On top of that, accrediting bodies have imposed a blizzard of new regulations and guidelines that are both difficult and expensive to implement - e.g. we are now required by our accrediting body to physically interview all prospective students. Got any idea how much time that takes for several hundred applicants a year?
So yes, higher education has gotten a lot more expensive, but it seems a lot of the discussion where people are anxious to assign blame to somebody other than themselves is only part of the story. This job is way different than it used to be and since (as far as I can tell) education is not scalable, unlike most other industries we've not been very good at becoming more efficient. So all we are is more expensive.
No doubt there are others who can support or refute these points using data instead of personal experience, but as an empirical argument I think this makes sense.
Has someone assumed that all applicants even want
an in person interview? Sounds like the accrediting organization may have its own issues with bloated staff.
Hate to say it, but maybe it would be better in some ways if there were fewer colleges. Then maybe each one would be working less hard to advertise.
I mean you no disrespect spinnaker, but it does not seem as if you have much experience with or understanding of professional accrediting bodies - I refer to those that accredit degrees and programs in fields that typically lead to licensure or a credential, not the big Dept of Ed sanctioned ones like the North Central Association etc.
Applicants were not consulted - does any industry ask what applicants want?
As to bloated staff - the original motion to make interviews required was made by a lay member of an external accrediting body. Nobody at any college I am aware of was pushing for this. Somehow, said external member had the juice to get this idiotic idea turned into what is functionally the law. Any bloat in the accrediting body has nothing to do with it. Faculty are are stuck with doing these interviews and now I spend multiple half days each semester talking to prospective students who are terrified of saying something wrong and not being admitted.
The Accreditation folk only make the rules and sit in judgment of our worth. None of this has anything to do with the number of colleges and the need to advertise. FWIW - my program has no need to advertise. We turn students down regularly.
My original point is that activities like this are just one of a myriad of things faculty do that do not get included when politicians believe they are figuring out how hard we work. If your point is that we chose to do this in order to bloat staff levels or workloads, then I am afraid you are mistaken.
Right, it's been imposed on you.
If transferring from one college to another when both are accredited by the same people doesn't guarantee that your credits transfer, then accreditation may be more advertising than what it purports to be.
As s_a points out, you are confusing institutional accreditation with professional accreditation, but the answer to your question is that institutional accreditation sets minimum standards, while an institution might have higher aspirations for their students.
For example, WASC accredits Caltech, the CSU campuses, and something called Vanguard University; do you think 1st-semester freshman physics is the same in all three of these? - DvF
No, but if you transfer only a portion of the credits because you know that you have higher than average aspirations for your students, that would be a little different from not having faith in the accrediting body.