Search News


Browse Archives

News

Demanding Credit

October 19, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As Congress has reviewed the Higher Education Act, many Republican lawmakers have told horror stories about how colleges fail to grant credit to transfer students for work they did at other institutions. As the lawmakers tell it, it's a matter of snobbery, not standards. No college can believe that any other institution is good enough, so credits are denied, and students must retake courses. Graduation is delayed. More student aid is needed. Everyone loses.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report backing those claims -- sort of. The report said that some colleges reported that they rejected transfer credit based solely on the kind of accreditation a student's original college has. And the report recommended the Congress bar this practice -- a ban that for-profit colleges have been wanting for some time, and that both the House of Representatives and the Senate versions of a bill to renew the Higher Education Act would put in place.

But at the same time, the GAO report didn't offer evidence that the problem is widespread. And the GAO report listed a number of efforts by accreditors and states to deal with the problem without federal legislation.

In theory, everyone agrees that colleges have the right (indeed the responsibility) to review the quality of work for which they are being asked to award credit. But the GAO report focuses on how that is done, and whether it is done in a knee jerk fashion. The report notes that many colleges that are accredited by one of the six regional agencies will fairly automatically grant credit for work done at other regionally accredited colleges. At the same time, the report found that many regionally accredited colleges are pickier about -- and some automatically reject -- work done at nationally accredited institutions. (Many for-profit institutions are nationally accredited, although some are regionally accredited.)

The GAO endorsed the idea moving in Congress to require colleges to state their policies on transfer of credit and to state that they will not automatically reject credit from nationally accredited institutions.

Republican leaders of the education committees in the House and in the Senate praised the GAO report and said it backed up their contention that legislation was needed. The report "confirms what Republican lawmakers have been saying all along -- there must be greater flexibility and fairness in the transfer of credit process," said Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, chairman of the subcommittee that drafted the legislation.

Becky Timmons, director of government relations at the American Council of Education, said that she thought that the provision would pass, even though it wasn't really necessary. She noted, for example, that the GAO found that for-profit colleges that get regional accreditation don't have difficulty with their students getting credit transferred. Seeking such accreditation would be a better approach, she said, than amending federal law.

The problem with the proposed revision in the law, college officials say, is that when colleges reject transfer credits in the future, disappointed students may assume that the rejection had to do with accreditation status, even if that has nothing to do with the decision. Timmons said that most credit denials have to do with a student's poor grades or his or her having taken a curriculum that doesn't meet requirements for a specific major.

"There are a host of reasons why credit may be denied, and it would be a shame if those reasons are obscured by legal wrangling," she said.

Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said that the GAO report had "incongruities" in that the evidence in it did not back its conclusion.

He said that the legislation on transfer credits will put colleges "in a terrible situation" because they will be accused, every time they deny credit, of violating the law.

Ultimately, he said that what is happening is that Congress is substituting its judgment for that of college officials. He said Congress would never tell a company that produces planes that it cannot decide whether certain parts are appropriate or safe to use, but that lawmakers are doing the equivalent here, telling colleges what parts are acceptable for the degrees they aware.

"This will certainly have consequences," he said. "The Congress of the United States is putting its political judgment in the place of the academic judgments of 4,000 colleges and universities."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Demanding Credit

  • High Standards
  • Posted by Donnell , Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology on October 19, 2005 at 7:30am EDT
  • Top academic institutions have very high standards. Therefore, it is understandable that some of these schools choose to defend the calibre of education that they offer.

    There is definitely a need for balance, however. They can't accept lower calibre credits or students will abuse the loophole. However, they can't make students repeat classes that they have adequately completed at another accredited institution.

    Nonetheless, there needs to be some clarity concerning why regional accreditation is preferred to national accreditation. Can someone explain that please?

    Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, "If the Door is Cracked, the Door is Open"

  • Posted by Ryan on October 19, 2005 at 9:45am EDT
  • There's one reason for this, the for-profit institutions have an army of lobbyists working on their behalf. They have a ton of money and, unlike public, more reputable institutions, employ this dirty political tactic in order to make more money. It's a travisty and one of the reasons higher education in the U.S. is failing. Any legislator who is sticking up for this should be ashamed.

  • Pot calling the kettle black?
  • Posted by Bart J. on October 19, 2005 at 10:32am EDT
  • "They have a ton of money and, unlike public, more reputable institutions, employ this dirty political tactic in order to make more money."

    I won't work for most for-profits -- but neither am I going to claim that not-for-profits are as a clean as Caesar's wife.

    Take a look at American University. Harvard in Russia. Adelphia. Football scandals. Graduation rates. Number of under-employed college graduates, ill-prepared to join the workforce. Amount of non-teaching staff. Hardly a picture-postcard to send home.

  • Not just for-profits
  • Posted by Tom McCool at Ivy Tech Community College on October 19, 2005 at 11:30am EDT
  • This is also an issue for the nation's community colleges who are non-profit and nationally acredited, yet whose credits are accepted at 4-year institutions in an extremely arbitrary manner. We use the same textbooks as our nearest 4-year institution, yet credits are accepted based not only on a course-by-course basis, but also each school within the unversity can decide whether or not to accept credit for a course that is already accepted within a sister school. I hope that the charge against for-profit's motives will not blur the obvious need to standardize the criteria for credit transfer.

  • Credit
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 19, 2005 at 11:30am EDT
  • It is simply absurd that so many universities consider others as their inferiors or their credits as incompatible. Perhaps Universities with similar standing need to be compelled to allow transfer of credits - though not from substantially inferior universities.

  • Absurd?
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on October 19, 2005 at 2:34pm EDT
  • Let's talk about by-a-degree for-profit institutions where handing out anything but an A, B, or F is actively discouraged (and at the one for which I worked briefly in administration, students could repeat, free of charge, failed courses as many times as needed to pass them). Having considered teaching for the school, I have read the materials for course that are supposedly equivalent to what I teach now. The courses fail horribly to cover comparable material.

    The problem does not lie in whether some schools regard others as inferior—many are, in fact, inferior. The problem lies in the absurd willingness of regional groups to grant accreditation to these schools in spite of the low quality of the work. I wonder how many such schools would retain their accreditation if the regional associations planted "mystery shopper" students inside.

  • Inferior
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 19, 2005 at 6:22pm EDT
  • Then I would say that the regional accreditation groups need to do their job better - but individual schools should be more careful about arbitrarily denying credit that doesn't come from their own hallowed (and income bringing) halls.

    It seems absurd that credits from many fine state and elite private schools can't be transfered (a friend had problems transfering some credits between U of I Champaign and UCLA - both fine reputable schools that should be able to give better recognition of each other's credits).

  • Credit tranfers
  • Posted by Patty on October 19, 2005 at 7:19pm EDT
  • College and university students benefit from legislation enforcing the transferability of credit courses. Students attending accredited community colleges that obtain passing grades should be admitted into four year universities. The same holds true for students moving from one state to another applying for the same program of study. Too often a student walks into a university or college and receives a denial to the credits/degrees earned. This causes additional financial burden, exces time, and frustration for the student.

  • Don't ask questions you don't want answers to
  • Posted by Larry on October 20, 2005 at 2:02pm EDT
  • Patty, It might be a better idea for students to seek and receive assurances that certain credits will count before they pay tuition. Most students seem unwilling or unable to do this.

    Many so-called “fine and reputable” schools often are considered to have easier courses than other schools. So, if a school wants to ensure uniformity of education then it could rightly claim that even a credit from a “prestigious” school isn’t adequate.

    Of course, nobody really wants to attempt an objective course-by-course comparison between schools, because to do that would be quite embarrassing, both to schools that do poorly and “elite” schools that find out that their level of difficulty is the same as, or less than, a school with the word “state” in its name.

  • Posted by Don on October 24, 2005 at 12:50pm EDT
  • As the Academic Dean of a private not-for-profit, I must confess that the quality across our curriculum depends on the quality of the teacher and the material. That our regional accreditation does not guarantee quality, though it strongly promotes it.

    My question for the nationally accredited institutions is why don't they seek regional accreditation. Why is there a need for a separate accrediting body if they provide equal quality? Our current Director of Admissions (Ph.D. from a state university) taught for one of these schools and was chastised for giving homework and expecting students to read the textbook.

    The other issue for me is why these institutions misrepresent the transfer of credit to prospective students. Even after visits from myself and letters from others at our school, the counselors continue to say we accept their credit. It doesn't sound like an institution with the best interest of the students in mind.

  • Data
  • Posted by Mike Allen , Associate Registrar at University of Texas at Austin on October 24, 2005 at 3:13pm EDT
  • I would be curious to see what data is being used to determine whether there is a
    problem with transfer. Does anyone know where the data is and what it says?

  • Posted by Golda Young on October 24, 2005 at 4:10pm EDT
  • It's interesting that Bobby Jindal is a graduate of Brown and Oxford, a Rhodes Scholar, yet he sees no difference between the elite education he received and any other. Why did his family send him to Brown?
    Why did Buck McKeon attend Brigham Young, a well-respected private university? In fact most of our legislators are graduates of elite private schools or flagship universities.
    Institutions must have the autonomy to fufill their missions and sometimes that involves denying transfer credit for a course that is tied into a school's mission. With all due respect, when I think of a Brown graduate, I don't think of someone who has taken the majority of one's classes at a technical college.

  • Recognition of Accreditation Agencies
  • Posted by Reid Kisling , Registrar at George Fox University on October 26, 2005 at 1:37pm EDT
  • It is interesting to me that no one in this discusssion seems to have mentioned the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA-http://chea.org). CHEA essentially "accredits the accreditors." For years, I have followed the practice of reviewing the recognition of the accreditation held by a particular institution when considering transfer credit. For the most part, all CHEA recognized accrediting agencies have the the same high standards as do regional accreditors and we have reconsidered the recognition of credits and degrees from institutions holding accreditation by accreditors recently recognized by CHEA (e.g., TRACS in 2001).

    I agree that there can be bias in transfer decisions. For example, many institutions will not accept credit from religious institutions because they are not regionally accredited (or have only attained candidate status to date), even though their professional accreditation has very similar standards as do the regionals. While many such institutions are now pursuing dual accreditation with regional recognition, it seems to me that the significant number of such institutions that hold dual accreditation should cause regional accredited schools to stand up and take notice of the comparability of standards among these accrediting bodies (which are all CHEA recognized I might add).

    I do hope that we are not federally mandated to accept all credit that some students have completed but allowed to judge based on the institution's recognition of quality education and applicability to institutional mission. However, I do agree that there needs to be a broader perspective so we are not forced to endure what will surely result in "reverse discrimination" of transfer credit.

  • Transfer of credit
  • Posted by Jamie on May 26, 2006 at 8:55pm EDT
  • The language in the law would have never "forced" any regional school to accept credits from a national accredited school. The law required the regional accreditors to not arbitarily deny transfer credits just because the school is nationally accredited. Hence, instead of an unvalidated reason to deny the credits, explain the reasoning. The regionals do not want to do this becasue it will require them to actually research their reasoning.

    Talk to any national graduate that's been denied transfer to a regional school and the only reason given is "we only accept credits from regionally accredited institutions." The law would require the regionals to give an educated reason behind this disrimination. There is more than just regional accrediation available.

  • Regionals Have the Right to Reject National's Credits
  • Posted by Alphonso Quashie , Legal on March 20, 2007 at 4:26am EDT
  • Jamie. From what I understand regional accreditation is a much more rigorous process and their institutions must have better faculty and facilities just for starters. That would be reason enough to reject transfer credits from a nationally accredited institution who does not have such high standards. That's seems reasonable to me. The nationals can simply get regional accreditation, what's wrong with that. I guess it would cut into their bottom line if they had to offer a better educational product?