Considerations for Accreditation Entities

U.S. Institutional Accreditation Issues The accreditation of higher education in the United States protects institutional academic autonomy to a limited extent. Accreditation is key to ensuring that students actually get a quality education. There are certain standards that are specified by accrediting entities when evaluating different universities. If universities do not meet or exceed those standards which involve aspects of course objectives, content, requirements and more (Sandler, 2003), they do not earn accreditation status.

There are numerous students who are aware of the fact that universities that provide quality educations have some level of accreditation, if not accreditation from multiple accrediting agencies. Thus, when analyzing the limited extent to which the accreditation of higher education in America protects academic autonomy, it is critical to note that for the most part it actually restricts academia to rigorous standards more than it simply provides it unmitigated autonomy, which is why certain entities are calling for a "deregulation" (Dill, 2002, p. 1) of universities.

Still, it is vital to understand the degree of autonomy that formal academic institutions have in spite of accreditation. Accreditation agencies do not necessarily dictate the particular curriculum that an institution of higher education has. It does not denote what scholarly material is required or how it is necessary implemented. Instead, accrediting agencies measure the overall "quality" (National Advisory, 2015) of university facilities. For instance, they evaluate the merit of its library, its classrooms, and the credentials of its professors.

In this regard, there is actually a fair amount of autonomy that the accrediting process affords institutions, for the simple fact that it allows them to have considerable license with its curriculum. The accrediting agencies are merely evaluating the overall effects of that curriculum, as well as of the facilities in which it is implemented. Additionally, it scrutinizes those that are teaching that curriculum to ensure that students actually get a diploma that is worth their considerable time and effort if they happen to graduate (Eaton, 2015, p. 3).

Moreover, there are some aspects of accreditation that actually encourage autonomy among institutions of higher education in the U.S. This fact is most readily demonstrated in the notion that accrediting agencies are partially responsible for new or progressive disciplines, subjects, and areas of scholarship in universities. Accrediting agencies could choose to revoke their accreditation or neglect to renew it in instances in which schools introduce progressive subject matter into the course loads that students may choose to take.

If they did so, there would certainly be a lot fewer news disciplines that students could select. In this regard, accrediting agencies are actually working in conjunction with academia to further along its various characteristics of scholarship, because they are permitting them to incorporate new subjects and still maintain accreditation. There are actually multiple demonstrations of this fact in regards to information technology, which is a branch of scholarship (and practical engagement in the workplace) that actually thrives on innovation.

A number of recent programs have sprouted up in the area of data science, which is a highly nuanced and comprehensive discipline that requires both business skills and analytics savvy, communication as well as a proficiency in mathematics. There are no tried and true methods of teaching subject, yet accrediting agencies have issued accreditation to a number of programs in the past couple of years that have wholly designed curriculums to suit what is actually an emerging need in the wake of big data's.