California considers closing all unaccredited schools

[John Bear]

Last week, the Legislature held its Joint Oversight Sunset Hearing on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). There was no interest in letting the Bureau sunset into oblivion. But, unexpectedly (well, I didn’t expect it), there was serious interest in requiring all state-approved schools either to gain recognized accreditation or stop awarding degrees—the so-called “up or out” law.

Das William, chair of the Assembly’s Higher Education Committee, supported the idea, and so did the chair of BPPE, Joanne Wenzel.

Wenzel pointed out there are about 150 unaccredited degree-granting schools that would be affected by such a law, saying that some of them offer inferior degrees, and tend to focus on foreign and immigrant students. She said that the new law would ensure quality and save the state money by unburdening BPPE of having to deal with state approval. Wenzel was asked how many of her staff were dealing with unaccredited degree-granting schools. She said she did not know.

[Jimmy]

I don't like this. If passed, the closing of numerous religious schools will occur. These schools, like the California Graduate School of Theology, offer important programs to those who simply cannot afford the costs of the accredited schools. I have always maintained the Federal government and state governments have no business involving themselves in religious education. I have always been a strong supporter of the Separation of Church and State.

[johann]

I don't think California's unaccredited religious schools would have anything to worry about, Jimmy. They file yearly as "exempt", according to this sheet, so I'm guessing the State-allowed religious exemption will go on untouched. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm

I'm pretty sure they're not the target -and they won't be "collateral damage" either.

Johann

[Jimmy]

I don't think California's unaccredited religious schools would have anything to worry about, Jimmy. They file yearly as "exempt", according to this sheet, so I'm guessing the State-allowed religious exemption will go on untouched. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0023.htm

I'm pretty sure they're not the target -and they won't be "collateral damage" either.

Johann

Okay, Johann, thanks.

[cbkent]

Does anyone know how this might affect CA unaccredited law schools? My understanding is that they are now under the jurisdiction of the State Bar of California rather than the BPPE.

[Rich Douglas]

This event, should it occur, will have some unfortunate outcomes. California was a hotbed of innovation in the 1970's and 1980's, with a great number of schools being created. Many of these became accredited later (CCU, Saybrook, CIIS, Fielding, etc.). Others remained unaccredited, but put out a quality product and served interesting niches. The problem isn't the schools. The problem is with the state and the resources it doesn't use on this.

There will be schools who are doing good work, turning out good graduates, who will simply have to close. They will be the unintended victims in this. Because the state doesn't want to do the job anymore, they'll be sacrificed.

Here's another wrinkle: If I'm running a nontraditional, accredited school in California, I'm hating this. Handing all the power over to WASC means those schools have no where else to turn.

[nosborne48]

Handing all the power to any private association is troubling.

If the state government is going to regulate some commercial activity, which is a major function of state governments in general, the GOVERNMENT is who should do the regulating. Generally, they do. Supreme Courts regulate law practice. State boards of accounting, engineering, medicine, interior design, dentistry, chiropractic, all of these and many more regulate their licensees.

Imposing a blanket knee-jerk requirement for accreditation places schools at the mercy of private regulators and deprives the schools of established routes for administrative or judicial appeal.

[SteveFoerster]

Handing all the power to any private association is troubling.

If the state government is going to regulate some commercial activity, which is a major function of state governments in general, the GOVERNMENT is who should do the regulating. Generally, they do. Supreme Courts regulate law practice. State boards of accounting, engineering, medicine, interior design, dentistry, chiropractic, all of these and many more regulate their licensees.

Imposing a blanket knee-jerk requirement for accreditation places schools at the mercy of private regulators and deprives the schools of established routes for administrative or judicial appeal.

You mean like how law schools have to be ABA accredited and the ABA uses this power to suppress distance learning?

[nosborne48]

Yep. A special pet peeve of mine, in fact.

[cbkent]

It would be a shame if CA correspondence and online law schools went away.
ABA accredited ULV boasts $75,000 tuition for the entire course.
My bar qualifying JD cost me $8000 in tuition for the entire program. Of course, that was almost 15 years ago.
Why pay $75,0000 to $150,000 for a bar card and no job when you can get a bar card and no job for substantially less?

[Rich Douglas]

It would be a shame if CA correspondence and online law schools went away.
ABA accredited ULV boasts $75,000 tuition for the entire course.
My bar qualifying JD cost me $8000 in tuition for the entire program. Of course, that was almost 15 years ago.
Why pay $75,0000 to $150,000 for a bar card and no job when you can get a bar card and no job for substantially less?

Awesome. Nothing like focusing on outcomes....

[RGable]

Yes, all unaccredited schools should be closed. Many of these schools are profit-centers for entrepreneurs who exploit foreign students.

[Oregon]

Yes, all unaccredited schools should be closed. Many of these schools are profit-centers for entrepreneurs who exploit foreign students.

So you are saying there can never be any new schools ever allowed. Schools don't start with accreditation.

Who gives a rat's ass about foreign students?

[SteveFoerster]

So you are saying there can never be any new schools ever allowed. Schools don't start with accreditation.

That's very true. The "ban them all!" approach is incredibly short sighted.

Who gives a rat's ass about foreign students?

Anyone who sees the drawback in the U.S. earning a reputation for being a place where you can cheat foreigners with impunity, for starters.

[Oregon]

Anyone who sees the drawback in the U.S. earning a reputation for being a place where you can cheat foreigners with impunity, for starters.

Then let's clean up all the schools that charge $ 20- $30 - $40,000 per year for mediocre cookie-cutter degrees. There is another name for charging $120,000 for 4 years of babysitting - that would be racketeering.