tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post2810608326960042306..comments2023-11-02T09:44:15.693-04:00Comments on The Center for College Affordability and Productivity: Quality in Higher Ed (and Art)Center for College Affordability and Productivityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18041956958538598371noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-45396047920622229062011-01-24T12:07:43.358-05:002011-01-24T12:07:43.358-05:00"The truth is, we are stuck with the system o..."The truth is, we are stuck with the system of higher ed that we now have. Isn't it better to try to deal with this reality than to waste precious time?"<br /><br />Brilliant... absolutely brilliant.RWWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16345147132602206121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31670799.post-18427700682905433062011-01-21T21:08:33.327-05:002011-01-21T21:08:33.327-05:00In his reflection on quality in higher ed, Andy ig...In his reflection on quality in higher ed, Andy ignores the fact that Congress -- in its infinite wisdom -- has already defined educational quality in Sec 496 of the 1992 amendments of the HEA. <br /><br />And, what is more, this is the definition and the system of QA "gatekeeping" that makes possible Title IV, the central source of federal subsidies to both public and for-profit schools. These are the dozen original "minimum standards" which accrediting agencies must have in order to be "recognized" by the Secretary of Education for access to billions and billions of dollars.<br /><br />If there is a problem with quality, then the first place to look is the system of accreditation, as it now stands. Accreditors must, by law, be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of Education that their "standards ... are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the eduation or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits." (34 CFR 602.16) <br /><br />And it is up to the Secretary to either accept the accreditors standards, or reject them. <br /><br />There is no reason to ignore the system of accreditation when discussing the quality of education in the US. This is the system that operationalizes educational quality, however low it may be, for the entire country, and even for some of its students studying outside the country. <br /><br />In addition, the comments on how art is defined and valued also fall short. As Paul J. DiMaggio and other sociologists have shown, a process of institutionalization underlies the art world that includes organizations, audiences, buyers, art dealers, in addition to the artists themselves. These are the interacting interests that give rise to "art."<br /><br />The truth is, we are stuck with the system of higher ed that we now have. Isn't it better to try to deal with this reality than to waste precious time? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />no one can judge quality, but that only experts/practitioners can do so, and that trying to force them to implement “objective” measures of quality would be largely infeasible, and even if accomplished, would have a host of negative consequences such as hindering progress and innovation. This is a much more plausible argument.Glen S. McGheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00558711814846199468noreply@blogger.com