I just can’t see why traditional institutions have trouble with the requirement that they should “not deny the transfer of a student’s credit based SOLELY on the accreditation status of the institution from which the student is transferring.".
Without checking into a student’s ability how can you decide what that student’s ability. If you do check into a student’s ability, why can’t you deny the transfer based on your evaluation. What this seems to me is that institutions simply don’t bother to check a student’s ability just like they don’t want to check the ability of their graduates.
These are strong words and it may not apply to all institutions. But I really think this gives public a really bad impression about the mind set of our traditional institutions.
=====
Personally, I have no trouble in admitting that the level of rigorous of for-profit institution can be questionable. On the other hand, the level of rigorous, claimed but not proved, by traditional institutions can be questionable too.
The main point is that the change of the language basically gives traditional institutions free ticket to waive the evaluation. Beside discrimination, I can find a better word for it.
Personally, I taught community college before and I know most of my students aren't in par with 4 year colleges even if we use the same textbook - I did not grade them with 4 year college standard - will you? Gave most of them C or D?
If community college students are entitled to have their credit evaluated by receiving institutions why shouldn't students from nationally credited institutions, since both of them are under par.
For those that claim the superiority of regionally credited institutions, why is it so difficult for these superior institutions to prove that for-profits are under par?
No comments:
Post a Comment