pepifoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus
If these are not “the worst of times” for U.S. higher education, they are far from the best: The threats heard during the presidential campaign were worrisome. But there are trends that may be of even greater concern.
For one, demographic trends predict a continuation of enrollment declines. Some institutions have already closed, many are implementing draconian reductions and others are considering possible closures or mergers.
Local political intrusions abound. Legislators in more than half of the states have passed or proposed restrictive legislation concerning free speech and academic freedom. Concerns over increases in college costs have led to scrutiny of return on investment and prompted interest in unregulated alternate providers and credentials. A June 2024 survey from Gallup and Lumina Foundation found that only 36 percent of adults have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education—a decline of 21 percentage points from the results of a similar study in 2015.
Institutional accreditors, whose job it is to evaluate academic institutions to provide quality assurance and support for institutional improvement, are concerned about these trends. But many would appear to be beyond accreditation’s purview. The question is whether there is anything more accreditors might do during this pivotal period to renew public confidence in higher education and thus to restore public support.
One answer may lie in an irony. A new book written by one of us (Gaston), Rebuilding Support for Higher Education (Routledge, 2024), suggests that higher education has become a victim of its success. While those who earn college degrees continue to report career success and personal satisfaction, individuals who have not earned academic credentials now report markedly lower levels of happiness.
The problem is complicated by the perception of a differential in educational and occupational prestige between “academic” and nondegree credentials. Although vocational competence and craftsmanship are no less essential than academic expertise, they tend to enjoy less esteem. In The Tyranny of Merit (Macmillan, 2020), the political philosopher Michael J. Sandel sums up the problem: “Once widely seen as an engine of opportunity, the university has become, at least for some, a symbol of credentialist privilege and meritocratic hubris.” Not surprisingly, resentment arising from the perception of privilege and hubris may have an influence on ballot box decisions.
The solution to such a complex problem will not be simple. But accreditors of the nation’s institutions of higher education are already working with their higher education partners to address it.
They are doing so through an impressive balance of internal reforms and external initiatives. Within the past 10 years, institutional accreditation has become steadily more transparent, more efficient, more vigilant and more supportive of its member institutions and the academic credentials they offer. But accreditors are also encouraging greater respect for worthy nondegree credentials, both those offered by accredited colleges (such as certificates) and those (such as registered apprenticeships and certifications) not traditionally seen as “academic.”
Two examples will illustrate the trend.
The first is a renewed appreciation for the singular value of community and technical colleges. According to a report by the American Association of Community Colleges, the additional income generated by community college alumni accounts for 4.1 percent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product. Out of the conviction that the value of community and technical colleges should be more widely appreciated, accreditors employ a mission-specific focus in the evaluation of such institutions, assign peer evaluators who are acquainted with the sector and support institutions by confirming the distinctive value they offer to society.
The second is emerging critical attention to an enormous proliferation in nondegree credentials (in both number and variety) and in the providers of such credentials. One result of this broader focus is a robust appreciation for success stories, e.g.:
- At White Mountains Community College, in New Hampshire, students can earn a certificate in advanced welding in less than a year and enter the workforce at top regional employers such as Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Bath Iron Works and Pratt & Whitney.
- Lake Washington Institute of Technology, in Kirkland, Wash., offers a certificate program in aerospace manufacturing to students in a region with numerous airplane manufacturing industries.
- At Sacramento State University, nondegree programs in water treatment operations qualify graduates to support the region’s supply of clean, safe drinking water.
- Allegany College of Maryland has established a 30,000-square-foot training center to offer continuing education courses and academic programs in fields including machining, metalworking and advanced manufacturing.
But in contrast with these and many other success stories, there is a dilemma. Thousands of students have invested in programs that offered little if any return on their investment, chosen providers that have proved to be unreliable or discovered that the credits they have earned are without value. The lack of a systematic approach to evaluating unaccredited providers and the credentials they offer has thus created a challenge for students making educational decisions and a clear need for reliable quality assurance.
Institutional accreditors are addressing this challenge. While their quality assurance focus historically has been on degree-granting institutions and credit-bearing courses, several are now developing review processes focused on noncredit experiences. Accreditors understand that millions of students earn valuable credentials in nontraditional ways and that more and more students are interested in focused credentials that lead to employment opportunities and recognition.
Two examples will serve to suggest the scope of this emerging priority and accreditation’s developing response.
- The New England Commission of Higher Education, where one of us (Schall) is president, is in the second year of a two-year pilot concerning noncredit programming. Through collaboration with six institutions in New England that offer noncredit programs and through examining international quality assurance models, NECHE has developed a framework that includes 17 markers of quality ranging from agility to return on investment and from student success to financial capacity. Now in its second year, this protocol is being tested with six educational organizations that have prepared evidence-based reports assessing their progress in meeting the markers of quality. Earlier this fall, peers conducted evaluation visits. Through a newly formed advisory board, NECHE will determine which organizations merit recognition for the quality of their noncredit programming. The commission will decide later in 2025 whether to add this recognition process to its portfolio.
- The Higher Learning Commission, which accredits institutions in the Midwest, has initiated a Credential Lab. A framework guides the evaluation of providers outside higher education who offer short-term credentials either independently or in partnership with cooperating colleges or universities. An Innovation Center invites leaders to share best practices.
There’s more that higher education accreditors can do. We need to tell the story of all our institutions, not just the well-resourced and well-known traditional ones. We need to advocate for appropriate increases in Pell Grants that serve to fuel economic mobility. We must increase our commitment to inform state legislatures as they consider funding all of higher education. We need to continue to remove obstacles that make transitions from one institution to another more complex than they need be. And we have to be open to thinking about new ways to increase access to higher education so as to ensure equity of outcomes for all students.
At a challenging time, there’s much to be proud of. But there is much work that lies ahead.