Thursday, June 01, 2006

Accreditation: A Flawed Proposal

Here is an interesting commentary about the accreditation process. It raises the much broader issue of the problems of higher education.

Professionals want to use accreditation to increase institutions standards, but the general public wants those standards to be lowered. He argues that the public wants to see their children get in and through the university without too much struggle. Higher standards make that more difficult.

The author makes a very interesting point and one to take note of as we prepare ourselves for another round of accredition that is upcoming.


Inside Higher Ed :: Accreditation: A Flawed Proposal

4 comments:

Frank J Doster said...

Maybe standards like the Ivy league schools, which pump out scores of Status Quo monkeys every year...give me a break. The goal is to have an educated public, no matter what that might entail.

Anonymous said...

We don't really care how good our students at are at UWO as long as we get more of them, which is why the chancellor will be hiring one more bureaucrat at probably the cost of two new faculty members. This new person will be a marketing communication person (a new position) underneath the foundation director and above the university relations director. This is one more indication that the administration does not really care about the academic side!

Jeff said...

Anon. I respectfully disagree with your assesment there. While I think this is a questionable time to hire somoneone for this position, I think you might be slightly missing the point of it. With growth of the number of students will come an increase in faculty positions needed. If we were to grow by even 1000 students we would probobly get additional faculty. I dont this hire will cost any faculty their jobs, there have been a number of administration positions not filled over the last year, that should allow the financial room for this new position.

Anonymous said...

I doubt 1,000 new students will arrive because of a new marketing director when the administration seems to prefer lowering admittance standards (based on drops in ACT scores of freshman during Wells' term and interacting with stduents) to increase enrollment.

And with the chancellor funneling more money to admin and away from COLS, do we think COLS will see the money? I doubt it.

Titan Stadium is one example of preferring image over substance. I understand why the chancellor isn't all that interested in the quality of students because he has to assure enough money is coming in.