[webhat]

He does have some critique of the institutions which have received accreditation: ...even though some terrible schools and programs are accredited by the respected accrediting agencies...

There are different levels of approval and accreditation in the US, and as a layperson the distinction might be unclear. Due to this lack of transparency means some agencies might be seen to be doing a better job that others.

My experience with the education board in Vermont was very good. And although it wasn't exceptionally hard to get approval to give course credit, which is what you can get if you don't yet have all the prerequisites for a full degree program, it was certainly not a rubber stamp.

[nmrm]

Thanks for the reflection based on your experience. fwiw I spent some time on Oplerno today. Your model (start with credit, then figure out accreditation through existing reputable boards) makes a lot more sense.

> ...and as a layperson the distinction might be unclear.

This is really the problem I understand he's trying to solve. As long as there exists meaningless accreditation and general confusion among laypeople, non-traditional models face an uphill battle.

So it's not that accreditation agencies in general are awful. It's just at accreditation doesn't mean much to people who aren't insiders. Which is just as a bad, from a student's perspective and from the perspective of non-traditional institutions.

Offering an accreditation aimed at admittedly non-traditional degree programs where the accreditation really means something seems helpful. But perhaps this is better solved by going through one of the existing high-quality accreditation agencies and then explicitly pointing out the quality of your accreditation.