Talk:Higher education accreditation in the United States

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

ACTA criticism

An editor recently inserted criticism from ACTA. I object to the material not because ACTA is a slimy right-wing organization but because the material was only sourced to the organization who produced it e.g. WP:SELFPUB. It's also 9 years old. So for those two reasons, I object to including this information. Discussion? ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "slimy right wing" is simply an ad hominem argument. 2. The paragraph clearly states this is the view of the ACTA, so of course they are the source. (IOW, SELFPUB does not apply.) 3. What does age have to do with the validity or non-validity of ACTA's criticisms? Have accreditation processes changed since the report was published? If so, perhaps the report prompted those changes. If not, then the faults that ACTA finds may still exist. SO, if you have a source which disagrees with the ACTA, then add it. --S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work. You need to demonstrate that this material has been referenced, supported, or otherwise taken seriously by people other than its authors. Otherwise we're free to add anything written by anyone to this and other articles as long as we attribute it to the author(s), right?

If you want to add criticism of the accreditation process and organizations, there are much better sources and many of them are more recent. I'd start with the Spellings Commission and related followup reports if I were interested in expanding this article. I certainly wouldn't start by adding a single outdated report by a partisan think tank (from either side of the political divide) that isn't taken seriously by most people involved with higher education. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything in this reply that addresses the three points: 1. If there is a report by a "slimy left wing" organization, would such a report be acceptable? 2. Again, SELFPUB does not apply because this article is not about the ACTA. 3. Again, the age of the report is an irrelevant fact. How is it that the 2006 Spellings Commission is a product that is more valid? Because it was produced 4 years after the ACTA paper? Well, then, the Spellings article mentions reports from Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc. Did those reports address accrediation? If so, they can be cited in this article. (Oh, wait -- those reports are "outdated" -- so you can't start with them!)

Expanding the article is a good idea, but the real objection to this particular expansion was based on the fact that it used material that do not fit a particular POV. Again, the 3 arguments have no validity and seeking to remove the ACTA reference is simply WP:CENSORSHIP.

Ah -- it looks like a particular source must have commentary or support from other sources before it meets this non-WP standard/guidance. Well, page two of the ACTA report has supportive comments from Hank Brown, Hudson Institute Adjunct Fellow and Trustee & State University of New York Trustee Candace de Russey, FTC Chairman & OMB Director James C. Miller III, and Secretary of the Air Force, Deputy NASA Administrator & Chancellor of the University of Texas Hans Mark.

So, if there is material which disagrees with the ACTA report, then use it. And make sure it has kudos from appropriate slimy left wing sources.--S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has nothing to do with the particular political point of view of this organization; drop the point so we can focus on the actual issues.

1. No, a report from a partisan left-wing source would also be unacceptable unless it was also accompanied by substantial evidence from third-parties that established the importance and impact of the report. Just as in this instance, it would be particularly objectionable if it were the only item of criticism added to an encyclopedia article.

2. The letter of SELFPUB may not apply but the spirit certainly does. You haven't established the reliability of this report and you certainly haven't done anything to establish that anyone outside of this organization views the report as important or useful. And no, you can't use material from the report itself to establish the importance of the report. If this report is so important that it needs to be the only criticism cited in this entire article then surely you can find multiple independent sources that establish that importance!

3. If you're seriously questioning the usefulness and importance of the Spellings Commission then I question your competence to edit this article outside of grammar and style issues. That's not a personal attack but a statement of fact: Someone who doesn't understand the impact of the Spellings Commission is out of their depth on this topic. (And yes, if other incredibly influential reports like the Truman Report have relevant material then they might be good sources for this article, too.)

To be absolutely clear: I object to this material because its importance hasn't been established which is a particularly egregious problem since it's highly partisan in nature and the only source of criticism that has been added to this article. It's not only a RS problem but more fundamentally it's a huge POV problem when we only add self-published partisan sources to an article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the edit summary said "ACTA is a right-wing advocacy group" as a justification for deletion, and when "slimy right-wing" was used to describe the ACTA in discussion, it was absolutely clear that the push on the WP:POLE was motivated by POV.

1. Again, this sounds like adding material, such as the particular ACTA report, must have additional RS to back up that report. Does this mean RS must have another RS behind it. Come on -- the ACTA stuff was their opinion and it was described as such. Adding WP:OPINION in articles is acceptable if we show:

Who advocates the point of view [and]

What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

The ACTA edit was simply the first such effort. (Too bad if it came from such a disagreeable source.) Future edits in the Criticism section should provide some balance.

2. Since SELFPUB doesn't apply, then it shouldn't cited as a rationale. Now if the ACTA article was based only on ACTA sources, then SPS would apply to that article, but this is not the ACTA article. At the same time, if ACTA is not reliable, then bring it up on WP:RSN, not here. And my gosh, where does the idea come from that the ACTA material should be the "only criticism" cited? To suggest that I am seeking to keep out other criticism is a distortion!

2.a. The reply fails to address the kudos "lavished" upon the ACTA report by the cited commentators.

3. Sadly, another distortion exists with the suggestion that I question the importance and usefulness of the Spelling material. I did nothing of the kind. I mentioned it simply to compare the age of the Spelling material with that of the ACTA material. (And my statement about it being "out-dated" was a snide commentary about the "age of report" issue.) Saying I don't understand the impact or importance of the Spelling stuff, or that I am "out of my depth" fails (again) to address the points. Ad hominem, purely ad hominem.

I've tagged the criticism section as UNDUE. And for now I will await comments from other editors.--S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material for the reasons above. In the spirit of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, it should not be restored until we work out the issues here on the talk page. ElKevbo is exactly right; as the section is sourced only to ACTA, there is no way of telling whether the material is really significant to the article subject, or how much weight it should receive. Much has been written on college accreditation in the US; if ACTA's opinions are really noteworthy, other demonstrably reliable sources will have commented on them. If you find such sources, we can discuss how to incorporate the material; if not, it should stay out.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question is this:

"In 2002 George C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris (American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)) undertook an investigation of the accreditation system. Their report concluded that "accreditation has not served to ensure quality, has not protected the curriculum from serious degradation, and gives students, parents, and public decision-makers almost no useful information about institutions of higher education. Accreditation has,however, imposed significant monetary and non-monetary costs". One of the findings of the report was that accreditation does not necessarily ensure that a college or university provides students with a sound or well-rounded education. The standards imposed by the accrediting associations focus on readily measured and observed inputs and processes. They do not endeavor to measure student learning, instructional quality, or academic standards. And while accrediting standards call for a strong core curriculum of general education courses, many schools now have a core curriculum in name only.<ref>[http://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise.pdf American Council of Trustees and Alumni: "Can college accreditation live up to its promise?"]</ref>"

To be clear on the sequence, the material was added by an IP editor (not me) and ElKevbo removed it. I restored it, modified it, put it into a criticism section and tagged it {{Undue|section|date=September 2012}}. When ElKevbo started this discussion, I refuted ~~each of~~ his points. The article now stands without this material. I may have more commentary, but for now I await other comments.--S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)01:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you disagree but it's a real stretch to say that you've "refuted each of [my] points." How about "we continue to disagree" or something more neutral? ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation (with link) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education has been posted inviting Project members to join in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 20:47, September 2, 2012‎

WP:UNI would seem to be the more appropriate project since this article focuses on higher education... ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've posted to the more appropriate Project.--S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hopefully we'll get some input from others but I've noticed a bit of a dropoff from some of the higher ed regulars, presumably as they've become busier during the beginning of the fall semester. ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I trigerred exactly the reaction I was expecting from Wikipedia. I was dead sure that the article on the "failure of the accreditation system would be removed" even though it came from a well documented source and was appropriately referenced to the article. You have been very quick to have done this overnight and added so much gimmicks in the "Talk" section to confuse anyone who would dare to read. I am not amazed at all. All that has been written above did not exist as at yesterday (02/09/12)when I was editing the article. I am certain that all that has been written above has been the work of only one or a group of people sharing common interests. I thought that criticisms were accepted and used as a means of improvement in "Democracies" (if one is still existing these days, in the true sense of the word). I guess I'll just wait for your comments which will anyway try to banalize what I had added about the failure of the accreditation process in the US.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yashnv, the above discussion is about what was added yesterday, of course it didn't exist beforehand. What's happening is that editors have identified problems with the addition according to Wikipedia policy, and we're discussing how best to resolve them. You can work with us or not, but there is no unilateral decision making on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, the point you failed to "refute" is the key point: that as the source is an internal publication of ACTA, there is no way of telling whether or not the report is really significant to the article subject. The difference between this report and, say, the Spellings Commission's conclusions is that the Spellings Commission has been commented on by various other reliable sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? The source -- e.g., the report -- was "an internal publication". The ACTA produced it for others to read and it had nothing to do with the ACTA itself. As far as commentary goes, I mentioned and linked several notable people (OMB Director, Secretary of the Air Force, etc.). They praised the report and they certainly weren't, as far as anyone knows, ACTA employees. They seemed to think the ACTA report was significant to the subject of higher accreditation in the United States. --S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means exactly what it says - as the source was put out by the organization itself, rather than a mainstream publisher, we haven't established that it is really noteworthy to the topic. The presence of "supportive comments" from various people within the report itself doesn't cut it. We'd need to see other reliable sources discussing the report, or better yet, have the authors get their findings published in a reliable source. Thats really the only way we can use this material.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what WP guidance supports this? The closest I can find is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which really doesn't address think tanks or slimy X-wing advocacy groups. If think tanks are suitable, which such think tanks, etc., fit the bill? That sounds more like a question for WP:RSN to resolve rather than individual editors. Still, SCHOLARSHIP indicates that that the search engine test would satisfy. So if Google Scholar (or others) gives results related to ACTA, does that work? (And how many results are required?) Or do the results have to be specific to the ACTA, or to the particular publication, or how about ACTA publications in general? Or what about the fact that the lead author of this particular proposed citation has a WP article and has published these various articles. Here, take a look: [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (Go on, at least 12 of the 13 are good links. Please click each of them.) Do we have to run a Google Scholar test on him, or is the fact that he's written other acceptable stuff have any bearing? --S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cúchullain and ElKevbo. This seems to fail WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV more generally. And I don't see how the citations provided by Srich32977 to advocate groups, etc., establish anything. We need covergae of this position in third-party RSs that put this into some neutral context so we can evaluate how much weight to give this (if any) before we can even consider putting material like this in. Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPS would apply if the article was about ACTA, which it is not. UNDUE would apply if the article only had an ACTA viewpoint, but only in the sense that it invited editors to provide other counter-views. (They could come in and provide other views to balance the ACTA view.) NPOV does not apply because WP:OPINION allows for us to put other's opinions about a particular topic/article if we describe who stated the opinion and why they said it. (Again, UNDUE invites edits to balance out one opinion against another.)

In this case, I supplied the various links (above) to illustrate that the author of the particular ACTA article had established himself as a noteworthy commentator. As such, the particular publication/citation qualifies as RS. The point (perhaps missed) was that he and the particular article met the vague standard that Cúchullain and ElKevbo were positing -- e.g., that as the author of the particular ACTA piece he was providing something worthwhile.

To be frank, I did a very quick read of the ACTA piece and I can hardly say whether I personally agree or disagree with it. (Nor do I care.) What caught my eye was ElKevbo's justification for removing it. He said the ACTA was a slimy X-wing advocacy organization, so he was obviously injecting his POV into the edit. Well, instead of countering what the ACTA said with material from other think tanks, I think a poorly justified rationale has been provided to remove the material. Given the fact that the author of the ACTA piece has academic/noteworthy/published merit, there is little justification for keeping this piece out of the article. And I hope that others will provide material to counter what the ACTA has said rather than trying to keep it out. Those editors should do that. Please, editors, please come up with something that says that accreditation in higher education is the best thing since sliced bread.--S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPS applies no matter what the article is about (in fact, self-published sources are usually not used in any article except about themselves). This isn't on the level of a personal website or a print-on-demand book, but a non-peer reviewed, internally published document is hardly compelling. If the authors are established authorities on the topic this may qualify as a self-published source we potentially could use, but once again we need to see that it's actually significant to the topic to do so. WP:WEIGHT is absolutely a concern here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify something for me. I know this is out of context right now. Since 2 days I am seeing that I am "logged in" when actually I never did so. Right now, I am inputting these words without having logged in as when I came to the site, I saw that I was already "logged in" and "Log out" was appearing at the top of the article. Is anyone tampering with my password? How is this happening as soon as I tried to include the article that had been deleted afterwards by your goodselves. Thank you for clarifying as soon as possible. And yes, the third paragraph above says "You need to demonstrate that this material has been referenced, supported, or otherwise taken seriously by people other than its authors". After reading your comments above, it appears to me now that the "Cheyenne Herald" (refer to the article on Preston University) is a much better source of information than ACTA as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Articles coming from some cheap newspaper is a better source of information for you guys than well researched document made by professionals. You guys are contradicting yourselves. I am starting to ask myself whether I am dealing with serious people here or whether I am watching a circus from miles away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

You probably clicked "remember me" when you logged in the first time. Like many other websites Wikipedia has a feature that leaves you logged for a period until you either log out or clear you browser's cache.

As for sources, Wikipedia's guidelines can be found at identifying reliable sources. Context is key, but superior sources are more highly regarded than other sources. Generally speaking, self-published or other questionable sources are not considered reliable and are generally avoided, in particular when various better sources are easily available. Articles from newspapers with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are considered reliable, depending on the use, however. However, they are usually not as good as, for instance, a peer-reviewed journal article or a university-published scholarly book.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your answer. My identity was appearing on screen although I logged out several times. Surely, something is wrong with your system. Please have this fixed. Having said this, please note that you have not answered my question. I would like to know specfically, whether Wikipedia considers the "Cheyenne Herald" or similar "newspapers" as a better source of information (superior, as you say) than scientifically researched and published information OR do you consider guys like Dave Faetherly (whoever he might be) more credible than George C. Leef or Roxanne D. Burris ! I guess, by providing the answer that you provided, you could be considering me to be damn stupid. I would also like to know why my edit was treated as coming from 'such a disagreeable source". Could you please enlighten me. For your information, I am an educated individual (perhaps much more educated than many others) and I should in no way be considered inferior to other Wiki editors. Finally please spare me answers about Wikipedia's policies. I already knew them and now getting to know them even better. If I could sum these in one word, that word would read "contradictory".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

If you ask questions about Wikipedia policy, it's to be expected you'll receive answers about Wikipedia policy. In this case, yes, depending on the context newspapers with editorial oversight are considered better sources than self-published sources, but not as good as truly "scientifically researched and published information" from established journals, university published books, and the like. The question here is what to make of the source at hand. Based on Rich's findings below, I think a case can be made that the report may be significant to the topic. Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildas (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remain focused on the topic of this discussion. The issue for us at present is whether the particular ACTA report authored by George Leef should be cited in Higher education accreditation in the United States (e.g., this article). (Now if the Cheyenne Herald published something about this topic, we could consider including it.)

With this in mind, I ran a Google Scholar search on the ACTA report. Here are the results: [14]. And here are the results for Leef himself: [15]--S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Classic answer again. While you are at it, please run a Google Scholar search on "Dave Featherly" as well and let's see how many "feathers" he has on his shoulders. Let me give you a lead. Dave Featherly is himself editor and publisher of the Cheyenne Herald, a small county newspaper. So, there is no question about Articles from newspapers with editorial oversight (your own words above), let alone, reputation for fact checking. This is the source that Wikipedia is considering as reliable! I am starting to enjoy your jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, now you're finally going somewhere. I can verify that this work is cited once in "The Acceptability of Online Degrees Earned as a Credential for Obtaining Employment". It is discussed in "Storm Clouds on the Digital Horizon", but this source notes that Leef's report is not the first to makes these claims, and notes that the report was "debunked" by the accrediting agencies. This article in The Chronicle of Higher Education suggests the report influenced accreditation critics at a time a House subcommittee was pursuing changes to the system; again it notes that these conclusions were criticized in some quarters at the time.

Yashnv, I don't know why you're fixating on the Cheyenne Herald, it's not cited anywhere in this article. You also appear to be confusing S. Rich (who's defending your addition) with me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am focussing on the Cheyenne Herald is simple. You guys yourselves said that "newspapers with editorial oversight are considered better sources ........" I was just asking why the Cheyenne Herald is being treated as a better source (refer to the article on Preston University- where it's article has been cited and used to degrade that (Unaccredited) university, while this newspaper clearly has no editorial oversight being edited and published by the same person (i.e., it looks like is a one man show) and therefore according to me, most unreliable. At the same time you guys are being adamant not to cite the ACTA report which is clearly well researched and documented, just because that report is showing the dark side of the accreditation process and gives weight to the refusal of some universities not to seek accreditation in the United States. Now, if you still do not understand my "fixation" as you say, I give up. I am not confusing anybody but just giving my "unwanted" opinion. In this bad, bad world, its difficult to know who's your friend and who's your foe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an issue with how the Cheyenne Herald is being used at the Preston University article, the proper place to discuss it is at that article (though it sounds like you have a conflict of interest issue on the topic). It's irrelevant to this discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there is a presumption that legitimate newspapers with editorial boards are cited and used by others. If you have evidence that a particular newspaper is not legitimate (e.g. unpublished, weak or no editorial control, history of uncorrected and unacknowledged errors) then please bring that up (in the right venue, of course)! ElKevbo (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address this issue under the Preston University article but there is a guy or lady (I don't know) "Orlady" who is busy distorting facts in the talk section and removing my edits(exactly like you guys are doing here). Now, if you say that I have a conflict of interest (which is not true anyway as I am only trying to uphold "truth") then I would say that you guys have a "vested interest" in defending "poorly run but nonetheless accredited institutions in the U.S. Sorry for saying this, but you should be more careful next time and refrain from making unfounded allegations on other editors (not within wiki's policies anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys finally through with your "discussions" ? If yes, please come to a conclusion and update the article. I feel there should be a separate paragraph on the flaws in the accreditation system. So much has been written about this. Please provide some paragraphs as soon as possible. The public must know about these issues so that potential students are not misled. If you are not going to do anything about it, I will have to update the article again with the ACTA report and if someone objects this time,I am going to strongly object to his objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.236.218 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to write a criticism section that is written from a neutral point of view and draws from multiple reliable, notable sources that would fine by me! Once again, my objection to the material you inserted into this article was to the fact that it relied on one self-published source with no evidence of the noteworthiness of that source. There are many sources on this topic from many different angles so it's just sloppy and lazy to rely on one partisan source; our readers deserve better. ElKevbo (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "partisan source". I cannot quite understand how ACTA can be qualified as a "Partisan source". I need accurate and reliable elaboration on this. Furthermore, it looks like you yourself know about a lot of sources written from many different angles (as you say, there are many sources on this topic from many different angles and I would not be mistaken to say that the ACTA report represents one of these angles). So I would be most grateful if you could insert something yourself from the "criticism of the system" angle that you consider as coming from a reliable source. If you do not do this, then I will have to edit the article again. You are free to remove it again and I am free to include it again and again until I obtain satisfaction. By the way, where is Rich these days. I thought he was defending my addition (if I go by what's written above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

Please sign your post with four tildas (~~~~). ACTA is a partisan source because, well, it's a source written by a partisan group. You are strongly advised not to just keep adding challenged material into the article; this would be edit warring and you'd be blocked for it. If I get some time today I'll add a section on assessments of the accreditation system, including a little bit about the ACTA report, though it will also include less negative assessments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly inclined to perform your research for you, either with respect to ACTA's right-wing connections or criticisms of accreditation, especially when quick Google searches bring up lots of viable and informative sources. However, if I were going to research and write about criticisms of accreditation, I might start by seeing what respected higher education scholars have written about it e.g. Peter Ewell, Pat Hutchings, George Kuh. It would also be critical to distinguish between criticism of regional and national accreditation as the two processes are different and I would guess that most of the criticism is levied at regional accreditation.

I also echo Cuchullain's caution against edit warring.

(And I wish him or her luck in finding good sources that are much "less negative." I don't know if anyone is a raging proponent of our current accreditation processes and I expect the best one could find would be sources saying "meh, it's ok.") ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Less negative" doesn't mean "positive". However, even others who criticize the system don't believe accreditation should be gutted or done away with, as the ACTA report does. More usually they think it's a flawed but crucial safeguard of quality that needs to be fixed. As such we shouldn't privilege the one point of view.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the experience I have had so far with Wikipedia, it is totally against edits that would be against "certain parties" and it will go to any length to literally crush those it is against by accepting any source (and even vigorously defending those sources). You want less negative sources for this article while you accept totally negative sources for others. You have been contradicting yourselves along all the lines. You are even threatening me of being blocked on the basis of edit warring. You are acting like leaders of totalitarian states. I believe the "gestapo" was using such strategies during the second world war. You have not been able to give any valid reason for not including the ACTA material by treating the organisation as "partisan source" but are not being able to clearly say why it is a partisan source. You are just saying that it is a partizan source because is written by a partisan group. Do you have any written/published evidence or even a flimsy article written by a roadside journalist that would support your assertion (tantamount to innuendo). I am sure I would like to read that. Your threatening remarks only points to your weakness and your "negative" attitude to criticism. If you get sometime, read the article "Integrity and the Harvard cheating scandal". It's about what's happening at Harvard, a top American Accredited University (just in case you do not know, or pretend not to know about Harvard University - Accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges ). Now don't tell what this has to do with the article on "Higher Education Accreditation in the United States. I would die laughing. Please also spare me your "classic" answer which would probab;y be along these lines: "If you have a problem with Harvard University, the proper place to discuss is at that article. It's irrelevant to this discussion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering when Godwin's law was going to kick in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your input has been most valuable. You guys just needed some "bullying" to wake up and stop being lazy (your own terms above, not mine). I was only wondering why nobody came up with a section on criticism in this article all these years (although you have been wise to use the term "assessment" and not "criticism" for this article and not for others). It will only serve to wake up other lazy people and make the system better. At least we are trying to do something. Better late than never. I am proud of myself (and you as well) today. As for Godwin's law, as long as it serves the purpose, it should definitely be used. It is the result that counts ultimately. If you read a lot, you will know that many Nazi criminals were employed as spies after the war by governments of what we today call "democratic countries". In so doing the latter learned the former's techniques! I wouldn't be surprised if they are still using these today. Godwin or whoever he is should have known that. I guess I'll move on to some other article now but still keep a watch on this one whenever I get some time. It was a pleasure interacting with you guys over these few days and I hope that the feeling is mutual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently communicated with ACTA following your allegations of ACTA being a partizan source. I am reproducing the e-mail I received from them below, just a few days back:

Mail starts ..........

Thank you for your inquiry, and for alerting us to the Wikipedia discussion about our role in the accreditation debate. Our organization is nonpolitical and nonpartisan, and our goal is to foster quality, affordability and accountability in American higher education.

As regards ACTA’s stance on higher education, our president, Anne Neal, is serving on a governmental advisory committee to the Department of Education, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and has recently co-authored with Arthur Rothkopf—former president of Lafayette College and former senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a minority report of this committee that calls for a complete overhaul of regional accreditation. The final NACIQI report, which includes the Neal and Rothkopf alternative proposal, can be downloaded from the Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/2012-spring/teleconference-2012/naciqi-final-report.pdf.

President Neal has also written extensively on accreditation, e.g. in the well-respected publication, Change Magazine: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/full-seeking-higher-ed.html. In addition, we expect our accreditation work to be cited in a forthcoming edition of a casebook titled “Law and Public Education: Cases and Materials,” by Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee and Prof. Philip T.K. Daniel.

I hope you find these clarifications and materials helpful, and if you have any additional questions or concerns, I will be happy to answer them.

.........Mail ends

I have taken the liberty to reproduce the mail above not to make you guys feel guilty, but rather for your education!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's highly unlikely that anyone here feels "guilty" about anything. We've already established that the ACTA report has been discussed in scholarly work and can be mentioned here so long as Wikipedia's policy on due weight is upheld. What the section needs now is expansion based on the other prominent viewpoints on the U.S. accreditation system.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once more into the breech

I don't believe we need this, even in its reduced form. For the ACTA report itself, we established that it was cited and commented upon by other scholars, including in academic publications. This one just reiterates the ACTA company line, and it appears to just be a magazine article (and the cite is incomplete). We don't need to give further weight to those claims, particularly without establishing the quality of the source.
I'm also extremely disappointed by this. The same user previously praised the use of the neutral term "assessment". Nothing is to be gained by shifting the direction of the section.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir. Why don't you concede that your Wiki team cannot accept any criticism against the "accreditation system". After writing lies on ACTA (being a partizan source), you people are now trying to ignore a highly respected source while in other Wiki articles, one-man newspaper articles of no value are freely cited and even vigorously defended. I have already been blocked for edit warring - so go ahead - do it again. You have been sleeping all these days. At least I managed to wake you up again. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly the way to talk to people you're trying in earnest to work with, if that were your actual goal..--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. There is no other language that you lot would understand. I do not really care if you block me again or for always. WIKIPEDIA HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY as far as I am concerned and this is due to editors like those present on this article. It is my firm opinion that wikipedia is being used (or should we say misused) by some as a propaganda tool with a view to protect certain interests while doing everything to discredit certain others. ACTA is an example. Maybe the person who initiated the wikipedia idea never had this in his mind. But this platform is being misused for sure. Please go ahead and block me for ever. If not, I will persist in writing the truth to the detriment of your selfish interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.236.50 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"wikipedia is being used (or should we say misused) by some as a propaganda tool with a view to protect certain interests while doing everything to discredit certain others." Pot, have you met kettle?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask the "pot" and "kettle" question to yourself first........and ....... neither do I write things I cannot prove nor do I make cheap allegations ....... like you guys did about ACTA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Change is a well-known publication in higher ed circles. However, that is not sufficient reason for us to include the contested text in this article. I understand the view that it is a bit repetitive when the article already states the ACTA position and I am content to leave it out on those grounds although I don't feel strongly one way or the other. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There is no sufficient reason for including an article from a well-known publication but there are all possible reasons for accepting other articles written by a one-man biased source. Glad to have the opinion of S.Rich on this one as it appears to me that he has been vigorously defending a biased source in another article (Preston University)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.236.50 (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Standler removal

Now, what is the reason for removing my latest edit. I do not understand !!!!!!!!! Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it was an unacceptable self-published source by someone who's not an established expert in the field. Taking it further, it's just another example of your tendentious POV-pushing. If you don't stop this it is very likely you'll be blocked from editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the clarification but I would say that your clarification confuses me a lot. I tend to agree that an article from someone who is not an established expert in a field should not be cited (although I did not know that Dr. Standler was not such an expert at the material time when I did the edit). However, I have seen quite a few examples on Wikipedia whereby articles, written by people who are not expert in a certain field, have been cited and vigorously defended when challenged. I can name at least one. Maybe you can already guess which one that is. Also, you may have noted that I did not fail to mention that according to Dr. Standler accredited degrees had more value than non-accredited ones. I therefore do not understand what you mean by "tendentious POV-pushing". Please also note that calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil as per Wikipedia. Now for another contradiction. The authors of the ACTA article are experts in the field of higher education. Nonetheless, the ACTA reference was instantly removed when I first began editing this article. What would you say about that? I get the impression that we are playing a coin flipping game whereby you are telling me " Heads you guys win and Tail I lose" !!!!! Please also stop threatening me by saying that I can be blocked. I know very well that you could do that but it is the least of my worries. Even if blocked, I can use a hundred ways to come back on the platform. Finally, please note that I am not against "good accredited universities" nor totally for "unaccredited universities". I am only trying to raise awareness about the flaws of a system that has produced so many "intelligent looking idiots" while at the same time making "some intelligent people appear like idiots" just because they have an unaccredited degree or do not have a degree at all. Steve Jobs was a drop out, just in case you did not know. Please be sure that my endeavor is not to criticise all accredited schools but rather to make the world aware that "accreditation" is not necessarily synonymous to quality in education. There are schools that offer quality education while not being accredited. There are also some people who do not even attend school but still do something great in life!!!! Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

It is unacceptable to threaten to edit war or abuse multiple accounts to get your way. Everyone else in this discussion has been more than reasonable in working to include these viewpoints according to Wikipedia's policies. We are more than happy to continue, but as I said before, there is no unilateral decision making in Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above, editing with both a username and an IP address is bad practice. And here is some more advice: WP:COOL.--S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to do something bad was not at all my intention. If it sounded that way, please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 05:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New material

I've reverted some newly-added material as it had the same issues with material discussed above. Like the ACTA stuff, it just inserted material internally published by something called the "Center for College Affordability and Productivity" without indicating that this is a significant viewpoint or that it's receiving proper weight. I also removed a line from CHEA that just described the intentions of accreditation without offering any insight into it (presumably this was added to give the appearance of balance).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I re-added the stuff, but not in the article text. Both items were moved to the Further reading section, and commentary about ithem was omitted. E.g., I was hoping to avoid injecting our POVs as to the worthiness of the two items. As for the CCAP paper, we have a distinguished professor from Ohio University and a PhD from Florida State as authors. The paper is well footnoted. So now it is gone as unworthy. Comments? – S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for the reasons I gave before: I see no indication that it represents a significant viewpoint about the article subject or that it's really any more worthwhile than any number of similar papers that are not included. I'm usually not a fan of "further reading" sections, but in any event they shouldn't comprise random internally-published "policy papers" someone dug up. Honestly, I'd rather remove the section entirely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions: One, put it in a footnote supporting the criticisms (that way it doesn't get its own section). Two, let Orlady opine. She tagged the section for balance, and I have the highest regard for her opinion. – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ...... I've watched this movie before. Quite the same scenario and .....same actors. Have a great time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, we're going to need to see some evidence that this is really a significant viewpoint (ie, that it's gotten coverage outside of an internally-published "policy paper") for it to be included at all. We don't need to bend over backward to include everything Yashnv randomly digs up. We should probably remove the other "further reading" entry as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not dig out anything my good friend, for the simple reason that one can dig out potatoes that lie below the soil but one cannot dig out a tree that is already standing on the ground. The accreditation business is a big tree that cannot yield fruit anymore. Maybe it did so in the past. Farmers who planted the tree and innocent insects living in and feeding on the tree will not want to see it pulled down. Other farmers may want to pull it down and plant a tree that will provide sweet fruits for the benefit of all. It is as simple as this. If you have reports (a recent one - post 2009-2010, of course) that speak good of the US accreditation system, as it is today and that come from reliable, external and unbiased sources, Wiki readers would be more than glad to read them. Up to now, we have been getting adverse reports and articles from a lot of sources and some defences from related parties. I am only trying to improve the article. If intelligent guys like you cannot find reliable articles supporting the system, how can you expect a nincompoup like me to find and include them here. I can bet my house that you guys did not even bother to read the report I dug, in your zeal to remove it. No offence meant to anyone in any way. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a particular paper is "internally published" does not help. The CHEA stuff, NEA stuff, DOE stuff, "The History of the North Central Association", etc., are all "internally published". Does the term mean "published for use internally" by the particular organization? No. Does it imply that WP:SPS applies? Perhaps, but SPS does not apply. Well, since it is a "policy paper" it does not belong in a further reading section (without caveats), but it does support criticism of accreditation procedures, etc. As for citations by others, are the other sources in the article cited? I venture not. The policy paper is not a scholarly work, so peer review is not de rigueur. Not are informational papers and news articles. Compare, are the papers cited in footnotes 21-26 cited? If so, where? How about the others? The significance/worthiness of the policy paper at issue is well founded by its preeminent author, Richard Vedder. Vedder was one of 19 members of the Spellings Commission and his name pops up in 397 results from HighBeam Research (96 magazines & journals, and 257 newspapers). My gosh, NPR uses him quite often! I submit that the BURDEN has been met and the piece is worthy of a footnote. Still, let's get another opinion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed repeatedly above, if a paper is published internally by some entity, you need to demonstrate that it (this particular paper) is significant to the article subject. As in, you need to show that it's been reviewed, cited, commented upon, etc., by other reliable sources as a noteworthy opinion on the topic. Until that happens there's nothing else to discuss. I double checked, and most sources in that section are published by reliable third-party publishers; the only exception is the ACTA source where we showed it had been pretty widely discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:RS:

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

"the piece of work itself (the article, book),

"the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),

"and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

"Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

If I read correctly, you see the Vedder piece as unreliable because 1. the "piece of work itself" is not reliable (regardless of its extensive footnoting with reliable sources). You support this by alleging that it is not peer-reviewed. Well, WP:USEBYOTHERS helps, but is not determinative. And, 2. it is published "internally". (I cannot find any guidance that supports your "internal-publishing" criteria. Nor do you address the "internal-publishing" nature of the NCA History, the CHEA documents, etc.) But this ignores the "creator" of the work criteria. E.g., Vedder has been recognized as "authoritative in relation to the subject", as evidenced by his membership on the Committee. But all 3 criteria are not required.

What I seem to read is "Vedder's opinions, while authoritative as to the subject of this WP article, have not been accepted by main-stream proponents of higher-ed accreditation as evidenced by the fact that this particular paper has not received reviews or citations in journals, even though the particular piece is not the type subject to written peer review; therefore, ..." IMHO, because of Vedder's well-established authority on the subject, this particular paper is worthy of a footnote; moreover, it assists in providing balance. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cúchullain is speaking about WP:UNDUE, not WP:RS; reliability is necessary but not sufficient to warrant including a source in an article. In other words, just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it's something we must or should include.

In general, I strongly prefer that documents be used to provide and support specific material in an article instead of being added in a "Further reading" section. Although I know that Vedder and his research center have good reputations - they're sometimes a little bit outside of the mainstream but I don't think anyone questions their credibility or credentials - Cúchullain's question is a reasonable one. If we're going to suggest a document as a broad resource for readers then we should be able to establish that the document is used by others in the field. If anything, I think the bar should be set higher for "Further reading" materials than it is set for references since we're recommending the work as a whole and not just one specific fact or idea from it. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm saying: Rich and Yashnv have not shown that this source represents a significant viewpoint to the article subject. As this paper was just published by the company that wrote it, the spirit of WP:SPS applies (as it did with the ACTA piece): it's something we may use, but we'd need to see some good reason for it. Most pressingly, we'll need to see that it's a significant viewpoint per WP:UNDUE; until we see that there's nothing more to talk about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vedder is not one of the prominent adherents to the viewpoint? What, not even worthy of a footnote? While SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications...." the "spirit of SPS" somehow applies? And it applies even though the the Vedder piece does not infringe on the 5 criteria? Well, I've inserted specific language about accreditation from the Summary of the Spellings Commission. Does that bring Vedder's views out of the purgatory of an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority? – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to be clearer: you need to show that the paper represents a significant viewpoint to the subject of this article. This is true of any source, but especially so of sources that are just published by the people who wrote them. The fact that the author is an established expert means we may use it, not that we must use it, and in fact we shouldn't use it if it's not really noteworthy to the topic. And we've seen nothing suggesting it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. I suggest WP:3. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O is for disputes between two editors. In this case several have weighed in and there's no consensus for the inclusion. Methinks your time would be better spent doing some research on the source to determine whether it's really significant rather than just extending the argument here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's telling that so much of this discussion is about "viewpoints". The paper in question (Gillem, Andrew; Bennett, Daniel L.; Vedder, Richard, 2010. The Inmates Running the Asylum? – An Analysis of Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity) impresses me as a highly opinionated discussion of the topic -- more POV than substance. IMO., this article would benefit greatly from addition of objective content about accreditation (the history of H.E. accreditation in the U.S., what the U.S. accreditation process actually consists of, etc.), instead of being loaded down with warring viewpoints. I agree with not including the paper as a "Further reading" item. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. The wake up call was brutal, so many months after October 2012. Interesting piece of discussion up there, unfortunately of no value to WikiReaders. I had already anticipated Orlady's response - highly opinionated discussion of the topic -- more POV than substance - Classic. As I had put it earlier, I watched this movie before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) {{od{{[reply]

I see the paper cited by Thomas Sowell in Economics Facts and Fallacies 2nd edition, OCLC 708087623, at page 252 as footnote 24.
My suggestion for usage as a footnote has not been addressed. (I quite agree that it should not be a further reading item and I only put it there as a hoped for compromise. In any event, I think the "lack of citation by others" argument is resolved. (If we use that argument as the benchmark, then other stuff, such as the North Central Assoc. History, gets rejected. E.g., that we lack evidence others have cited it in their works.)) – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're going to add something new to the discussion, it's time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean when you say Unless you're going to add something new- I added something new to the discussion but it got almost instantly removed! The contradiction here is that when I added new material (published 2010) from the "Center for College Affordability and Productivity" - you yourselves decided to add a new section to the talk page entitled New Material, albeit to dispute it- Although you concede that this was something new, you decided to remove it and now asking to add something new. Do you mean add something new only if it shows the accreditation system in a favorable light? To tell you the truth, I tried to find something new in this direction as well but could not get any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the various arguments above, I still cannot see a real reason for non-inclusion of the conclusion reached by the "Center for College Affordability and Productivity" - in their policy paper entitled The Inmates running the Asylum,as part of the main article. One of you had used the rhetoric slimy right wing organization to put down an organization like ACTA but it backfired showing your ignorance about the subject all the way. This time you showed disdain when you wrote published by something called the "Center for College Affordability and Productivity" for a credible organization that is in your own city, Washington DC and I would be surprised if you did not know about its existence while you have been editing an article on higher education accreditation in the United States! Please note that CCAP writes on higher education issues for Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, etc., plus articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=905

CCAP is not of one mind on accreditation issue. You might want to read:

Cost Versus Enrollment Bubbles

CCAP also published books by other presses, such as AEI Press and Springer.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Broke-Degree-College-Costs/dp/0844741973

http://www.amazon.com/Doing-More-Less-Making-Colleges/dp/1441959599

These books have been reviewed in peer-reviewed journals:

[PDF] from ubc.caubc.ca [PDF]

Doing More With Less: Making Colleges Work Better by Joshua C. Hall (Ed.) (2010). New York, NY: Springer, 290+ ix pp., $139.00.

[PDF] from cornell.educornell.edu [PDF]

Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much (review)

If you still want to write a word like something to describe CCAP, I will start feeling really sorry for you. However, commiting a mistake is human. I am now requesting that my edit be included in full again.

I will wait for some more time before I re-edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add that material back in. After lengthy discussions there's no consensus for including it and plenty of reasons to avoid it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese are slowly going out of "communism". Why are you, a US citizen, adopting their ways now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my above remark may have been taken as a personal attack. There was no intention of personal attack though. Why should I get personal when I do not even know someone personally? However, if it sounded this way, I do apologize.

I have provided enough evidence above that CCAP is a credible and serious organization. Why is it that there is still resistance from some editors to include the material?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

You failed to convince any of the various editors who have weighed in for the reasons given in detail above. Your personal attacks and tendentious editing are not helping your cause.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am being treated like a persona non-grata and I do not consider this to be productive.

Again, I will say that I never intended any personal attack on whomsoever. In Law there is something called Substance over Form. I think you are not looking at the substance of the matter being discussed (new research (2010) carried on the subject of "Higher Education Accreditation") but rather at the Form through which I introduced the material, thus your comment about my supposed personal attacks and tendentious editing. I can understand that most of you have been taking all the issue as a personal attack on yourselves as I believe you have probably attended an accredited institution in the United States. But this is not a reason to openly allow criticisms (slimy left wing organization / partizan source etc / something called CCAP) of organizations that come up with widely researched materials. Just because their findings differ from your opinion, you are adamant in barring useful information by using pretexts. I would never have expected such a behavior from learned individuals - childish I must say - Is this what you were taught at Accredited Universities? I bet I will now be blocked from editing for having tried to voice the truth. Again, no offence meant to anybody.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs)

Do you believe that calling people communists, "ignorant", and "childish" is a productive form of discourse? Also, for the last time, please sign your posts with four tildas ~~~~ and please stop shifting between your registered account and anonymous ones so we can tell who's saying what.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.....please stop shifting between your registered account and anonymous ones. Don't understand what you mean. Please explain. Furthermore,, if I agree that calling people communists, "ignorant", and "childish" is not a productive form of discourse, could you gratefully explain whether it is productive to tax a credible organization of flimsy right-wing. If you read well, you will note that nobody has been called those names. It was the behavior that was being referred to. Also, despite the various arguments above, may I remind fellow editors that self-published sources have been allowed space on Wiki articles. In a certain case, a one-man newspaper with no editorial oversight had been vigorously defended by editors who subsequently had to accept defeat and remove the article despite harsh resistance. Finally, before I get blocked for saying things you do not want to hear, please note that, on the article page, Link ref 23 is not going to its source (Can college accreditation live up to its promise?) but to ACTA's main page, and, Link ref 27 is not going anywhere! Strange, I would say. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, look at what your President is saying. You would probably be interested to read the comments at the bottom as well. Tendentious editing you said !!! Have a nice week-end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although modified, thank you for not removing my edit this time. I am not as ugly as you probably think I am. I could have gone to the comments section of that article and directed readers to this talk page. But that is not my objective because I still believe that Wikipedia is a wonderful tool and whoever initiated it deserves praise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing as both User:Yashnv and as your IP address.[16][17]. You need to stick to one account; please just log in if you want to edit. Also, as you've been told repeatedly, on the talk page you need to sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so we can follow who's saying what. As for personal attacks, as yet one more warning, any such attacks directed at other users is going to get you blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Foundation paper

An editor has suggested adding this report to the article: [18]. Following WP:BRD, the discussion should start here. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "some" he's talking about is a partisan think tank and the source is yet another internally published document. I see no reason to believe the paper is a significant viewpoint on this subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is commentary from USA TODAY that references Heritage Foundation. Holland, Robert. "How to build a better teacher." Society for the Advancement of Education. 2001. Retrieved April 12, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-79709538.html – S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the full article, it appears to be something of an opinion piece written by someone at another think tank, the Lexington Institute. The copyright information in INFOTRAC mentions the "Society for the Advancement of Education" but I can't seem to find any information about it. And the text refers to a K-12 project by Heritage, not a higher education project. So this seems like a pretty weak piece to cite in this particular discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification as to the definition of the word 'partisan" as used in the present context. The word has come up twice on this platform. Clarification will help in order that "partisan" sources are not included in future. Thank you for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will respond to you and it's for the benefit of other editors and not yours: That you refuse to acknowledge the rank partisanship of the Heritage Foundation and ACTA shows that you are either incompetent or disingenuous. You are clearly here to push an agenda or merely to antagonize other editors. In either case, you're wasting our time and a detriment to this project. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me "incompetent" or "disingenuous" is not a productive form of discourse. I have already called myself a nincompoop and you cannot do better than that. Maybe I am incompetent in this subject as I acknowledge that I am not an expert in higher education. I must say that I still do not have any evidence as to the assertion that ACTA and Heritage Foundation are "partisan" sources, which is why I am asking for information. Is this written somewhere? On my side' I had written to ACTA and was provided with enough evidence that led me to believe that it is a serious organization. I had even shared this with fellow editors, after which they decided to re-introduce my edit. Despite this, I promise that if you provide reliable evidence that ACTA is a partisan source, I will move away from this discussion for ever because I will be sorry for having supported such a source, if ever it is so. I may sound weird sometimes but I definitely do not have any agenda nor do I wish to antagonize other editors. I am just trying to do something productive that may help future generations. I am not wasting your time but taking valuable time off my work to contribute something that could be valuable to readers. I do not get paid a cent for this. I am just trying to ask questions and educate myself on a subject that interests me. Even your President is one the same wavelength as many others who are asking for improvement to the current system of accreditation. Finally, please note that before I joined in, this project was merely a quarter of what it is today. May I suggest that you cool down please. WP:COOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have been sleeping guys. Wake up and watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V122ICNS8_0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EAQv5hZDo0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashnv (talk • contribs) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College used to be self-accredited - worth mentioning?

Harvard College (i.e. the undergraduate degree programs) used to be self-accredited for several hundred years. They are now accredited by CIHE, although I think it would be hilarious if they had stuck to their guns and stayed self-accredited. There was a span of time when Harvard was literally the only self-accredited reputable college in the US. Should this be mentioned? Harvard predates any other body that could possibly accredit a college in the US, and they already had a solid reputation by the time any such organization was founded. The professional schools within Harvard University have always had outside accreditation as far as I know. 146.115.179.89 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Higher education accreditation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higher education accreditation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615135829/http://chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf to http://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional vs National Accreditation

The subsection "history" is embarrassing. It is nothing more than misconceptions and unsubstantiated opinions disguised as facts. Let's examine:

"Regionally accredited schools were usually academically oriented and most were non-profit"

As if to say that nationally accredited schools were not? That doesn't follow logic, because all schools are "academically oriented", they are schools, academics is what they do no matter what accreditation type they hold. Being vocational/career/technical doesn't change that.

"Except for some specific subject areas such as nursing, nationally-accredited schools did not hire many full-time faculty, usually hiring faculty by the course, without benefits and with no influence on the school's academic policies, which were determined by non-academic administrators, and ultimately investors."

That isn't based in fact. For starters, there are quite a few non-profit nationally accredited schools, the writer of this article would have you believe there are none, I'm sure. Moreover, I could easily name 100 nationally accredited schools that have had full-time faculty, and it's common today for schools both regionally accredited and nationally accredited to hire adjuncts and not offer benefits. Further, influence on academic policies has nothing at all to do with accreditation, that has to do entirely with the operations/policies/by-laws of each individual school's administration. The person who wrote that made a blanket statement, had no idea what they were saying, and was clearly injecting a personal belief mixed with an axe to grind.

"Their library facilities, if they existed at all, were far inferior to those of regionally-accredited schools"

Again, more opinions. There have and still remains thousands of nationally accredited schools with varying levels of facility quality like any other school of regional accreditation. The writer is not aware of that and is using a limited view to blanket the whole. Besides, this is the internet age, so most students don't even use the library anymore. The person who wrote that must be from the stone age.

"While there were some legitimate and well-intentioned nationally accredited schools, by and large they existed not to educate, but to make money for their investors."

WOW! Absolute opinion-driven nonsense. How does something like that not get edited out? That is an absolutely ridiculous claim and it's clear that the writer had an axe to grind. This kind of junk is why Wikipedia still isn't being taken as seriously as it could be after all these years. I wonder if the writer is aware of how much money non-profit regionally schools bring in. He/she should check the endowments of those schools and see all the hundreds of BILLIONS being brought in that the average nationally accredited for-profit or non-profit school never gets close to.

"They lived on federal student aid and very high tuitions, often leaving graduating students with credentials of little value and large student loans, often without job prospects by which to pay them off."

More of the same opinion trash. While outcomes from regionally accredited non-profit schools may be better, that doesn't tell the whole story. Not in the least. The writer would have you believe that the issue he/she described is isolated to nationally accredited schools, but that is a falsehood. The majority of non-profit regionally accredited schools charge as much or more in tuition rates compared to nationally accredited schools and also leave students with massive student loan debt. Is the issue larger with nationally accredited schools? To a degree, but that's simply because they tend to have open enrollment and enroll more students, as well as being some of the first schools to really take advantage of online education way back when. Non-profit schools have gouged the hell out of Federal student aid like every other school and that is a fact. Making it seem as if this is a problem squarely on nationally accredited and for-profit schools is not only inaccurate, but irresponsible.

Wikipedia should not be a place for opinions and hit-pieces. This is a very opinionated hit-piece and it doesn't belong here. This article is embarrassing, irresponsible, agenda-driven and needs to be cleaned up. ---- Mr. Ed...ucation

==========

Hello fellow Wikipedians

The section on regional vs. national accreditation seems to be out of date and has uncited opinions. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I started the discussion here on the talk page, but didn't hear any response so I've made some edits but expect others to help improve it. The hope is an updated, professional, accurate article that reflects current reality. I understand that historically there has been some animosity between regional and national accreditors and this l section of the article looks like it was written over 10 years ago. Today much has been accomplished to see US universities collaborate, the DoED and many state agencies are no longer using the terms "regional" and "national" accreditation, and it is my hope that these updates reflect that tone and reality.

Here are some of the pre-edited points in this section that were out-of-date or in my opinion stated with non-cited biases: "Regionally accredited schools are usually academically oriented, and most are non-profit. Nationally accredited schools, a large number of which are for-profit, typically offer specific vocational, career, or technical programs." There are no citations or references to support this conclusion. The largest US for-profit universities such as University of Phoenix, Strayer/Capella, Grand Canyon University, etc are Regionally Accredited. There is no evidence that the majority of nationally accredited universities are for-profit. I assume that might have been true in the past but over 40% of the for-profit schools in the US have closed in the last 10 years and the current list of for-profit schools does not support this conclusion.

"Regionally accredited institutions employ large numbers of full-time faculty, and the faculty set the academic policies. Regionally-accredited schools are required to have adequate library facilities. Except for some specific subject areas such as nursing, nationally-accredited schools do not hire many full-time faculty, usually hiring faculty by the course, without benefits and with no influence on the school's academic policies, which are determined by non-academic administrators, and ultimately investors." This is without citations. The US DOED and CHEA make no differentiation in accreditation standards between regional and national accreditors for full-time faculty, faculty involvement in policy-making, and libraries.

"Their library facilities, if they exist at all, are far inferior to those of regionally-accredited schools. While there are some legitimate and well-intentioned nationally accredited schools, by and large they exist not to educate, but to make money for their investors. They live on federal student aid and very high tuitions, often leaving graduating students with credentials of little value and large student loans, often without job prospects by which to pay them off" These statements are opinion without citations and seem unprofessionally biased.

"Critics consider national accreditation to be disreputable,[4] Schools accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national accreditor, have occasionally been sued for leading prospective students to believe, incorrectly, that they would have no problem transferring their credits to a regionally accredited school.[15][16][17]" All citations are 14 or 15 years old and can be offset by other more recent sources. We can add citations of criticisms about how the big four, for-profit, regionally-accredited schools are facing backlash in transfer credits but that doesn't seem to add much to the purpose of this article.

The Wikipedia article on US for-profit universities contradicts what is written in this paragraph by stating: Approximately 40 percent of all for-profit college campuses have closed since 2010.[17] The schools that are listed in the Wikipedia article as the remaining for-profit schools in the US are mostly regionally accredited.

A more recent citation contradicts all that is written in this paragraph: https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2020/03/State-Authorization-Letter-w-Diane-Signature-2.26.19.pdf Quote from Feb 26, 2020 letter from Diane Auer Jones, Principal Deputy Under Secretary Delegated the Duties of Under Secretary

Regional versus National Accreditation The Department is aware that some States have enacted laws and policies that treat institutions and the students who attend them differently based solely on whether the institution is accredited by a "national" accrediting agency or a "regional" accrediting agency. For example, some States limit opportunities to sit for occupational licensing exams to students who have completed a program at a regionally accredited institution. In other instances, transfer of credit determinations at public institutions, and other benefits provided by States, are limited to students who attended regionally accredited institutions. Because the Department holds all accrediting agencies to the same standards, distinctions between regional and national accrediting agencies are unfounded. Moreover, we have determined that most regional accreditors operate well outside of their historic geographic borders, primarily through the accreditation of branch campuses and additional locations. As a result, our new regulations have removed geography from an accrediting agency's scope.3 Instead of distinguishing between regional and national accrediting agencies, the Department will distinguish only between institutional and programmatic accrediting agencies. The Department will no longer use the terms "regional" or "national" to refer to an accrediting agency.

Since this section of this article is out of date, has uncited hearsay and opinion, I recommend removing the whole section: Regional accreditation compared to national accreditation.

Then I recommend to bring the article to Wikipedia standards and update the article that the following edits be made: From: Historically, educational accreditation activities in the United States have been overseen by six regional accrediting agencies established in the late 19th and early 20th century to foster articulation between secondary schools and higher education institutions, particularly evaluation of prospective students by colleges and universities.[5][6] These six regional accreditation agencies are membership organizations of educational institutions within their geographic regions. Initially, the main focus of the organizations was to accredit secondary schools and to establish uniform college entrance requirements.[5][6] Accreditation of colleges and universities followed later.[6] Regional accreditation of higher education applies to the entire institution, specific programs, and distance education within an institution.[7] The higher education institutions holding regional accreditation are primarily non-profit institutions.[8][9][10]

To: Historically, educational accreditation activities in the United States have been overseen by six regional accrediting agencies established in the late 19th and early 20th century to foster articulation between secondary schools and higher education institutions, particularly evaluation of prospective students by colleges and universities.[5][6] Initially, the main focus of the organizations was to accredit secondary schools and to establish uniform college entrance requirements.[5][6] Accreditation of colleges and universities followed later.[6] Throughout the 20th century, national accreditation agencies were added for specializations that needed peer-reviews focused on vocational, values-based or specialized purpose higher educational institutions. Regional and National accreditation of higher education applies to the entire institution, specific programs, and distance education within an institution.[7] Starting in February 2020, the US Department of Education no longer uses the terms "regional" or "national" to refer to an accrediting agency stating, "Because the Department holds all accrediting agencies to the same standards, distinctions between regional and national accrediting agencies are unfounded. Moreover, we have determined that most regional Teaton53 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)accreditors operate well outside of their historic geographic borders, primarily through the accreditation of branch campuses and additional locations. As a result, our new regulations have removed geography from an accrediting agency's scope. Instead of distinguishing between regional and national accrediting agencies, the Department will distinguish only between institutional and programmatic accrediting agencies." citation https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2020/03/State-Authorization-Letter-w-Diane-Signature-2.26.19.pdf[reply]

I originally opened this a dialogue to update inaccurate article and seek others input before making the changes. Yet, getting no response, and in the spirit of WP:BRD, I made changes to the article that seemed to be clearer than the draft I posted above. I assume that will help the article get attention of accomplished editors and experts. I hope for and expect that others will improve my edits and develop an updated, professional article. Bbanz (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbanz (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the updates but I strongly caution against relying too heavily on one specific source or the viewpoint of one organization, particularly a heavily-politically organization whose views and actions change frequently as different presidents are elected every few years and appoint new leadership. ED's view should be well-represented, of course, but the views of others (e.g., scholars, other relevant organizations such as CHEA) should also be represented. ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is wise. My background is working in Washington DC and the change stated in this recent ED letter has been in process from the Bush era, through the Obama era, and now the Trump era. Part of the motivation to remove the barriers between National and Regional accreditation is to deal with the massive increase in the cost of higher education which has significantly outpaced the normal cost of living. I don't think this policy will be reversed if the next President is a Democrat. What would be the best way to make sure this article reflects this trend, but doesn't overstate it? Bbanz (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC) I added a link to Judith Eaton's Pro and Con article for regionals moving to national presence just after the USDOED letter to address ElKevbo's advice. I assume we will see additional articles by other sources in coming months that can be added as well. Bbanz (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]