[em-bee]

i think the idea would be the opposite, that none of the schools are granting any degrees, but that degrees are granted by a new independent government funded institution.

then you can go to MIT to study, take tests and pass courses, but to get the actual degree you have to go elsewhere.

the school can provide transcripts of the classes you attended and any projects and tests you did.

if the company cares they can look at that, or maybe they are satisfied with a proof that you were enrolled at MIT for 4 years.

for a company that wants MIT graduates, the only risk would be that someone paid for being at MIT but not actually study there. i don't know, maybe that's possible if you live in boston already and pay only for one class per term, but again, they could find out through the transcript.

isn't that exactly what happens with the bar exam? you can study wherever you want, but in order to work as a lawyer you have to pass a state bar exam. later when people are interested in a lawyers credentials, they don't ask where you passed the exam, but where you studied.

[__d]

I agree, that'd probably be the best model for most of the world, but it's unlikely to fly in the US. But that's ok: they can have commercial certifying entities, and otherwise, it could be a government function.

[em-bee]

but that's the odd part, most of the rest of the world doesn't need that because they have government funded universities without a profit motive. the problem that this system adresses is the conflict of interest of for-profit schools. and that problem is most prevalent in the US and a few other countries where private universities dominate. essentially it is a system that should be used for any private schools to ensure their quality