Education and accreditation leaders were
not shocked when, in his State of the Union address, President Obama said this
about higher education: “Taxpayers cannot
continue to subsidize higher and higher and higher costs of higher education. Colleges
must do their part to keep their costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they
do.” This is a theme we have been hearing repeatedly from the Administration.
But the “supplemental document,” released after the speech, did
contain a very big surprise for the accreditation community. In that document
the White House said: “The President will call on Congress to consider value,
affordability, and student outcomes in making determinations about which
colleges and universities receive access to federal student aid, either by
incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing
accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of
accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and
colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.”
Right
now, in order for their students to receive federal financial aid, a college
must have institutional accreditation from an agency recognized by the US
Department of Education. (This is different
from program accreditation which is what CAAHEP does). The main purpose of the
recognition by the Department is to assure that the accreditors are serving as
“gatekeepers” for that federal aid. But with rising default rates on student
loans and ever-escalating costs for a college degree, the Administration
clearly believes that those institutional accreditors are somehow failing in
their duty as gatekeepers.
There
has been a lot of debate in recent years in the accreditation community about
how we should balance our roles as the cop who assures certain outcomes versus
promoter of quality and quality improvement. That debate will no doubt
continue.
But
what is of particular interest to me is that the underlying philosophy in the
Administration’s position seems to be that federal money should be used only to
train students for jobs. If you want to spend $40,000 on a liberal arts degree
that won’t prepare you for a profession, you have that right. But not at
taxpayers’ expense.
Many
of us in the “Boomer” generation started out with English or philosophy degrees
before we ultimately settled into a profession. But given high unemployment
rates and the fear of the looming crises over student loan defaults, this would
appear in the minds of many to be a “luxury” we can no longer afford.
