End the Unjust Stratification of Accreditors

Practically everyone knows of a student who had to take virtually the same class twice—and pay for it twice—because his college wouldn’t accept perfectly good transfer credits from another institution. In many cases, this situation results from a snooty—and misplaced—idea that credits from a college with “regional” accreditation are academically sound, while credits from other accredited colleges are not. This injustice should end.

Accreditation is how a college demonstrates that it meets basic federal requirements for allowing students to receive federal student aid—Pell grants and student loans. Accreditation arose to help “real” colleges distinguish themselves from fly-by-night diploma mills.

Accreditors’ role in quality assurance has become something of a farce. Accreditors (formally known as “accrediting agencies”) also used to be reliable indicators of college quality. But their role in quality assurance has become something of a farce. Accreditors rarely sanction an institution on academic grounds, despite many accredited colleges and universities having extremely poor graduation rates and financial outcomes for those who do graduate.

Accreditors rarely sanction on academic grounds, despite many accredited colleges offering poor graduation rates and financial outcomes. Take, for example, the graduation rates of a few colleges accredited by a “regional” accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s database, which uses public sources, the four-year graduation rate at Southern University at New Orleans (SUNO) is eight percent.

Allen University in South Carolina, accredited by SACSCOC, is at nine percent. Georgia Gwinnett College, accredited by SACSCOC, is at four percent. Four. Percent. There are many more such examples at the bottom.

It’s important to note that sources vary widely on this measure, even for the same cohort. U.S. News & World Report currently has Georgia Gwinnett College at six percent but concedes that the school is almost totally indiscriminate about whose tuition to gobble up, given its 96-percent acceptance rate.

If you think four-year rates are unfair, check out six-year graduation rates. These also are ugly at the bottom. Depending on the source, Georgia Gwinnett College’s six-year rate is published at 20-28 percent.

Look to your right, they used to say at the first freshman convocation, and look to your left. One of you won’t be here next year. At many colleges today, the reality is: Look anywhere you want, and look at yourself; chances are, you’ll be looking at somebody who will have debt but no degree.

Yet where is SACSCOC?

As for financial outcomes, a program-by-program report calculating return on investment (ROI) by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity shows many colleges and universities with extremely poor outcomes for many programs. Brevard College in North Carolina, with SACSCOC accreditation, has a psychology bachelor’s program with a negative ROI to the tune of -$118,912. Western Carolina University’s bachelor’s degree in psychology, which is “one of the largest undergraduate majors at the university,” is similarly poor at -$66,570 for those who graduate.

Yet where is SACSCOC?

Despite the evidence, “regional” accreditation is still privileged among many U.S. colleges and universities. Here’s the short story: Several accrediting agencies cartelized, dividing the nation into regions and accrediting colleges only in the territory they owned. These six accreditors became known as “regional” accreditors. There have been some “national” accreditors from which to choose. But the regionals conquered almost all of the market share across the country.

If this seems like gangs dividing their turf, it is. If this seems like gangs dividing their turf, it is. The regionals tended to abuse their monopoly power. Unfortunately, colleges reinforced the regional monopolies by privileging credits from institutions with “regional” accreditation over those with “national” accreditation.

Language from the “cartel” era needs to change in order to permit competition in accreditation. The first Trump administration broke up these regional monopolies by giving all of the “regional” accreditors a national scope, meaning that all of them can officially accredit colleges anywhere in the nation. This means that the “former regionals” can compete for business with each other as well as with the pre-existing national accreditors.

Unfortunately, many state laws and regulations, as well as state system and individual university policies, still default to the former regional accreditor. Such vestigial language from the cartel era typically needs to change in order to permit competition in accreditation.

But even if this language is updated, credit-transfer policy can still privilege colleges accredited by the former regionals. Credit-transfer policies should be updated to reflect that all accredited credits will be treated the same, whether one’s institution was accredited by a former regional or by a pre-existing national accreditor.

This doesn’t mean that all credits should be automatically accepted. It’s not hard to understand skepticism about transferring science credits from, say, SUNO to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, even though SUNO has accreditation from one of the former regionals. MIT has reason to be systemically snooty. In general, colleges should retain the authority to reject individual credits that truly do not measure up.

But there is no academic justification when, say, an everyday regional public university chooses to fully accept SUNO credits while excluding “non-regional” credits for essentially the same course. At a minimum, the “non-regional” credits and the SUNO credits should have equal treatment when it comes to evaluation for transfer credit.

The old, lazy shorthand of automatically counting “regional” accreditors as high-quality and all others as low-quality was probably never correct, and it’s still incorrect. It’s costing students time and money. It should end.

Furthermore, colleges’ stratification of acceptable vs. unacceptable accreditors is not limited to credit-transfer policies. Graduate admission can be restricted or banned if one’s degree is from an institution accredited by an agency other than one of the former regionals.

Likewise for faculty hiring. If your degree is from the wrong American institution and your teaching qualification is based on that credential, some colleges will refuse to accept your application—no exceptions.

Well, that’s not quite true. Colleges do regularly provide one exception: All foreign degrees can be evaluated for approval. An applicant could at least have a chance with a degree from the worst university in a virtually unknown land. But if you happen to come from a Christian college accredited by TRACS, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which has operated since 1979, you’re out of luck.

Colleges’ stratification of acceptable vs. unacceptable accreditors is not limited to credit-transfer policies. Many colleges choose TRACS because of the seal of approval related to a faith commitment. In exchange, they are willing to accept the unjust stigma with which many other colleges treat their students and faculty. This injustice should end.

Again, the same is true regarding treatment of degrees from accredited institutions for the purposes of graduate admission and faculty teaching certification. Any degree from an institution accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education should have an equal chance to count.

The lazy stereotype of automatically counting “regional” credits is not an accurate or trustworthy policy. Such policy changes would not affect the accreditation of colleges accredited by the former regionals. For example, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, requires only that credit-transfer policies be disclosed and that they “ensure the quality of the credit.”

Arguably, the lazy stereotype of automatically counting “regional” credits as being of sufficient quality is not, after all, an accurate or trustworthy policy. Accreditors should have to explain why such policies get a pass. Has each accredited university actually checked the quality of the courses across every institution to which it gives automatic, privileged treatment?

HLC also assumes that colleges do not guarantee credit transfer in the absence of an evaluation of the credits or a systemic policy or agreement with another institution. That is, HLC requires that, “prior to enrolling a student in a program or major, the institution ensures that the student has had sufficient time … to learn how many credits previously earned, if any, will transfer and whether those transferred credits will be applied to requirements of the major or general education.” HLC-accredited universities that delay evaluation until after the student has transferred should know that they are out of compliance.

As for faculty qualifications, HLC requires only “reasonable policies and procedures.” Instructors must only be “appropriately qualified.” HLC’s more detailed guidance in this area also does not privilege the former regionals.

Graduate-admission policies required for accreditation, and the same sets of rules across other accreditors, likely follow the same pattern. That is, in each case a college should have and disclose a clear policy that ensures quality at the level needed for the particular institution, but having “regional” accreditation is not a required part of the assessment.

To conclude, all of this is to say: First, regional accreditation no longer exists because all accreditors now have a national scope. Second, the former regionals are not reliable indicators of college quality, and colleges should stop pretending that they are.

Third, colleges are losing great undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members when they lazily privilege regionally accredited credits over other American credits and then deny access or make people jump through extra hoops to prove that their credits and credentials should count. Colleges that care about college access, cost, completion, diversity, and inclusion should stop making students pay for and take the same courses twice.

Finally, colleges should revise any default language about regional accreditation, not just regarding who their accreditor may be but also regarding transfer credit, graduate admission, and faculty qualifications.

College accreditation can seem dry and abstruse, but the implications of accreditation policy are huge. Trustees, senior university leaders, state system administrators, governors’ offices, and legislators should take the time to get these policies right.

Adam Kissel is a senior fellow at the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy.