of the links cited to support the assertion regarding for-profits and non-profits is broken and the other one doesn't seem to support the assertion at all. In fact, I wonder how true it is today as most of the reputable for-profit 4-year institutions are regionally accredited, sometimes in more than one region. I imagine that the assertions are still true if one considers 2-year institutions and institutions that do not award degrees given the high number of very small for-profit technical and vocational training institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some vandalism in this article by for-profit universities' representatives trying to include lesser known accreditation standards. Would it be proper to request a "silver lock" or higher level of editors to be the only ones permitted to edit? Drywater2k (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I find this line to be a bit irresponsible and possibly agenda-driven: "Regional accreditation is... with a few exceptions, more rigorous than national accreditation.[4]"

I have read the accreditation standards across all accreditors both regional and national, and the differences are generally negligible. Further, the source used does not appear to at all corroborate the claim. The very page the link directs to in the book only discusses how for-profits are less research and creation focused versus regionally accredited schools, and that is an entirely separate matter from accreditation since there is no accreditation mandate from any regional or national accreditor to be a research and creation focused institution. I just think that for a wiki to be credible, personal viewpoints (even if innocently injected) need to be left behind before hitting the edit button. There is already enough misinformation floating around the internet telling people things like nationally accredited schools are a death sentence, you'll never get a job if you've gone to one, or no one on earth takes credits from nationally accredited schools. This is the one place online where the information should be both accurate and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.103.242 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How-To

Does anyone else think that we should remove what is now the last sentence of the second paragraph ("The student who is planning to transfer credits from a nationally accredited school to a regionally accredited school should ensure that the regionally accredited school will accept the credits before they enroll") because of WP:NOTHOWTO? Novaseminary (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of "how to" information doesn't belong, but its removal would need to be done very carefully. That paragraph was added to the article over three years ago by User:Mysteryquest, and has remained intact ever since. I suspect that one reason it wasn't touched is that the 4 reference citations after that sentence actually support the entire paragraph; thus, removing that sentence could require delicate surgery. Furthermore, the statement possibly could be revised to be less of a "how to" and more of a "fact". For example, depending on what the sources say, a sentence like that one might possibly be restated as something like "Due to this situation, the U.S. Department of Education routinely advises students who plan to transfer credits from a nationally accredited school to a regionally accredited school that they should ensure that the regionally accredited school will accept the credits before they enroll." --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-date

This article appears to be out-of-date but I don't have time right now to work on it (so maybe someone else does or I'll try to circle back around to it later). In particular, the list of regional accreditors is out of sync with the official CHEA list at http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp. I don't think the bulleted list in the article should be changed significantly but the Northwest Commission dropped out of CHEA in 2012 and that should be noted probably with a footnote. Additionally, WASC's junior college division officially and formally split off from WASC proper and is now a regional accreditor in its own right, at least according to CHEA and the new regional accreditor and that, too, should be noted but probably in the text and not in the bulleted list. These two changes should also be described in the history section if anyone can find some good sources that provide rationales for the changes. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Regional vs. National accreditation The section on Regional vs. National accreditation says that in Tennessee only regionally accredited institutions can call themselves a "university." The cite link to a Tennessee government website is dead. This can't be right. Consider Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga. It is run by a church but grants degrees in English, education, history, psychology and business administration in addition to its seminary programs in ministry etc. Tennessee Temple is accredited by TRACS, a national accreditor of evangelical institutions, and TTU has never applied for regional accreditation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.67.107 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Summer 2020 Changes

Sorry all - no time edit at the moment. I attended an MSCHE zoom meeting over the summer that discussed fed updates. Essentially, this system is being eaten away at - they said that a college could seek accreditation at ANY regional accreditor now. I think the implication was so for-profits and sketchy places could go for an easier accreditor.

Sorry, it was a vacation week (yes, with very careful social distancing), so I don't recall the details very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:5:4620:FCFD:5CCE:83E3:C800 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)