For-Profits Want Their Credits Accepted By Regionals To Increase Profits, Not For Concern For Their Students.

Since 2001 nationally accredited schools, which are overwhelmingly, for-profit, career, technical and vocational, have had the Transfer of Credit Blues as detailed in the Chronical of Higher Education and have been working to make it more difficult for regionally accredited schools to reject their credits, if not compel them to accept them. This last failure to accomplish this feat has to be frustrating. As I have stated before, they are fundamental reasons why nationally accredited schools which are trade, technical, career and vocational schools are fundamentally different from regionally accredited schools, which are academic. One of the nationals' biggest arguments is that the Department of Education recognizes both accreditations as a reason why regionally accredited schools should accept their credits. This is a bogus argument however, the Department of Education does not set educational standards, the accrediting agencies do, so the fact that the Department recognizes an accrediting agency does not mean that they are all equal in requirements and quality.

One of the reasons that nationally accredited schools have fought so hard to make it hard for regionals to reject their credits, is not because of any concern for their students. If their credits were transferable, this would enhance the value of their schools aka their businesses and investment.

In an article in Inside Higher Education, Elise Scanlon, executive director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology and Mark Pelesh, executive vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at Corinthian Colleges, Inc. "both acknowledged, as has been clear in the for-profit sector’s push for new rules or laws on transfer of credit, that part of the reason the issue is so important to commercial colleges is because of what the perceived discrimination says to students and others about their institutions."

Many of for-profit students have complained about the fact the their credits do not transfer to traditional universities and some have sued. Ironically enough, Nancy Broff, general counsel for the Career College Association (CCA), which represents for-profit schools once said: "Students often don't know if their credits will transfer until after switching schools. Most students and parents are unaware of the pitfalls they may encounter if they switch from a career college to a traditional four-year institution." Obviously if the nationally accredited schools are petitioning the government to have them "regulate" acceptance of their credits by regionals, they know there is a problem. Strange how many of their students are not informed of this, huh?

In other words, the real problem, is that many nationally accredited schools purposely don't tell their students of the transfer of credit problem before they enroll! Some go further, and lie and state that the credits transfer, though they know they don't, e.g. Crown College and Florida Metropolitan University.

Crown College Lies

Crown College, in Tacoma, Washington, is the biggest reason not to choose for-profit education. Crown College is a vocational, mostly on-line school which holds itself to be an academic institution because it issues issues bachelor and associate degrees as if that's all it needed to do. However, its still just a vocational, "career" school and its credits and degrees generally don't transfer to academic aka "real" schools. It has managed to deceive many customers, oh students, into believing that its degrees and credits do transfer. This has resulted in it being sued three times by eleven different students! Crown settled two of these Lola Jackson v. Killebrew/Dalton, Inc. and Joanne Black v. Killebrew/Dalton, Inc. lawsuits were settled and Crown College lost the Latesha Gonzalez v. Killebrew/Dalton, Inc. case at trial. IF YOU WANT YOUR CREDITS TO TRANSFER TO A REGIONALLY ACCREDITED SCHOOL DON'T GO TO CROWN COLLEGE.

Incidentally, the logo states that they were founded in 1969, well Crown College of Hair Design was founded in 1969. However, that school was purchased 1990 by John Wabel and now bears little resemblance to a beauty school ... actually it might, at least in quality. Mr. Wabel, who despite the fact that he does not possess even a nationally accredited college degree, has come across a fantastic way to make money: having students borrow it from the federal government and then turning it over to him for an online, inferior education. In fact, Mr. Wabel has been providing a sub par education for students for over 10 years now. As far back as 1997, complaints show that Crown College has been misleading students regarding the quality or lack there of its educational programs much like a used car salesman might mislead you about the facts concerning several mechanical occupants of his lot. More importantly, he and his staff have misrepresented (lied) about the nature of their accreditation and the transferability of their credits for the same amount of time. Crown College is accredited by the American Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT) and is on probation yet again.

A former admissions representative came forward and filed a complaint against Crown College alleging that she was instructed to mislead (lie) and misrepresent (lie) and deceive (lie) prospective students about many pertinent facts including Crown College's accreditation (national accreditation is better than regional accreditation), whether Crown College was being sued (Oh, its not this Crown College that's being sued), whether or not Crown College's credits transfered to other schools (well we educate students all over the nation so our credits are transferable to all schools). Why, why would they lie to prospective students? Well the bottom line. This school is a money making enterprise and let's say they are highly motivated when it comes to generating revenue ... ummm, recruiting students though not as motivated when it comes to educating their students but then education is a mere by-product of making money. It's a great scam, an unlimited supply of money from the federal government. This student is a conduit, a middle man, a funnel, through which loan money flows into the school's bank account. Thus education is not the end, its a means to the end. The end is making money.

What's the Difference Between Vocational and Academic Education? Campaign Contributions!

Well obviously there are other differences, most notably quality! Regional accreditation conferred on academic, mainly non-profit institutions is far superior to national accreditation which is generally conferred on vocational, technical and career colleges. However if you put enough money in the pockets of the powers that be -- in this case politicians -- you can bend reality to suit what you think it should be, or more specifically the version that you can profit from. Of course, in the phrase "for-profit education" the inflection is on profit!

Speaking of phrases, remember the phrase, history is written by the victors? Well reality can be written by those who contribute the most (lobbyists) to those who shape it, (politicians). Remember the Bush Administration's Clear Sky's Act which, in a rather Orwellian sense, would produce more pollution. It can be difficult to dodge the subterfuge in the title of some legislature. The key to ascertaining the truth is to examine the what politician is sponsoring it, or better yet, the party sponsoring the sponsor! Well the coal, oil and gas industry sponsored Bush so that indicates that the Clear Skys Initiative, regardless of its title, would help the energy industry and thus not lead to clear skies at all, quite the opposite. Got it now?

So, let's apply that lesson to the bill College Access and Opportunity Act which was sponsored by the Hon. John Boehner who is pictured above. That bill, fortunately, languished at the end of the 109th Congress. However, like any cinematic monstrosity, there will be a sequel. Anyway, let's look past the benign title of the bill and see who sponsors its sponsor John Boehner. According to Campus-Progress Mr. Boehner receives tens of thousands of dollars from the for-profits educational industry (He receives lots of money from banks that make federally guaranteed loans to students too, but that is another blog entry). So considering the sponsorship of the bill, well the dual sponsors, John Boehner and well his sponsors, the for-profit education industry, one has to think this bill might have to do more with for-profit education's access and opportunity rather than anyone else! Hmmm, ironically enough, the bill may be appropriated named! Well, the lesson worked! This bill is a great boon or investment return for the sponsors aka the for profit education industry, an industry worth at least $26 billion and funded mostly by the federal government student aid programs. They win big if it passes.

Let's take one provision, language that would state that no regionally accredited school could reject a nationally accredited school's (most of which are for-profits) credits just because they are nationally accredited schools. We visited this topic briefly in a previous entry. This would mean that regionally accredited schools would have to evaluate every single credit in order to justify its rejection. To fully understand exactly what some of these nationally accredited schools teach, let's look at the schools the ACCSCT (American Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology) accredits.

The ACCSCT is the national accreditor which accredits Crown College and is a major force behind the transfer of credits legislation that would favor the schools it accredits. They are one of the largest national accreditors. According to their Accreditation Standards and the schools they accredit it becomes clear why regionally accredited schools are very reluctant to take nationally accredited schools credits. ACCSCT only accredits schools, as defined in I.A.11 of their Standards of Accreditation, which are "postsecondary institution with trade, occupational, or career-oriented educational objectives" not academic educational objectives! This fact becomes even more clear when one looks at the 802 schools they accredit, only a small percentage of which even offer degrees and a smaller amount still that offer bachelors degrees. Looking at a directory of schools they accredit. They accredit schools that teach massage therapy, refrigeration, helicopter aviation, pet grooming, cosmetology, and culinary arts just too name a few. The majority of the schools they accredit offer diplomas or certificates in trades and are obviously not academically oriented. It is also obvious why a regionally accredited school, academically oriented college or university would not want to accept their credits for transfer. To make these schools evaluate each credit is rather ridiculous. What cosmetology or pet grooming credits are going to transfer to the University of Washington or Yale University and how much money should they have to spend to "evaluate" them????

Nationals' Transfer of Credit Problem

National accreditation is conferred on vocational, "career" and technical schools. Most of them are for-profits. Even if the offer degrees they are still, well, vocational, "career" and technical schools, let's say VCTs. They are over 50 national accrediting agencies which accredit such varied schools as landscape design, denture making, medical assistant and so on. Some of these agencies also accredit supposed academic schools, such as well Crown College. However, generally regionally accredited schools will not accept credits from nationally accredited schools. Here is an article that does a good job of summarizing regional vs. National Accreditation which is taken from the Education USA website.


You should also be aware that many U.S. institutions that hold regional accreditation do not recognize credits or degrees earned at other U.S. institutions that are nationally accredited. This will be important to you if you decide to transfer from one U.S. institution to another part way through a degree program, or if you plan to pursue degrees at different U.S. institutions; for example, a bachelor’s degree from one school and a master’s degree from another.

Another article on accreditation from Elearners.com:

Issues to Consider

When deciding which type of accreditation is right for you, there are several issues you may wish to consider.

The main issue is the transferability of credits from one institution to another. While nationally accredited institutions will usually accept credit from regionally or nationally accredited institutions, regionally accredited schools often do not accept credit from nationally accredited institutions.

This also means that if you hold an Associate's degree from a nationally accredited school, you may have to start over if you later decide to pursue a Bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited school. Similarly, if you hold a nationally accredited Bachelor's degree, you may not be eligible to enter a Master's program at some regionally accredited institutions. Considering that state colleges and universities are regionally accredited, and are an inexpensive local option for many students, this is definitely something to keep in mind.

Many regionals refuse to accept nationals' credits for transfer is because they claim they are inferior and they are. Regional accreditation is much more academically oriented and stringent. Nationals' accrediting standards are not as strict and they are more oriented to preparing people for careers or vocations, not providing a "well rounded education." Of course, nationals say that is not true and the fact that their accreditors are recognized by the Department of Education shows they are the equivalent. The Department of Education does not run any schools or even accrediting agencies! It simply decides what minimum requirements an accrediting agency must meet. Now of course national accredited schools will make a lot of supercilious arguments since they have a conflict of interest! It has something to do with .... the bottom line and it is hurt by the fact that the education is perceived as inferior when their credits don't transfer AND less students are going to be inclined to attend their schools if they can't transfer. Look at Crown College, when they were ordered to distribute a paper to each of their students explaining that their credits don't transfer, they just ignored it. It was better to risk the court's wrath that potentially lose students.

National's Legislative End Run Around Reality

As I have pointed out earlier, nationally accredited schools ("nationals") credits generally do not transfer to regionally accredited schools ("regionals") while regionals' credits almost always do. According to the ACCSCT only 18% of nationals' credits were accepted by regionals. Why is this, because regionals have much more rigorous accrediting standards than nationals do, and there are only six regional accreditors while there are numerous national accreditors. Regionally accreditors almost exclusively accredit academic oriented institutions. National accreditors accredit schools which teach denture making, landscape design, cosmetic and beauty, massage, acupuncture, schools just to name a few. So, nationals are generally offering, well selling, an academically inferior product. This has historically left them feeling, well a little bereft and more importantly, costs them money and affects their bottom line, and remember, most of them are for profit, bottom lines are important. Now, in a free market one would expect them to improve their product, i.e., apply for regional accreditation, nothing is stopping them, well outside of the that fact that would have to spend more money on faculty and facilities, thereby cutting into their ... bottom line. There goes that bottom line thing again. However, there is another way! Lobby! Have the federal government, more or less declare them to be equal. Think presidential signing statement. It's amusing how capitalists who love the free market versus regulation, can fall out of love with the free market very quickly when it fails to accomplish their goals. Fickle, huh. Profit can be. Imagine, the government telling one car dealership that they have to accept another dealer's cars for trade in without any discount. Rather anti-free market I should think. Well that is what the nationals are doing. Now of course they will tell you that they are being discriminated against. What they are doing is tantamount to:

That's like say I'm selling GEO's and my customers are upset because they cannot trade their GEOs in for BMWS. Now I could retool my factories to make GEOs, of course it would mean that I would have to spend a great deal of money and abandon my business model which is, hmmmm, well to make GEOs because they are cheaper to make oooorrrrrrrrrr I could just lobby the federal government to prohibit BMV dealers from not accepting my GEOs in trade for BMVs just because they are GEOs. In other words, they would have to evaluate each GEO, to make sure it is indeed inferior to a BMV. The basis and rationale for my request would be the proposition that since both GEOs and BMVs are cars, there is no reason for GEOs to be "discriminated" against by being valued less than BMV. Amusing, huh?

Yes, for some time now, for-profit colleges have been lobbying a friendly congress (well until 2006 at least) and administration to amend the Higher Education Act or promulgate regulations in order to stop the haughty regionals from rejecting credits from the nationals solely because they are, well, nationals. At this point I will cite the Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers most cogent argument explaining why here. If you can take the time you will have received a encapsulated argument against the nationals attempts to rewrite federal law in their favor. Caril Lynn Hennessy also makes a good argument against this legislative end run. Understanding all of this might take a little bit of history.

Coming back to the nationals big argument is that the Department of Education does not distinguish between national and regional accreditation when it comes to eligibility for federal educational grants and loans, the currency of higher education and of course what allows for profit education -- these students don't pay for the education, at least not initially, we the tax payer does --- hmmm, I sense another blog post. So if the Department of Education makes no distinction why should the accreditors? Hmmm, in other words a GEO and a BMV are both cars as far as the government is concerned so why should one be valued over the other . . . other than, well one is better than the other one.

National vs. Regional Accreditation

Hey, you probably thought that accreditation was accreditation, right? Wrong! That's the way some of these nationally accredited schools trick you.

There is regional and national accreditation. Regional accreditation has been around for awhile and the vast majority of these schools are non-profits and academic. National accreditation is a somewhat recent phenomena and grew out of a desire for for-profit schools to gain more legitimacy. The vast majority of nationally accredited schools are vocational or technical in nature.

If you want to go to an truly academic school you go to a regionally accredited school. Every public university is regionally accredited. Every private university of any merit is regionally accredited. We are talking about University of Washington, Washington State University, Stanford University, the University of California school system, New York University. These are "real" schools and they are accredited by six regionally accrediting agencies. And generally they accept each other's credits which is the most important aspect of things.

National accreditation is conferred on vocational schools, even if they offer degrees. They are over 50 national accrediting agencies which accredit such varied schools as landscape design, denture making, medical assistant and so on. Some of these agencies also accredit academic schools, such as well Crown College. However, generally regionally accredited schools will not accept credits from nationally accredited schools.

Regional accreditation is far better than national accreditation, especially where its most important and that is the transfer of credits. I personally think its a a no-brainer but you have many institutions which are nationally accredited which want you to think that there is no difference between the two. Of course, they have a conflict of interest!