Two of the top journalism schools in the country apparently think so. According to Inside Higher Ed, both Northwestern University and UC Berkeley have dropped the Accrediting Council on Education in Communications and Journalism. The dean of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism called the organization a "1990s-era accreditation organization that resists change."
The demands placed upon schools to achieve and sustain their accreditations can consume significant amounts of human resources in my experience. And, as membership expands, the problem identified by Gilbert and Sullivan in their operetta "The Gondoliers" --- when everybody's somebody, then no one's anybody --- devalues the credential. A cost-benefit analysis may cause more schools to question whether all the time and money couldn't be better directed.
Additionally, accrediting organization restrictions --- such as on the number of faculty who must be full-time and/or tenured and their teaching loads --- sometimes skews the job market... to the benefit of the job candidates at the expense of the institutions.
I speak from personal observation and, admittedly, my comments are merely anecdotal. But there is literature out there that supports my view. Here's but one example.
If not accreditation, then what? The answer to me seems obvious: valid assessment that is made publicly available. Assessment, if done well, is a far more useful investment of our financial and human resources. And it is a far-more reliable indicator of how well we are serving our constituencies. One indicator of the truth of this statement is the emphasis that accrediting agencies are now placing on assessment. If even they recognize the efficacy of assessment, this begs the question: why do we need them, except to push us into doing what we ought to be doing enthusiastically on our own?
No comments:
Post a Comment