Table of Contents

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

US Accreditors Should Not Evaluate Foreign Colleges

Alan L. Contreras
Alan Contreras has been administrator of the Office of Degree Authorization of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission since 1999. His views do not necessarily represent those of the commission. Address: ODA/OSAC, 1500 Valley River Dr. No. 100, Eugene OR 97401, USA. E-mail: Alan.L.Contreras@state.or.us. Web site: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/.

The recent dispute between Hawaii's Office of Consumer Protection and the American Academy for Liberal Education, as well as the supporters of each side, raises questions worthy of attention. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reported ("Accreditation of College in Former Soviet Republic Raises Questions of Oversight," September 8, 2006), the academy accredited the American University for Humanities, Tbilisi Campus College, in the Republic of Georgia. That entity is linked to a Hawaiian degree mill, the American University of Hawaii.

The American Academy for Liberal Education did what several US accreditors do: it accredited a school in a foreign country. That is not illegal. However, there is no federal oversight of American accreditors' work with any foreign college. Although they must operate within certain parameters when they accredit an American college or university, they are not obligated to do so when they evaluate a foreign institution, and the US Department of Education has no jurisdiction over their activities outside the United States. Most people, even education officials in other countries, do not know this.

US accreditors that operate in foreign countries are doing so only as private organizations with no US government connection. That is not widely known in other countries. In fact, there is no such thing as a federally recognized accreditor once the accreditor steps outside the United States, and any accreditor that refers to itself that way in a foreign country is coming close to deception. Non-US governments should not allow US accreditors to call themselves "federally recognized" when recruiting members outside the United States.

Should Foreign Evaluators Accredit US Colleges?
If American accreditors continue to operate outside their country, foreign accreditors may want to do the same. If an American accreditor offers its good name to Monash University in Australia, should the Australian Qualifications Framework operate in the United States so that it can make sure that degrees from Oregon State University meet Australian standards? That kind of entanglement poses problems because degrees and institutions vary so much from country to country.

Even inside the United States, accreditorial oversight can be nominal, and many other countries have very limited capacity for meaningful oversight. It is impossible to do more than scratch the surface of a large institution. We cannot expect American accreditors to do more than a basic walk-through of foreign institutions, and our accreditors have no way to use the mechanisms of foreign governments to check on key points as time passes. The recent uproar over operations of Indianapolis University in Greece provides a fine example of why oversight at a distance does not work.

Accreditation is a minimalist exercise, conducted for the purpose of limited quality control?although it is better suited for financial oversight than for academic quality assurance. Even on the financial side, I am aware of a case in another state in which an accredited institution moved millions of dollars into its accounts before a reapproval and afterward moved the money right back out again. That review was one of the regular evaluations conducted by a state government; states, not accreditors, have the power to decide whether institutions can operate within their borders and what degrees they can offer.

Meaningful Evaluation Is Neither Easy Nor Cheap
Genuine, meaningful oversight is expensive. The natural inclination of governments and organizations is to want to do it quickly, cheaply, and infrequently. This is a recipe for poor enforcement, lack of awareness, and substandard educational outcomes. Within the United States, accreditors have only limited knowledge of changes in faculty composition, financial policies, and the award of credits during the typical 10 years between accreditations. That is one reason why states generally use a much shorter review cycle: Oregon, for instance, reviews every program under our jurisdiction every three years and after two years for a new program.

All an American accreditor can really do for foreign colleges and universities is to rent them its reputation. The institutions get to mention the accreditor's name, though the standards that the accreditor chooses to apply overseas may be extremely low. Who will know?

The Tbilisi case shows how complex international evaluation can be. The government agency that screens foreign degrees in the Netherlands and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which does the same for many American universities, consider degrees from the American University for Humanities to be invalid or substandard. The American Academy for Liberal Education considers the program to be acceptable. National education officials in Sweden treat the degrees as legally issued but are not yet convinced they are equivalent to Swedish degrees.

The bottom line is that American accreditors should not evaluate foreign colleges and universities. Other nations have the right to set their own standards, whether high or low. American colleges should be free to use customary academic norms and their own standards to decide whether a foreign degree is suitable for purposes of admission or employment. Do not rely on unsupervised accreditors that freelance in foreign lands.

[Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number46/p11_Contreras.htm