Institutional student loan cohort default rates by institution type

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COHORT DEFAULT RATES 1
INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT LOAN COHORT DEFAULT RATES BY INSTITUTION TYPE

by

Dinesh Chand Payroda

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Dinesh Chand Payroda
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Subash and Mohini, who have supported me
through ups and downs of my life. Dad and Mom, your optimistic view on life and pursuit for
growth has shaped me, as I hope to continue on to the future with that mindset. Thank you, I am
grateful to have been born into your grace.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 3
Acknowledgements
I am deeply thankful to Dr. Robert Keim for accepting me into his Accreditation
Thematic Group, for his wonderful caring patient personality captured me from day one of
meeting him and I knew he was the one I wanted to work with as my dissertation advisor. I am
also extremely thankful to Dr. Patrica Tobey, who has been so kind and supportive in helping me
find my voice in this dissertation process. I am truly grateful to Dr. Patrick Crispen and Dr.
Kristan Venegas, their care for students’ educational and career growth are a testament to their
professorship at University of Southern California (USC).
Dr. Keim, Dr. Tobey, and Dr. Venegas your courses were amazing and I feel so lucky to
have had you as my professors in this doctoral journey. I am extremely thankful to all my
professors and staff at the USC Rossier School of Education, as I have truly grown from this
process of attaining my Doctor of Education (EdD) in Educational Leadership.
James Rose and Marco Masoni, your advice and guidance within the program have been
priceless and I am deeply thankful to your insight – thank you my friends.
I have the deepest affection for my cohort, from the Saturday weekend classmates to the
Educational Psychology concentration classmates and the dissertation thematic group members.
I have been blessed to have gained from your past and current knowledge and I thank you all for
your support and kindness always. I especially thank Ben Dimapindan, Nathan Barlow, Susan
David, and Jackie McGovern for always being there for me in this doctoral journey. Your
friendship means the world to me. Thank you so much for everything – from the start to the end
and beyond – the future is bright my friends, always with your light.
And, finally, to my family. You all make me the man I am, and, through it all, we find joy
in life, for family gives way to create a better tomorrow for all. Puja will always be my blessing.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Background of the Problem 13
Higher Education and United States Department of Education 16
United States Higher Education Accreditation 16
Accrediting Functions and Procedures by Accrediting Agencies 17
Institutional Accrediting Agencies 19
Cohort Default Rate Effects 22
WASC-SCUC Standards of Accreditation 24
Rationale for the Study 26
Statement of the Problem 28
Purpose of the Study 29
Significance of the Study 30
Definitions of Terms 30
Chapter Two: Literature Review 41
The Development of Accreditation 41
Process of Accreditation 42
History of Accreditation 43
Early Institutional Accreditation 43
Regional Accreditation, 1885 to 1920 44
Regional Accreditation, 1920-1950 46
History of Accreditation 1950 to Present 47
Specialized Accreditation 50
Effects of Accreditation 53
Trend Toward Learning Assessment 53
Framework for Learning Assessment 53
Benefits of Accreditation on Learning 55
Organizational Effects of Accreditation 56
Future Assessment Recommendations 57
Challenges to Student Learning Outcomes 58
Organization Learning Challenges 58
Lack of Faculty Buy-in 59
Lack of Institutional Investment 60
Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice 60
Outcome Equity 62
Tension Between Improvement and Accountability 62
Transparency Challenges 63
Costs of Accreditation 64
Critical Assessment of Accreditation 71
Alternatives to Accreditation 78
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 5
Current and Future State of Accreditation 81
International Accreditation in Higher Education 84
Internationalization of Accreditation 86
Student Loans in the United States 87
Funding Higher Education with Student Loans 88
Articulation Agreements Among Institutions 91
Public, Private Non-profit and For-profit Postsecondary Accreditation 93
For-Profit Proprietary Institutions 94
Default Rates at For-Profit Proprietary Institutions 95
Growth of Postsecondary Institutions 98
Need for Higher Education 99
Access to Higher Education 103
Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions 106
Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 107
Characteristics of Undergraduate Degree Attainment 110
Characteristics of Graduate Degree Attainment 112
Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution 114
Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates 116
Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 119
Goals of Accreditation 121
Summary 122
Chapter Three: Methodology and Research Design 124
Population and Sample 125
Instrumentation 126
Data Collection 127
Limitations 127
Institutional Review Board 128
Chapter Four: Results 129
Research Question One 130
Results for Research Question One 132
Research Question Two 132
Results for Research Question Two 134
Research Question Three 135
Results for Research Question Three 136
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate 136
Homogenous Group 140
Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012, 2011, 2010 141
Chapter Five: Discussion 144
WASC-SCUC: Institution Type and Cohort Default Rates 146
WASC-SCUC: Accreditation Status and Cohort Default Rates 146
WASC-SCUC: Institution Type and Accreditation Status 147
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate 147
Importance of the Study 148
Implications for Practice 151
WASC-SCUC Institutional Accreditation 151
Institution Type and Accreditation Status 151
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 6
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate 152
Deterrence of Regional Accreditation 152
Limitations 153
Future Research 153
Conclusion 154
References 156
Appendix A: Regional and National Institutional Accrediting Agencies (USDE, 2015m) 206

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Federal Loan Program and Annual Award of Loan in the United States 12
Table 2: Institutional Accrediting Agency Type and Scope of Institutional Accrediting
Agency Type in the United States 13
Table 3: Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies with Eligibility to Participate in
Title IV Federal Funding Programs in the United States 20
Table 4: National Institutional Accrediting Agencies with Eligibility to Participate in Title IV
Federal Funding Programs in the United States 21
Table 5: Regional Institutional Accrediting Agency of WASC-SCUC and Scope of
Recognition 21
Table 6: WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status and Scope of WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status26
Table 7: Inclusion and Exclusion of Sample (N) from the Population of this Study 126
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Overall Cohort Default Rates across Institution
Type Groups 130
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Overall Cohort Default Rates across Accreditation
Status Groups 133
Table 10: Between-Subjects Factors within Institution Type and Accreditation Status 135
Table 11: Estimated Marginal Means across Accreditation Status Groups 137
Table 12: Estimated Marginal Means across Institution Type Groups 137
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Cohort Default Rates of FY 2012, 2010, and 2011 141

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Benefits for Institutions With Low Official Cohort Default Rate 22
Figure 2: Sanctions for Institutions With High Official Cohort Default Rate 23
Figure 3: Institution Type in FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 Official Cohort Default Rates 23
Figure 4: Unemployment Rates 2000–2013 101
Figure 5: Unemployment Rates, By Age Group and Education Attainment: 2013 101
Figure 6: Percentage of Young Adults Ages 25–34 Who Worked Full Time, Year Around
by Educational Attainment: 1995–2012 102
Figure 7: Median Annual Earnings of Full-Time Year-Round Wage and Salary Workers
Ages 25-34, By Educational Attainment: 1995–2012 103
Figure 8: Four-Year Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates by Acceptance Rate and
Control of Institution: Academic Year 2012–13 104
Figure 9: Two-Year Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates by Application
Acceptance Rate And Control of Institutions: Academic Year 2012-13 105
Figure 10: Four-Year Degree-Granting Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates, By
Admission Requirements and Control of Institution: Academic Year 2012-13 106
Figure 11: Degree-Granting Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates, by Level and
Control of Institution: Academic Year 2000-01 and 2012-13 107
Figure 12: Percentage Distribution of Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting
Postsecondary Institutions, By Institutional Level and Control and Student Age: Fall 2011 109
Figure 13: Part-Time Undergraduates by Institutional Level, Control and Student Age:
Fall 2011 110
Figure 14: Associate's Degrees: Academic Years 2001-02, 2006-07, 2010-11, and 2011-12 111
Figure 15: Bachelor's Degrees Awarded by Title IV Institutions 112
Figure 16: Master's Degrees Awarded by Title IV institutions 113
Figure 17: Doctorates Awarded by Title IV Institutions 114
Figure 18: Outstanding Student Loan Debt in Constant 2011 Dollars 116
Figure 19: Six-Year Completion Rates 117
Figure 20: Six-Year Bachelor's Degree Completion by Control of Institution and Sex 118
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 9
Figure 21: Credential Completion within 150% of Normal Time by Control of Institution
and Sex 119
Figure 22: Certificates and Associate's Degrees conferred by Title IV Postsecondary
Institutions 120
Figure 23: Degrees Conferred by Title IV Institutions, 2000-2001 and 2011-2012 121
Figure 24: Means Plots Chart with Overall Cohort Default Rates 132
Figure 25: Overall Cohort Default Rates Across Accreditation Status Groups 134
Figure 26: Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2012: Illustrating Outliers 138
Figure 27: Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2011: Illustrating Outliers 139
Figure 28: Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2010: Illustrating Outliers 140

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 10
Abstract
This quantitative study focused on Institutional Accreditation, particularly Institutional
Accreditation from Regional Accrediting Agency of Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC), as it relates to student
outcomes by focusing on federal student loan default rates. All 149 institutions in this study with
Accreditation Status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of
Concern, or Candidate) from WASC-SCUC participated in the Federal Student Loan Program.
Whereby, all 149 institutions in this study had recorded Institutional Cohort Default Rates for FY
2012, 2011, and 2010 Official Three-year Cohort Default Rates by Institution Type (i.e. Public,
Private, or Proprietary). This quantitative study first looked to investigate the difference between
institution type and institution cohort default rates: The difference between the private
institutions and proprietary institutions was statistically significant at the p < .05: Sig. = .026 or
(p = .026). Second, this quantitative study looked to investigate the difference in institutional
cohort default rates among public, private, or proprietary institution type, while considering
accreditation status of all institutions in this study: The independent one-way between-groups
ANOVA yielded no statistically significant effect at the p < .05, F(3, 145) = 1.299, p = .277,
concluding there is no significant difference in overall cohort default rates based on WASC-
SCUC accreditation status. Lastly, this quantitative study measured the relationship between
institution type and accreditation status, given institutional cohort default rates of all institutions
in this study: Multivariate Tests revealed that there is no significant interaction on overall cohort
default rate between Institutions Type and Accreditation Status from the actual results of the one-
way MANOV A. The data indicated no relationship between institution type with accreditation
status, given their overall cohort default rates.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Accreditation is a process of external quality review created and used by higher education
to scrutinize colleges, universities, and programs for quality assurance and improvement (Eaton,
2012). To earn and maintain accreditation, colleges and universities must demonstrate to
colleagues from peer institutions that they meet or surpass mutually agreed-upon standards
(MSCHE, 2009). The institution's cohort default rate is the percentage of an institution's
borrowers who enter repayment on certain Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) and/or
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans (Direct Loans) and default. The cohort default period
refers to the three-year period that begins on October 1 of the fiscal year when the borrower
enters repayment and ends on September 30 of the second fiscal year; affecting the institution's
cohort default rate (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2015w).
Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) and Direct Loans are part of the Federal Student
Loan Program, providing federal loans to students to pay for educational expenses, including
institutional fees, under Title IV federal funds (i.e. grants and loans) of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2002;
USDE, 2015a; Ionescu, 2008). All institutions in the U.S. offering federal student loans under
Title IV must have a program participation agreement with the U.S. Secretary of Education while
meeting accreditation standards (USDE, 2015j, 2015l, 2015p). Federal student loans are not
only important to students in financing their education but also relate directly to the revenue of
the institution (USDE, 2015z). Table 1 details the kinds of federal student loans under the
Federal Loan Program for undergraduate and graduate (professional) students along with the
availability of annual award funds associated with respective federal student loan program.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 12
Table 1
Federal Loan Program and Annual Award of Loan in the United States
Federal Loan Program Annual Award of Loan
Federal Perkins Loan Undergraduate students: up to $5,500; graduate and professional students:
up to $8,000. Total amount may not exceed $27,500 for undergraduates
and $60,000 for graduate students (including amounts borrowed as an
undergraduate).
Direct Subsidized Loan $3,500–$5,500, depending on grade level.
Direct Unsubsidized
Loan
$5,500–$20,500 (less any subsidized amounts received for same period),
depending on grade level and dependency status.
Direct PLUS Loan Maximum amount is cost of attendance minus any other financial aid
student receives; no minimum amount.
Source: USDE, 2015z
The U.S. Secretary of Education recognizes and approves accrediting agencies that
provide postsecondary institutional accreditation to establish eligibility to participate in the
federal financial assistance programs. The CHEA working with Congress and higher education
institutions, while in conjunction with the USDE, influenced the development of standards by
accreditors (Eaton, 2008; Wellman, 1998).
Recognized institutional accrediting agencies with eligibility to participate in Title IV
federal funds provide postsecondary institutions access to federal student loans. These
Institutional accrediting agencies are within two types: regional and national institutional
accrediting agencies (USDE, 2015q). Table 2 defines the scope of these two types.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 13
Table 2
Institutional Accrediting Agency Type and Scope of Institutional Accrediting Agency Type in the
United States
Institutional Accrediting
Agency Type
Scope of Institutional Accrediting Agency Type
Regional Regional accrediting agencies are recognized by the Secretary of
Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or
training offered by the institutions of higher education they accredit. The
individual agencies accredit institutions in specific geographic regions of
the country.
National National accrediting agencies are recognized by the Secretary of
Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or
training offered by the institutions of higher education they accredit.
These agencies accredit single-purpose institutions.
Source: USDE, 2015p
This study focused on regional institutional accrediting agencies, providing eligibility to
participate in federal student loan programs. The sample of this study involved Title IV
institutions accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and
University Commission (WASC-SCUC):
An institution that has a written agreement with the Secretary of Education that
allows the institution to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial
assistance programs. (USDE, 2015, p. 1)
This study in particular looked to investigate if there is a difference in institutional cohort
default rate between institution type (i.e. public, private, or proprietary), given their institutional
accreditation status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern,
and Candidate) from WASC-SCUS.
Background of the Problem
The goal of accrediting agencies has been to advocate for education and its stakeholders:
institutions, schools, administrators, faculty, staff, students, public, and communities, while
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 14
protecting the foundation and quality of education (Bloland 2001; Eaton, 2012; Gaston, 2013).
WASC-SCUC, also known as the commission, accredits public and private for-profit and non-
profit senior colleges and universities that offer four-year education and/or graduate degree
programs. The mission statement of WASC-SCUC states:
Through its work of peer review, based on standards agreed to by the membership, the
commission encourages continuous institutional improvement and assures the
membership and its constituencies, including the public, that accredited institutions are
fulfilling their mission in service to their students and the public good. (WASC-SCUC,
2015, p. 1).
The Regional Institutional Accrediting Agency of Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities (NWCCU) accredits public and private for-profit and non-profit colleges and
universities offering two-year and four-year education and graduate degree programs and states
that, “in American higher education, accreditation fulfills a number of important functions,
including the encouragement of efforts toward maximum educational effectiveness”, while
providing access to federal student loans to students” (NWCCU, 2015, p. 1).
The foundation of higher education in the U.S. started with Harvard University as the first
and oldest institution, established in 1636, with regional institutional accreditation from New
England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
(Harvard, 2015). Harvard University provided pathway to other institutions while proudly
putting themselves through accreditation with self-initiated external review in 1642 (Davenport,
2000; Brittingham, 2009).
The U.S. has over seven thousand higher education institutions consisting of degree-
granting and non-degree-granting institutions, traditional and non-traditional colleges and
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 15
universities, career schools, graduate schools, and professional schools that are on-ground and/or
online (Kena et al., 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Higher education institutions with USDE-
approved accreditation are deemed Title IV institutions eligible for federal funds. In the 21st
century, the cost of higher education has been high and rising, while the demand of higher
education has increased, since employers are increasingly hiring individuals with college degrees
(Kena et al., 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2015).
Among the thousands of higher education institutions., there are accredited and non-
accredited institutions; public and private institutions; non-profit and for-profit institutions; and
religious and non-religious institutions that regard themselves as serving the higher education
needs of students (CHEA, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). The majority of growth has mainly
been in private for-profit proprietary institutions meeting the demand of higher education in the
21st century (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013; Snyder & Dillow, 2015).
Students feel the pressure to earn college degrees in the U.S., having opportunities in the job
market of the 21st century, demonstrated by the data on the growing number of students,
employment and unemployment rates by educational attainment, and median annual earnings by
educational attainment among young adults (ages 20–24) and persons 25 to 34 years old (Kena et
al., 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Students take on federal student loans funding their higher
education expenses, including at for-profit proprietary institutions (USDE, 2015a). These federal
student loans become part of the student’s responsibility to pay back even if students do not
complete their higher education program(s) or stop attending the postsecondary institution(s)
(USDE, 2015c).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 16
Higher Education and United States Department of Education
The United States Department of Education (USDE) through its Office of Postsecondary
Education has been actively involved in matters of higher education funding and accreditation
(USDE, 2015a, 2015k). The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (Public Law 89-329) was
enacted with the intention to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities
and to provide financial assistance to students in postsecondary and higher education. On
August 14, 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-315)
was enacted, reauthorizing the amended version of the HEA of 1965. Enacted legislation has
been ongoing since the HEOA of 2008. In October of 2009, the USDE published the Federal
Register governing institutional eligibility and the Secretary of Education's recognition of
accrediting agencies (USDE, 2009a). The U.S. Secretary of Education's recognition of
accrediting agencies aided in amending the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan)
Program regulations to implement provisions of the HEA, as amended in 2008, and other
legislation (USDE, 2009b). These regulations are effective July 1, 2010 and are directly related
to Title IV federal student financial aid to colleges and universities meeting accrediting
requirements (USDE, 2009c; USDE, 2015k).
United States Higher Education Accreditation
The USDE, through its Office of Postsecondary Education, created a database as a public
service without warranty of any kind, without constituting endorsement of educational
institutions or programs, and with recommendation that the database be used as one source with
other sources on institutional and programmatic accreditation review and awareness (USDE,
2015r). The Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of recognized accrediting
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 17
agencies determined to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided
(USDE, 2015l). The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided meet acceptable
levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or
national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether those
criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet
its criteria are then accredited by that agency (USDE, 2015r, 2015u).
Accrediting agencies are nongovernmental and include regional accreditors that accredit
public, private, and proprietary degree-granting two-year, four-year and/or higher postsecondary
institutions; national faith-related accreditors that accredit religiously affiliated institutions that
are non-degree-granting less than two-year and degree-granting two-year, four-year and/or
higher postsecondary institutions; national career-related accreditors that accredit career-based,
single-purpose institutions, non-degree-granting less than two-year, and degree-granting two-
year, four-year and/or higher postsecondary institutions; and programmatic accreditors that
accredit specific program and professional schools in areas such as law, medicine, health,
engineering, business, or education at postsecondary institutions (Eaton, 2012a; CHEA, 2014,
2015, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). These are independent accrediting agencies that develop standards
to ensure institutions or programs meet the threshold academic quality and quality improvement
(USDE, 2015s).
Accrediting Functions and Procedures by Accrediting Agencies
The practice of accreditation arose as a means of conducting nongovernmental, peer
evaluation of educational institutions and programs (Bloland, 2001; Eaton 2011). Some
functions of accreditation include verifying that an institution or program meets established
standards; assisting prospective students in identifying acceptable institutions; assisting
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 18
institutions determine the acceptability of transfer credits; helping to identify institutions and
programs for the investment of public and private funds; protecting an institution against harmful
internal and external pressure; creating goals for self-improvement of weaker programs and
stimulating a general raising of standards among educational institutions; involving the faculty
and staff comprehensively in institutional evaluation and planning; establishing criteria for
professional certification and licensure and for upgrading courses offering such preparation; and
providing one of several considerations used as a basis for determining eligibility for Federal
assistance (USDE, 2015n).
To facilitate ongoing quality improvement, accreditation is a recurring process. After
initial accreditation, institutions and programs undergo periodic maintenance review in order to
maintain their status (Brittingham, 2009; Eaton, 2012a). The procedures consists of six steps.
The first is titled Standards and occurs when the accrediting agency, in collaboration with
educational institutions, establishes standards. Secondly, self-study occurs when the institution
or program seeking accreditation prepares an in-depth self-evaluation study that measures its
performance against the standards established by the accrediting agency. Third is on-site
evaluation, which means a team selected by the agency visits the institution or program to
determine if the applicant meets the standards. Fourth is publication. Once satisfied that the
applicant meets its standards, the agency grants accreditation or preaccreditation status and lists
the institution or program in an official publication. Fifth is monitoring: The agency monitors
each institution or program throughout the period of accreditation granted to verify that it
continues to meet the standards. Sixth is reevaluation: The accrediting agency periodically
reevaluates each institution or program to ascertain whether continuation of accredited or
preaccredited status is warranted (USDE, 2015n).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 19
Accreditation is a validating process that postsecondary institutions put themselves
through, as having accreditation is a voluntary venture (Eaton, 2011). Additional benefits arise
from having earned accreditation from agencies recognized and approved by the U.S. Secretary
of Education, most promptly having access to Title IV federal funds (USDE, 2015r). The
commitment to having accreditation is a long-standing process and can be revoked or terminated
for not keeping with the set standards or abiding by the rules and regulations of the agency.
Many institutions are placed on probation year after year for not keeping up with the set
standards, thus going through the process of self-study in meeting and keeping-up with the
accreditation requirements (Bloland, 2001; Eaton, 2012).
Institutional Accrediting Agencies
Regional and national institutional accrediting agencies gain recognition from USDE
through a review process for renewed recognition of the agency by department staff and by the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). The department
staff and NACIQI also schedule the next review of the compliance report or full petition for
renewal of recognition. This process is extremely important to students and postsecondary
institutions, since accreditation provides access to Title IV federal funding programs (USDE,
2015l, 2015m, 2015p, 2015q, 2015r), funding the cost of higher education (USDE, 2015a,
2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f).
There are fifteen regional and national institutional accrediting agencies eligible to
participate in Title IV federal funding programs (Appendix A). Regional and national
institutional accrediting agencies themselves have restrictions and eligibility that needs to be met
to establish eligibility for Title IV federal funding programs, which can be non-degree-granting
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 20
less than two-year and/or degree-granting two-year, four-year or higher postsecondary
institutions (USDE, 2015m).
Regional institutional accrediting agencies are listed below (Table 3). Regional
accrediting agencies accredit postsecondary institutions within their given region or territory;
these geographic boundaries are agreed upon by other regional agencies (Bloland, 2001; Eaton
2011; CHEA, 2015c). However, for-profit proprietary institutions, with family of institutions or
chain schools with institutional accreditation from regional accrediting agencies, usually are
accredited by the regional accreditor within the region or territory of their corporate headquarters
(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012; USDE, 2015t).
Table 3
Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies with Eligibility to Participate in Title IV Federal
Funding Programs in the United States
Regional Institutional Accrediting Agency
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
Source: USDE, 2015m, 2015q
National institutional accrediting agencies are listed below (Table 4). National
accrediting agencies typically accredits institutions in all regions or territories that wish to go
through their process. There is no restriction of any form associated with national accrediting
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 21
agencies regarding region or territory (Bloland, 2001; Eaton 2011; CHEA, 2015b; CHEA,
2015d; USDE, 2015t).
Table 4
National Institutional Accrediting Agencies with Eligibility to Participate in Title IV Federal
Funding Programs in the United States
National Institutional Accrediting Agency
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges
Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools
Council on Occupational Education
Distance Education Accrediting Commission
New York State Board of Regents, and the Commissioner of Education
Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission
Source: USDE, 2015m, 2015q
The scope of recognition that each respective regional and national institutional
accrediting agency cover are outlined in Appendix A. Unless otherwise noted in the Title IV
Note, accreditation by an agency outlined in Appendix A may be used by any institution
accredited by that agency to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV federal funding (USDE,
2015m). WSCUC’s scope of recognition is listed below (Table 5), as it relates to this study.
Table 5
Regional Institutional Accrediting Agency of WASC-SCUC and Scope of Recognition
Regional Institutional
Accrediting Agency
Scope of Recognition
Western Association of
Schools and Colleges, Senior
College and University
Commission (WASC-SCUC)
The accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation")
of senior colleges and universities in California, Hawaii, the United
States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau,
the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, including
distance education programs offered at those institutions.
Source: USDE, 2015m
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 22
Cohort Default Rate Effects
According to the USDE (2015x),
Defaulted federal student loans cost taxpayers money. Cohort default rate sanctions and
benefits provide an incentive to schools to work with their borrowers to reduce default.
Sanctions also can prevent a school with a high percentage of defaulters from continuing
to participate in the Direct Loan and Pell Grant programs. As a result, cohort default
rates help save taxpayers money. (p. 1).
The benefits for institutions with low official cohort default rates are outlined below (Figure 1).

Source: USDE, 2015x.
Figure 1. Benefits for Institutions With Low Official Cohort Default Rate
Sanctions apply when an institution's official cohort default rate is at or above certain
percentages, as outlined below (Figure 2).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 23

Source: USDE, 2015x
Figure 2. Sanctions for Institutions With High Official Cohort Default Rate
“Secretary Duncan, (U.S. Secretary of Education), announced that Fiscal Year (FY) 2012
three-year national cohort default rate is 11.8 percent.” (USDE, 2015y, p. 1). Comparison of FY
2012 official national cohort default rates to two those of FY 2011 and 2010, calculated August
8, 2015, with percentage of borrower default rate are outlined below (Figure 3).

Source: USDE, 2015y.
Figure 3. Institution Type in FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 Official Cohort Default Rates
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 24
Figure 3 highlights institution types of public, private, and proprietary four-year(+)
postsecondary institutions, with for-profit institutions, as proprietary postsecondary institutions,
having the highest percentage of borrower default rate at 14.7% among four-year(+) institutions
participating in Title IV programs in FY 2012. Public institutions were at 7.6% and private (non-
profit) institutions were at 6.3% in FY 2012.
Figure 3 also indicates that FY 2011 and 2010 borrow default rate among four-year(+)
institutions that participated in Title IV federal funding programs were consistent to public,
private, and proprietary institutions. That is, proprietary institutions had the highest borrower
default rate, followed by public institutions, with private (non-profit) institutions having the
lowest borrower default rate.
WASC-SCUC Standards of Accreditation
WASC-SCUC accredits institutions in the Western region, providing for regional
institutional accreditation. WASC was formed in 1962 and reviewed periodically for renewal of
recognition by USDE and CHEA (WASC, 2015). WASC-SCUC accredits four-year and/or
graduate postsecondary institutions that are public, private, and proprietary schools with the
same standards of accreditation across institution type defined as:
Standards of accreditation are the principles used as a basis for judgment in
accreditation reviews. WASC has four Standards that flow from three Core
Commitments. They are used to guide institutions in assessing institutional
performance, to identify areas needing improvement, and to serve as the basis for
judgment of the institution by evaluation teams and the Senior College and
University Commission (WASC-SCUC, 2015a, p. 1).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 25
Institutions accredited by WASC-SCUC must demonstrate that they are in
substantial compliance with the four standards and related criteria for review in order to
become and remain accredited (WASC-SCUC, 2015b, 2015c). The four standards are
 Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives.
 Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions.
 Standard 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to
Ensure Quality and Sustainability.
 Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Quality Assurance,
Institutional Learning, and Improvement.
Within the Standard 2 of WASC-SCUC Standards of Accreditation the focus is on
Student Learning and Success, where institutions must have direct investment in students'
personal and professional development. They must not only focus on retention and
graduation rates, but also on providing for “co-curricular programs that are aligned with its
academic goals, integrated with academic programs, and designed to support all students'
personal and professional development,” (WASC-SCUC, 2015c, p. 16) while providing for
student support services focusing on career counseling and placement, assisting students
find employment after completing their program of study (WASC-SCUC, 2015b, 2015d).
Table 6, below, defines the Scope of WASC-SCUC accreditation status consisting
of Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, and Candidate
Status.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 26
Table 6
WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status and Scope of WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status
WASC-SCUC
Accreditation Status
Scope of WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status
Accredited Indicates that the commission has found that an institution has met or
exceeded the exceptions of the Standards and the Core Commitments
to Institutional Capacity and Educational Effectiveness. Initial
accreditation is for a period of five to seven years before the next
comprehensive review. Reaffirmation is granted for a period of seven
to ten years and may be accompanied by request for interim reports
and/or special visits, or a formal Notice of Concern.
Accredited on Warning A Warning reflects the commission's finding that an institution fails to
meet one or more of the standards of accreditation. While on Warning,
any new site or degree program initiated by the institutions is regarded
as a substantive change. The candidate or accredited status of the
institution continues during the warning period.
Accredited with Notice of
Concern
Indicates that the institution, while it currently meets WASC
standards, is in danger of being found out of compliance with one or
more standards if current trends continue. It may also be issued is any
institution is removed from sanction and the commission wishes to
emphasize the need for continuing progress. Formal Notice of
Concern requires a special visit within four years to assess progress. If
the commission's concerns are not addressed by that time, a sanction is
imposed.
Candidate The institution has demonstrated that it meets all, or nearly all, of the
standards of accreditation at a minimum level and has a clear plan in
place to meet the standards at a substantial level of compliance for
accreditation. Candidacy is limited to four years and is granted only
when an institution can demonstrate that it is likely to become
accredited during the four-year period.
Source: WASC-SCUC, 2015e
Rationale for the Study
The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education meets acceptable levels of quality.
Institutional accrediting agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to
assess whether they are met. Institutions that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an
agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency (USDE, 2015r, 2015u).
Given the demand of higher education in the 21st century, many new and long-standing
institutions within the for-profit education sector are providing four-year(+) degrees with the
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 27
promise of career growth in areas of student interest and economic demand (Kena et. al., 2014;
Snyder & Dillow, 2015). For-profit proprietary institutions have the right to accreditation just as
non-profit postsecondary institutions, since accreditation is a voluntary and an acceptable way to
increase accountability efforts for students, the general public, politics and governance (Eaton,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Palmer, 2012). For-profit proprietary institutions do go through
accreditation, achieving accreditation from regional agencies that also provide institutional
accreditation to public and private non-profit institutions (USDE, 2014, USDE, 2015t; CHEA,
2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). Importantly, Title IV federal funds account for the majority of
for-profit proprietary institutions’ revenue through federal student financial aid programs
(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, 2013).
For-profit proprietary institutions have, in part, been identified for the increase in federal
student loan debt (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, 2013). The U.S. has the highest federal
student loan debt at almost one trillion dollars, and that is projected to increase as students
continue to take federal student loans (Kena et. al., 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Students not
able to find a job placement, retain employment or simply not able to pay back their federal
student loans go into default (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, 2013; USDE, 2015i).
Postsecondary institutions are made aware of their cohort default rate once per year by the USDE
(USDE, 2015o; NSLDS, 2015). The fastest growing area of higher education is in the private
for-profit education sector with open admissions, allowing students of all backgrounds the
opportunity to take advantage of higher education (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013; Snyder &
Dillow, 2015). Students feel the need to attain higher education for career advancement in the
21st century and take on federal student loans (Avery & Turner, 2012), while access to federal
student loans is directly related to institutional accreditation (USDE, 2015m).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 28
Statement of the Problem
For-profit proprietary institutions are eligible to participate in Title IV federal funding
programs, providing federal student loans to their students. For-profit proprietary institutions
have default rates that can vary in percentage depending on the number of students in repayment
and the number in default (USDE, 2014; USDE, 2015t). The value and quality of the education
provided by individual for-profit proprietary institutions can vary, depending on structure. Such
structure can involve several institutional variables: administrators, faculty, staff, facilities,
resources, and accreditation in providing adequate education to students (Beaver, 2012; Bok,
2013; Persell & Wenglinsky, 2004; Tiemey, 2007). These structural components are addressed
within the scope of institutional accrediting agency's standards, WASC-SCUC’s standards
address these structural components for institutional and student success (WASC-SCUC, 2015b,
2015c).
Does having regional institutional accreditation provide for lower cohort default rate at
for-profit proprietary institutions? Is the cohort default rate of public and private non-profit
postsecondary institutions lower or higher or similar to for-profit proprietary institutions with
institutional accreditation from the same regional accreditor? How do public, private, and
proprietary institutions with accreditation from the same regional accreditor compare to each
other given their institution cohort default rate? Does accreditation status indicate difference in
institution cohort default rate? This study explored the difference between WASC-SCUC
accredited institutions. The independent variables were institution type and accreditation status,
and the dependent variable was the cohort default rate.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 29
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between the student outcomes of
WASC-SCUC accredited postsecondary institutions, given their accreditation status, measured
by students’ ability to pay back their federal student loans as seen through institutional cohort
default rate. This study contributes to the understanding that institutional accrediting agencies
provide value and quality of education through standards of accreditation. Thus, the following
research questions were proposed:
1. Is there a difference between institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary)
institutions with regional institutional accreditation from Western Association of
Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-
SCUC), given their institution cohort default rate?
2. Is there a difference in institution cohort default rate among public, private, or proprietary
institution type based on Regional Accreditor Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) accreditation
status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or
Candidate)?
3. Does institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary) with regional institutional
accreditation from Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College
and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) have any relationship with their
Regional Accreditor WASC-SCUC accreditation status (i.e. Accredited,
Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or Candidate), given
their institution cohort default rate?
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 30
Significance of the Study
Many questioned the effectiveness and value of accreditation of higher education
(Dickeson, 2006; Gruson, Levine, & Lustberg, 1979; Wriston, 1960). Given the standards of
accreditation by agencies focusing on personal and professional growth of students, this study
contributes ongoing academic evaluation by institutional accreditors on all institutions while
providing access to Title IV funds. This contribution is measured through institution cohort
default rate of all institutions accredited by WASC-SCUC.
Definitions of Terms
The following operational definitions are included to clarify the terms and concepts in
this study (CHEA, 2015; USDE, 2015).
Accreditation: A quality review process conducted by professional peers whereby an institution
or program is evaluated to determine whether it has a minimum level of adequate quality.
Colleges must be accredited to receive federal funds and ensure course transferability (CHEA,
2002).
Accreditation is the recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates
to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for
professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by
institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.
Accreditation bodies/agencies/organizations/commissions: Refers to the distinct accreditation
bodies that establish the standards and processes of review by which institutions or programs
(depending upon if the accreditation body is regional or programmatic/professional) are vetted
for compliance with minimum quality standards worthy of the imprimatur of the said
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 31
accreditation body. The terms body/agency/organization are used interchangeably throughout
this paper.
Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO): A designated institutional representative who is chiefly
responsible for coordinating the accreditation effort with the accrediting agency.
Accredited: Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an
agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency.
Accrediting agencies: Organizations (or bodies) that establish operating standards for
educational or professional institutions and programs, determine the extent to which the
standards are met, and publicly announce their findings.
Accreditors: Used periodically throughout this proposal, this term refers generally to the
collective commissions at the heart of each accreditation agency.
Benefits of accreditation: The advantages an institution gains by having accreditation.
Cohort default rate: The percentage of a school's borrowers in the United States who enter
repayment on certain loans during a federal fiscal years (October 1 to September 30) and default
prior to the end of the next one to two fiscal years.
Cost of accreditation: The institutional commitment in terms of budgetary spending (direct
costs) and time contributed (indirect costs) by the various campus constituencies to the
accreditation effort.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA): The national body coordinating
advocacy efforts for accreditation and performing the function of recognizing accrediting
entities; CHEA reviews the effectiveness of accrediting bodies and primarily assures the
academic quality and improvement within institutions.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 32
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC): An organization composed of the
six regional accreditation organizations.
Distance education: An educational process that is characterized by the separation, in time or
place, between instructor and student.
Gatekeeper: The role of accreditation with respect to federal funding; in order for an institution
or program to qualify for the receipt of federal funds it must be accredited by a recognized
institution, thus accreditation serves as a gatekeeper for those funds.
Freestanding: Freestanding means not part of a larger college or university that is accredited by
a regional accredited agency or another nationally recognized institutional accrediting agency. In
general, a freestanding institution is a separate single-purpose institution that offers a specialized
program of study in a particular field.
Hybrid agencies: Hybrid agencies are recognized for the accreditation of both specialized
programs at larger institutions and for the accreditation of institutions.
Institutional accreditation: Institutional accreditation normally applies to an entire institution,
indicating that each of an institution’s parts is contributing to the achievement of the institution’s
objectives, although not necessarily all at the same level of quality.
Institutional accrediting agency: An agency that accredits institutions of higher education.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): National collection of data on
colleges and universities, as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics.
IPEDS ID: A unique identification number for institutions that participate in the IPEDS Survey.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE): Regional accreditor responsible
for the institutional accreditation of schools in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 33
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington D.C., and select locations
overseas.
National accreditation: Quality review at either the institutional level or the programmatic level
conducted on a national scope rather than on a regional or state scope.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI): A
Congressionally-established committee providing advisement to the Secretary of Education on
matters relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility for federal financial aid.
National Center for Education Statistics: Federal organization conducting the collection of
institutional data concerning higher education, most notably through the IPEDS data mart.
Nationally recognized accrediting agencies: National accrediting agencies are recognized by
the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or
training offered by the institutions of higher education they accredit. These agencies accredit
single-purpose institutions.
New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission, Institutions of Higher
Education: Regional accreditor responsible for the institutional accreditation of schools in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. NEASC also has
accreditation authority over several international institutions.
No Longer Recognized: The process of seeking and renewing recognition from the Department
is a demanding one for accrediting agencies, and not always essential to their mission. On
occasion, agencies request to withdraw from recognition. On other occasions, the Department
withdraws its recognition, upon a determination that an agency no longer meets recognition
criteria. Because recognition decisions, in the first instance, concern accrediting agencies rather
than accredited institutions and programs, a cessation of recognition should not simply be
presumed to reflect negatively on the quality of the institutions or programs accredited by that
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 34
agency. For this reason, the Department is authorized to permit institutions participating in the
federal student aid programs that are accredited by an agency that is no longer recognized up to
18 months of continued participation to obtain alternative accreditation from a different,
recognized agency. For the same reason, the Department will continue to include on this list for
18 months institutions and programs accredited by agencies that are no longer recognized, but
will indicate that the accrediting agency no longer has recognized status by inserting (No Longer
Recognized) by the name of the agency each time it appears in the listing.
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools the Higher Learning Commission: Most
commonly known as “HLC,” this regional accreditation body reviews institutions in Arkansas,
Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North
Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and
Wyoming.
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities: Regional accreditor responsible for the
institutional accreditation of schools in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and select locations overseas.
OPE ID: Identification number used by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of
Postsecondary Education to identify schools that have program participation agreements so that
its students are eligible to participate in federal student financial assistance programs under Title
IV regulations. This is a 6-digits number followed by a 2-digit suffix used to identify branches,
additional locations, and other entities that are part of the eligible institution.
Outlying areas: Includes American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the
Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 35
Peer Review: The concept governing accreditation whereby the actual review of the self-study is
conducted by knowledgeable professionals from like institutions in order to root the decision in
legitimacy and credibility.
Postsecondary education: The provision of a formal instructional program whose curriculum is
designed primarily for students who are beyond the compulsory age for high school. This
includes programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, and continuing professional
education, and excludes avocational and adult basic education programs.
Postsecondary education institution: An institution which has as its sole purpose or one of its
primary missions, the provision of postsecondary education.
Preaccreditation: The status of public recognition that an accrediting agency grants to an
institution or program for a limited period of time that signifies the agency has determined that
the institution or program is progressing towards accreditation and is likely to gain accreditation
before the expiration of that limited period of time.
Private institution: An educational institution controlled by a private individual(s) or by a
nongovernmental agency, usually supported primarily by other than public funds, and operated
by other than publicly elected or appointed officials. These institutions may be either for-profit or
not-for-profit.
Program: A postsecondary educational program offered by an institution of higher education
that leads to an academic or professional degree, certificate, or other recognized educational
credential.
Program Participation Agreement: A written agreement between a postsecondary institution
and the Secretary of Education. This agreement allows institutions to participate in any of the
Title IV student assistance programs other than the State Student Incentive Grant and the
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 36
National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership programs. The PPA conditions the initial
and continued participation of an eligible institution in any Title IV program upon compliance
with the General Provisions regulations, the individual program regulations, and any additional
conditions specified in the program participation agreement that the Department of Education
requires the institution to meet. Institutions with such an agreement are referred to as Title IV
institutions.
Programmatic accreditation (or specialized accreditation): Recognition of a minimum level
of adequate quality at the level of the individual program of study without respect to the rest of
the institution as a whole.
Programmatic accrediting agencies: Agencies that accredit specific educational programs that
prepare students for entry into a profession, occupation, or vocation. These agencies are also
known as specialized accreditors.
Public institution: An educational institution whose programs and activities are operated by
publicly elected or appointed school officials and which is supported primarily by public funds.
Regional accreditation: Accreditation offered by one of six regional accreditation
organizations. Unlike programmatic accreditation, regional accreditation does not vouch for a
particular program or degree, but rather for institution-wide compliance with regional
accreditation standards set by the geographically-defined accreditation body. For typical public
and private undergraduate institutions in the United States, regional accreditation is the de facto
mark of quality and a necessary step to obtain financial aid.
Regional accrediting agencies: Regional accrediting agencies are recognized by the U.S.
Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 37
offered by the institutions of higher education they accredit. The individual agencies accredit
institutions in specific geographic regions of the country.
Resigned: Denotes an institution or program that voluntarily withdrew its recognition as an
accredited institution or program.
Self-regulation: A concept whereby entities agree to govern themselves and establish
mechanisms and processes to do so; accreditation exemplifies the concept of self-regulation.
Self-study: A comprehensive review usually lasting approximately a year and a half to two years
resulting in a culminating document in which an institution or program considers every aspect of
its operation in order to determine whether it has adequate resources at all levels to fulfill its
clearly defined mission.
Site visit: Generally a two to three day period in which knowledgeable professionals from like
institutions visit an institution after reviewing its self-study to ascertain the accuracy of the self-
study and identify any concerns; subsequent to the site visit the visiting team makes an
accreditation recommendation to the accrediting body after which the accrediting body
announces a formal decision.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools: Regional accreditor responsible for the
institutional accreditation of schools in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and select locations
overseas.
Specialized accreditation (or programmatic accreditation): Recognition of a minimum level
of adequate quality at the level of the individual program of study without respect to the rest of
the institution as a whole.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 38
Specialized accreditation normally applies to the evaluation of programs, departments, or
schools which usually are parts of a total collegiate or other postsecondary institution. The unit
accredited may be as large as a college or school within a university or as small as a curriculum
within a discipline. Most of the specialized accrediting agencies review units within a
postsecondary institution which is accredited by one of the regional accrediting commissions.
However, certain of the specialized accrediting agencies accredit professional schools and other
specialized or vocational or other postsecondary institutions which are free-standing in their
operations. Thus, a "specialized" or "programmatic" accrediting agency may also function in the
capacity of an "institutional" accrediting agency. In addition, a number of specialized
accrediting agencies accredit educational programs within non-educational settings, such as
hospitals.
Standards: Regional accreditation bodies delineate a series of standards in their organizational
articles and/or handbook. These standards provide member institutions with a series of
guidelines to be followed for clear accreditation.
State accrediting agencies: There are two types of state agencies: Those recognized for the
approval of postsecondary vocational education, and those recognized for the approval of nurse
education.
Terminated: The status of an institution or program that an agency no longer accredits.
Title IV institution: An institution that has a written agreement with the Secretary of Education
that allows the institution to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance
programs (other than the State Student Incentive Grant and the National Early Intervention
Scholarship and Partnership programs).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 39
United States Department of Education: Federal agency that does not have direct authority
over the private and voluntary regional accreditation bodies, but the USDE is concerned for the
systematic quality of education in US colleges and universities and uses accreditation as a
standard for the dispense of federal funds.
Vocational education: A program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation.
Voluntary association: An organization in which membership is optional; accrediting bodies
began as voluntary associations and, strictly speaking, continue to be so classified, however
because eligibility for federal funding is tied to accreditation many professionals question
whether accreditation is truly voluntary.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC): Regional accreditation body
responsible for institutional accreditation in California, Hawaii, Guam, and the greater Pacific
region. The overarching WASC organization consists of several sub-groups that separately
conduct the accreditation for specific sectors of higher education. For example, area community
colleges are accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC).
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC): Typically referred to as ACCJC, this sub-group of WASC
accredits two-year, associate’s degree-granting institutions in California. It also has authority
over two-year institutions in the Pacific areas of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 40
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges
and Universities (WASC-ACSCU): The body of WASC that accredits bachelor’s degree-
granting institutions in California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Pacific basin region.

Source: CHEA, 2015; USDE, 2015.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 41
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Authorship Note: At the direction of the chair of the thematic group, Chapter Two was
co-written by members of the Accreditation Thematic Group as follows: Nathan Barlow wrote
“History of Accreditation in the United States, Beginnings to 1950” while Rufus Cayetano wrote
“History of Accreditation 1950 to Present.” Ben Dimapindan and Win Shih wrote “Effects of
Accreditation.” Jennifer Barczykowski wrote the section on “Costs of Accreditation.” Deborah
Hall Kinley wrote “Critical Assessment of Accreditation.” Kristopher Tesoro wrote
“Alternatives to Accreditation,” and Jill Richardson wrote “Current and Future State of
Accreditation” while Richard May wrote the segment on “International Accreditation in Higher
Education.” The remainder of this chapter was the work of this dissertation's author, including
the section on “Specialized Accreditation.”
The Development of Accreditation
The accreditation of an institution means that it passed measures, assessments, student
learning outcomes, and the collection and review of data as a minimum threshold for quality and
standards and mark that it has attained the seal of approval (Atwell, 1994; Brittingham, 2008,
Nettles, Cole, & Sharp, 1997; Eaton 2001). The term accreditation conjures a specific plethora
of meanings and offers a sense of stability to the student who seeks a well-regulated institution.
Accreditation is a term that refers to several aspects of institutional accountability. As the
historical arc exhibits, accreditation is an all-encompassing perception influenced by politics and
manipulated by commercial demands. It changed significantly over the course of its existence.
This combination of effects made accreditation in the United States a unique amalgamation of
nongovernmental, voluntary review against a set of principles for quality advancement
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 42
(Brittingham, 2009). Accreditation is constantly developing according to the exclusive
deliverance of higher education in the United States.
Process of Accreditation
Accreditation in higher education is a kind of quality assurance mechanism, a formal
recognition by an external group of the maintenance of a certain minimum caliber of education.
The process of accreditation involves a value-oriented study used by institutions to assess the
quality of the education they offer (Stufflebeam & Webster, 1980). In 2009, 7,435 institutions
received accreditation by regional accrediting agencies operating in six geographically distinct
U.S. regions, four national faith-related accrediting agencies, and seven national career-related
accrediting organizations. Accreditation is an idea of institutionalization of organizations with
orderly, socially integrating patterns out of unstable, loosely organized, or narrowly technical
activities (Bloland, 2001; Broom and Selznick, 1955). A formal process generally spanning two
years and requiring significant coordination of resources compels institutions to prepare for an
evaluative visit on a cycle usually varying from seven to ten years.
CHEA states that accreditation is about quality assurance in order to provide quality
improvement. Accreditation is a process of reflective review used by institutions to determine
compliance with delineated standards of institutional quality to guide the establishment of a
baseline for quality education in the United States and to ensure that institutions identify and use
ongoing processes to improve upon what they do (CHEA, 2011). This process is essential in
allowing students who seek a proper education to know how to select and why they are selecting
a particular university or college. Accreditation involves core values such as institutional
autonomy, academic freedom, and peer and professional review (Eaton, 2010, p. 1). The
emphasis upon quality assurance and quality improvement is imperative to accreditation and a
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 43
critical component to ongoing controversies in the evolution of accreditation (Bogue, 1998; Ruiz,
2010; Theule, 2012). The overarching purpose to accreditation is to signal institutional quality
and to connote the existence of quality improvement process for a group of invested and
interested stakeholders. The public wants to know about their universities, colleges, and other
higher learning institutions.
History of Accreditation
Accreditation has a long parentage among the universities and colleges of the United
States dating back to the self-initiated external review of Harvard in 1642. This external review,
done only six years after Harvard’s founding, was intended to ascertain rigor in its courses by
peers from universities in Great Britain and Europe (Brittingham, 2009; Davenport, 2000;). This
type of self-study is not only the first example in America of peer review, but it also highlights
the need for self- and peer-regulation in the U.S. educational system due to the lack of federal
governmental regulation. This lack of federal government intervention in the evaluation process
of educational institutions is a main reason for the way accreditation in the U.S. developed
(Brittingham, 2009).
Early Institutional Accreditation
While the federal government does not directly accredit educational institutions, the first
example of an accrediting body was through a state government. In 1784, the New York Board
of Regents was established as the first regionally organized accrediting organization. The Board
was set up like a corporate office with the educational institutions being franchisees. Each
college or university had to be meet Board mandated standards in order to receive state financial
aid (Blauch, 1959).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 44
Not only did Harvard pioneer accreditation in the U.S. with its early external review of its
own courses, but the president of Harvard University initiated a national movement in 1892
when he organized and chaired the Committee of Ten, which was an alliance formed among
educators (mostly college and university presidents) to seek standardization regarding
educational philosophies and practices in the U.S. through a system of peer approval (Davis,
1945; Shaw, 1993).
Around this same time, there began to be different associations and foundations that
undertook an accreditation review of educational institutions in the U.S. based on their own
standards and philosophical proximity to other schools. Associations such as the American
Association of University Women, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Association of American
Universities would, for a variety of different reasons, and clientele (e.g., gender equality,
professorial benefits), evaluate various institutions and generate lists of approved or accredited
schools. These associations responded to their constituents’ desire to have accurate information
regarding the validity and efficacy of the different colleges and universities (Orlans, 1975; Shaw,
1993).
Regional Accreditation, 1885 to 1920
When these associations declined to broaden or continue their accrediting practices,
individual institutions united to form regional accrediting bodies to assess secondary schools’
adequacy in preparing students for college (Brittingham, 2009). Colleges were measured by the
quality of students they admitted based on standards at the secondary school level measured by
the accrediting agency. The regional accrediting agencies focused also on creating a list of
colleges that were good destinations for incoming freshmen. If an institution was a member of
the regional accreditation agency, it was considered an accredited college. More precisely, the
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 45
institutions that belonged to an accrediting agency were considered colleges while those that did
not belong were not (Blauch, 1959; Davis, 1932; Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1974; Shaw, 1993).
Regional accrediting bodies were formed in the following years: New England
Association of Schools and Colleges in 1885, the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools (MSCSS) and Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in
1887, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools in 1895, the NWCCU in 1917, and, finally, the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 1924 (Brittingham, 2009).
Regional accrediting associations created instruments for the purpose of establishing
unity and standardization in regards to entrance requirements and college standards (Blauch
1959). For example, in 1901 MSCHE and MSCSS created the College Entrance Examination
Board to standardize college entrance requirements. The North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools also published its first set of standards for its higher education members in 1909
(Brittingham, 2009).
Although there were functioning regional accreditation bodies in most of the states, in
1910 the Department of Education created its own national list of recognized (accredited)
colleges. Because of the public’s pressure to keep the federal government from controlling
higher education directly, President Taft scuttled the work on the list before it could be
published. The Department of Education discontinued the active pursuit of accrediting schools,
and reestablished itself as a resource for the regional accrediting bodies in regards to data
collection and comparison (Blauch, 1959; Ewell, 2008; Orlans, 1975).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 46
Regional Accreditation, 1920-1950
With the regional accrediting bodies in place, the ideas of what an accredited college was
became more diverse (e.g. vocational colleges, community colleges). Out of the greater
differences among schools in regards to school types and institutional purposes, there arose a
need to apply more qualitative measures and a focus on high rather than minimum outcomes
(Brittingham, 2009). School visits by regional accreditors became necessary once a school
demonstrated struggles, since qualitative standards became the norm. The regional organizations
began to measure success (and therefore grant accredited status) on whether an institution met its
own standards outlined in its own mission, rather than a predetermined set of criteria
(Brittingham, 2009). In other words, if a school did what it said it would do, it could be
accredited. The accreditation process later became a requirement for all member institutions.
Self- and peer-reviews, which became a standard part of the accreditation process, were
undertaken by volunteers from the member institutions (Ewell, 2008).
Accrediting bodies began to be challenged as to their legitimacy in classifying colleges as
accredited or not. The Langer Case in 1938 is a landmark case that established the standing of
accrediting bodies in the United States. Governor William Langer of North Dakota lost a legal
challenge of the North Central Association of Colleges and School’s denial of accreditation to
North Dakota Agricultural College. This ruling carried over to other legal cases that upheld the
decision that accreditation was legitimate as well as a voluntary process (Fuller & Lugg, 2012;
Orlans, 1974).
In addition to the regional accrediting bodies, there arose other associations meant to
regulate the accrediting agencies themselves. The Joint Commission on Accrediting was formed
in 1938 to validate legitimate accrediting agencies and discredit questionable or redundant ones.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 47
After some changes to the mission and the membership of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation, the name was changed to the National Commission on Accrediting in 1949
(Blauch, 1959).
History of Accreditation 1950 to Present
The period 1950 to 1985 is coined the golden age of higher education and was marked by
increasing federal involvement in regulations and funding. During this period, key developments
in the accreditation process, such as self-study became standardized. Inter-collegiately,
colleagues from peer institutions performed site visits on a regular cycle (Woolston, 2013). With
the passage of the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, the U.S. Commissioner of
Education was required to publish a list of recognized accreditation associations (Bloland, 2001).
This act provided for education benefits to veterans of the Korean War directly rather than to the
educational institution they attended, increasing the importance of accreditation as a mechanism
for recognition of legitimacy (Woolston, 2012).
A more “pivotal event” occurred in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act’s
(NDEA) allocation of funding for NDEA fellowships and college loans (Weissburg, 2008).
NDEA limited participating institutions to those that were accredited (Gaston, 2014). In 1963,
Congress passed the Higher Education Facilities Act. This act required that higher education
institutions receiving federal funds through enrolled students be accredited. Arguably the most
striking expansion in accreditation’s mission coincided with the passage of the Higher Education
Act in 1964 (Gaston, 2014). Title IV in this legislation expressed the intent of Congress to use
federal funding to broaden access to higher education. According to Gaston (2014), having
committed to this much larger role in encouraging college attendance, the federal government
found it necessary to affirm that institutions benefiting from such funds were worthy of it. That
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 48
same year, the National Committee of Regional Accrediting Agencies became the Federation of
Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education.
The Higher Education Act was first signed into law in 1965. That law strengthened the
resources available to higher education institutions and provided financial assistance to students
enrolled at those institutions. The law was especially important to accreditation because it forced
the USDE to determine and list a much larger number of institutions eligible for federal
programs (Trivett, 1976). In 1967, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
revoked Parsons College’s accreditation citing “administrative weakness” and a $14 million
debt. The college appealed, but the courts denied it on the basis that the regional accrediting
associations were voluntary bodies (Woolston, 2013).
The need to deal with a much larger number of potentially eligible institutions led the U.S
Commissioner of Education to create the Bureau of Higher Education and the Accreditation and
Institutional Eligibility Staff (AIES) as an advisory committee. The purpose of the AIES, which
was created in 1968, was to administer the federal recognition and review process involving the
accrediting agencies (Dickey & Miller, 1972). In 1975, the National Committee on Accrediting
and the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education merged to form a
new organization called the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The newly created
national accreditation association encompassed an astonishing array of types of postsecondary
education to include community colleges, liberal arts colleges, proprietary schools, graduate
research programs, bible colleges, trade and technical schools, and home-study programs
(Chambers, 1983).
Since 1985, accountability is of paramount importance in education. According to
Woolston (2013), key developments in the accreditation process during this period include
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 49
higher education’s experiencing rising costs resulting in high student loan default rates as well as
accreditation enduring increasing criticism for a number of apparent shortcomings, most
ostensibly a lack of demonstrable student learning outcomes. Similarly, accreditation is
increasingly and formally defended by various champions of the practice. For example,
congressional hostility reached a crisis in 1992 when Congress, in the midst of debates on the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, threatened to bring to a close the role of the
accrediting agencies as gatekeepers for financial aid. During the early 1990s, the federal
government grew increasingly intrusive in matters directly affecting the accrediting agencies
(Bloland, 2001). As a direct consequence, Subpart 1 of Part H of the Higher Education Act
amendments involved an increased role for the states in determining the eligibility of institutions
to participate in the student financial aid programs of the aforementioned Title IV. For every
state, this meant the creation of a State Postsecondary Review Entity that would review
institutions that the USDE secretary had identified as having triggered such review criteria as
high default rates on student loans (Bloland, 2001). The state postsecondary review entities were
short lived and, in 1994, were abandoned largely because of a lack of adequate funding. The
1992 reauthorization also created NACIQI to replace the AIES.
For several years, the regional accrediting agencies entertained the idea of pulling out of
COPA and forming their own national association. Based on dissatisfaction with the
organization, regional accrediting agencies proposed a resolution to terminate COPA by the end
of 1993. Following a successful vote on the resolution, COPA was effectively terminated
(Bloland, 2001). A special committee, generated by the COPA plan of dissolution of April 1993,
created the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) to continue
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 50
the work of recognizing accrediting agencies (Bloland, 2001). However, CORPA was formed
primarily as an interim organization to continue national recognition of accreditation.
In 1995, national leaders in accreditation formed the National Policy Board to shape the creation
and legitimation of a national organization overseeing accreditation. The national leaders in
accreditation were adamant that the new organization should reflect higher education’s needs
rather than those of postsecondary education. Following numerous intensive meetings, CHEA
was formed in 1996 as the official successor to CORPA (Bloland, 2001). In 1996, the Spellings
Commission on the Future of Higher Education delivered the verdict that accreditation “has
significant shortcomings” (USDE Test, 2006, p. 7) and accused accreditation of being both
ineffective and a barrier to innovation.
Since the release of the Spellings Commission’s report, the next significant event on the
subject of accreditation came during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address on
February 12, 2013. In conjunction with the president’s address, the White House released a nine-
page document titled The President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America. The
document stated that the president was going to call on Congress to consider value, affordability,
and student outcomes in making determinations about which colleges and universities receive
access to federal student aid, either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the
existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that
would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid
based on performance and results (White House, 2013).
Specialized Accreditation
Specialized accreditation agencies focus on the specialized training and knowledge
needed for professional degrees and careers. Some of these agencies are the Accreditation
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 51
Council for Pharmacy Education, the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass
Communications, the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs, the
Council on Social Work Education Office of Social Work Accreditation, and the Teacher
Education Accreditation Council, Inc. These are noted by CHEA, which is associated with 3,000
degree-granting colleges and universities and recognizes 60 institutional and programmatic
accrediting organizations (CHEA, 2014). Programmatic accreditation is granted and monitored
by national organizations unlike regional accrediting organizations, which are associated
regionally (Adelman & Silver, 1990; Eaton, 2009; Hagerty & Stark, 1989). The continued self-
study is the cornerstone in establishing and keeping programmatic accreditation and ensures the
institution keeps the best interest of the profession, while providing the necessary learning,
leadership, qualified instructors, and facilities to keep the professional learning goals of the
profession represented by the specialized accreditation body (Bloland, 2001; Gaston & Ochoa,
2013).
As noted by the Global University Network for Innovation publication’s (2007),
institutional accreditation bodies must focus on academic programs to be effective. While on the
same note, programmatic accreditation bodies have to support overall institutional accreditation
goals in meeting its objectives, thus working hand-in-hand for overall institutional success
(Global University Network, 2007). Professional guidance through program accreditation
protects the profession as incompetency might do more damage, thus standards from the start are
maintained to benefit practitioners and protect the public (Gaston & Ochoa, 2013). Coordinating
institutional accreditation efforts where possible can be cost effective, since overlap exists
between the process of both regional and programmatic accreditation. However, the review
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 52
process and resource allocations can become complicated as overwhelming as it is (Shibley &
Volkwein, 2002; WASC, 2009).
Programmatic accrediting organizations recognized by CHEA affirm that the standards
and processes of the accrediting organization are consistent with the academic quality,
improvement and accountability expectations that CHEA established (CHEA, 2014). Institutions
acknowledge the pressure of meeting institutional accreditation, but the strain of specialized
accreditation of individual programs is also felt (Bloland, 2001). Specialized program
accreditation distinctively carries institutional quality assurance importance because differences
between individual programs within a single institution can be greater when compared to the
entire institution. The credibility of program accreditation review is to strengthen on the basis of
its achievement, where its more focused on particular area of studies and carried out by
colleagues from peer institutions who are specialists in specific disciplines (Ratcliff, 1996).
Research on program accreditation suffers from the same lack of volume and rigor as
research on institutional accreditation, and strong faculty involvement and instruction is linked to
individual program accreditation (Cabrera et al., 2001; Daoust, Wehmeyer, & Eubank, 2006).
While studies on student outcomes in terms of measuring competencies find that program
accreditation does not provide enough support for student success (Hagerty & Stark, 1989),
program accreditation outlines the parameters of professional education (Ewell, Wellman, &
Paulson, 1997; Hagerty & Stark, 1989) and upholds national professional standards (American
Accounting Association, 1977; Bardo, 2009; Floden, 1980; Raessler, 1970). This situation calls
for further empirical research on specialized accreditation given its importance on students’
educational and professional achievement.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 53
Effects of Accreditation
This section of the literature review examines the effects of accreditation, focusing
primarily on the assessment of student learning outcomes. Outcome assessment serves two main
purposes: quality improvement and external accountability (Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). Over
the years, institutions of higher education made considerable strides with regard to learning
assessment practices and implementation. Yet, despite such progress, key challenges still remain.
Trend Toward Learning Assessment
The shift within higher education accreditation toward greater accountability and student
learning assessment began in the mid-1980s (Beno, 2004; Ewell, 2001; Wergin, 2005, 2012).
During that time, higher education was portrayed in the media as “costly, inefficient, and
insufficiently responsive to its public” (Bloland, 2001, p. 34). The impetus behind the public’s
concern stemmed from two reasons: the perception that students were underperforming
academically and the demand of the business sector (Ewell, 2001). Employers and business
leaders expressed their need for college graduates who could demonstrate high levels of literacy,
problem-solving ability, and collaborative skills in order to support the emerging knowledge
economy of the 21
st
century. In response to these concerns, institutions of higher education
started emphasizing student learning outcomes as the main process of evaluating effectiveness
(Beno, 2004).
Framework for Learning Assessment
Accreditation is widely considered to be a significant driving force behind advances in
both student learning and outcomes assessment. According to Rhodes (2012), in recent years,
accreditation contributed to the proliferation of assessment practices, lexicon, and even products
such as e-portfolios, which are used to show evidence of student learning.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 54
Kuh and Ikenberry (2009) surveyed provosts or chief academic officers at all regionally
accredited institutions granting undergraduate degrees, and found that student assessment was
driven more by accreditation than by external pressures such as government or employers.
Another major finding was that most institutions planned to continue their assessment of student
learning outcomes despite budgetary constraints. They also found that gaining faculty support
and involvement remained a major challenge—an issue examined in more depth later in this
section.
Additionally, college and university faculty and student affairs practitioners stressed how
students must now acquire proficiency in a wide scope of learning outcomes to adequately
address the unique and complex challenges of today’s ever-changing, economically competitive,
and increasingly globalizing society. In 2007, the Association of American Colleges and
Universities published a report focusing on the aims and outcomes of a 21
st
century collegiate
education, with data gathered through surveys, focus groups, and discussions with postsecondary
faculty. Emerging from the report were four “essential learning outcomes”. These were (1)
knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world through study in science and
mathematics, social sciences, humanities, history, languages, and the arts; (2) intellectual and
practical skills, including inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral
communication, quantitative skills, information literacy, and teamwork and problem-solving
abilities; (3) personal and social responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement,
multicultural competence, ethics, and foundations and skills for lifelong learning; and (4)
integrative learning, including synthesis and advanced understanding across general and
specialized studies (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007 p. 12). With the
adoption of such frameworks or similar tools at institutions, accreditors can be well positioned to
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 55
connect teaching and learning and, as a result, better engage faculty to improve learning
outcomes (Rhodes, 2012).
Benefits of Accreditation on Learning
Accreditation and student performance assessment have been the focus of various
empirical studies, with several pointing to benefits of the accreditation process. Ruppert (1994)
conducted case studies in ten states–Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin–to evaluate different accountability
programs based on student performance indicators. The report concluded, “quality indicators
appear most useful if integrated in a planning process designed to coordinate institutional efforts
to attain stated priorities” (p. 155).
Furthermore, research also demonstrated how accreditation helps shape outcomes inside
college classrooms. Specifically, Cabrera et al. (2001) investigated classroom practices and their
relationship with the learning gains in professional competencies among undergraduate
engineering students. The study involved 1,250 students from seven universities. It found that the
expectations of accrediting agencies may be encouraging more widespread use of effective
instructional practices by faculty.
Volkwein et al. (2007) measured changes in student outcomes in engineering programs
following the implementation of new accreditation standards by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology. Based on the data collected from a national sample of engineering
programs, the authors noted that the new accreditation standards were, indeed, a catalyst for
change, finding evidence that linked the accreditation changes to improvements in undergraduate
education. Students experienced significant gains in the application of knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering; usage of modern engineering tools; use of experimental
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 56
skills to analyze and interpret data; designing solutions to engineering problems; teamwork and
group work; effective communication; understanding of professional and ethical obligations;
understanding of the societal and global context of engineering solutions; and recognition of the
need for lifelong learning. The authors also found accreditation also prompted faculty to engage
in professional development-related activity. Thus, the study showed the effectiveness of
accreditation as a mechanism for quality assurance (Volkwein et al., 2006).
Organizational Effects of Accreditation
Beyond student learning outcomes, accreditation has considerable effects on an
organizational level. Procopio (2010) noted that the process of acquiring accreditation influences
perceptions of organizational culture. According to the study, administrators are more satisfied
than are staff members–and especially more so than faculty–when rating organizational climate,
information flow, involvement in decisions, and utility of meetings. “These findings suggest
institutional role is an important variable to consider in any effort to affect organizational culture
through accreditation buy-in” (p. 10). Similarly, a study by Wiedman (1992) describes how the
two-year process of reaffirming accreditation at a public university drives the change of
institutional culture.
Meanwhile, Brittingham (2009) explains that accreditation offers organizational-level
benefits for colleges and universities. The commonly acknowledged benefits include students’
access to federal financial aid funding, legitimacy in the public, consideration for foundation
grants and employer tuition credits, positive reflection among peers, and government
accountability. However, Brittingham (2009) points out that there are “not-often recognized”
benefits as well (p. 18). For example, accreditation is cost effective, particularly when
contrasting the number of personnel to carry out quality assurance procedures here in the U.S.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 57
versus internationally, where it is far more regulated. Second, “participation in accreditation is
good professional development” because those who lead a self-study come to learn about their
institution with more breadth and depth (p. 19). Third, self-regulation by institutions–if done
properly–is a better system than government regulation. And fourth, “regional accreditation
gathers a highly diverse set of institutions under a single tent, providing conditions that support
student mobility for purposes of transfer and seeking a higher degree” (p. 19).
Future Assessment Recommendations
Many higher education institutions developed plans and strategies to measure learning
outcomes, and such assessments are already in use to improve institutional quality (Beno, 2004).
For future actions, CHEA, in its 2012 Final Report, recommends to further enhance commitment
to public accountability:
Working with the academic and accreditation communities, explore the adoption and
implementation of a small set of voluntary institutional performance indicators based on
mission that can be used to signal acceptable academic effectiveness and to inform
students and the public of the value and effectiveness of accreditation and higher
education. Such indicators would be determined by individual colleges and universities,
not government. (p. 7)
In addition, Brittingham (2012) outlines three developments that have the capacity to
influence accreditation and increase its ability to improve educational effectiveness. First,
accreditation is growing more focused on data and evidence, which strengthens its value as a
means of quality assurance and quality improvement. Second, “technology and open-access
education are changing our understanding of higher education” (p. 65). These innovations–such
as massive open online courses–hold enormous potential to open up higher education sources.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 58
As a result, this trend will heighten the focus on student learning outcomes. Third, “with an
increased focus on accountability–quality assurance–accreditation is challenged to keep, and
indeed strengthen, its focus on institutional and programmatic improvement” (p. 68). This
becomes particularly important amid the current period of rapid change.
Challenges to Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment is critical to the future of higher education. As noted earlier, outcome
assessment serves two main purposes: quality improvement and external accountability
(Bresciani, 2006; Ewell, 2009). The practice of assessing learning outcomes is now widely
adopted by colleges and universities since its introduction in the mid-1980s. Assessment is also a
requirement of the accreditation process. However, outcomes assessment in higher education is
still a work in progress and there is still a fair amount of challenges (Kuh & Ewell, 2010).
Organization Learning Challenges
First, there is the organizational culture and learning issue. Assessment, as clearly stated
by the American Association for Higher Education (1992), is a means intended to improve the
institution. The process of assessment is not a means unto its own end. Instead, it provides an
opportunity for continuous organizational learning and improving (Maki, 2010). Too often,
institutions assemble and report sets of mountainous data just to comply with federal or state
accountability policy or accreditation agency’s requirements. However, after the report is
submitted, the evaluation team left, and the accreditation confirmed, there are few incentives to
act on the findings for further improvement. The root causes of deficiencies identified are rarely
followed up and real solutions are never sought (Ewell, 2005; Wolff, 2005).
Another concern pointed out by Ewell (2005) is that accreditation agencies tend to
emphasize the process of, rather than the outcomes, once the assessment infrastructure is
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 59
established. The accreditors are satisfied with formal statements and goals of learning outcomes,
but do not query further about how, the appropriateness, and to what degree these learning goals
are applied in the teaching and learning process. As a result, the process tends to be single-loop
learning where changes reside at a surface level, instead of a double-loop learning, where
changes are incorporated in the practices, belief, and norms (Bensimon, 2005).
Lack of Faculty Buy-in
Lack of faculty’s buy-in and participation is another hurdle in the adoption of assessment
practice (Kuh & Ewell, 2010). In a 2009 survey by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment, two-thirds of all 2,809 surveyed schools noted that more faculty involvement in
learning assessment would be helpful (Kun & Ikenberry, 2009). According to Ewell (1993, 2002,
2005), there are several reasons that faculty is directly involved in the assessment process. First,
faculty views teaching and curriculum development as their domain. Assessing their teaching
performance and student learning outcomes by external groups can be viewed as an intrusion of
their professional authority and academic freedom. Second, faculty are deterred by the extra
efforts and time required for engaging in outcome assessment and the unconvincing added value
perceived. Furthermore, external bodies impose the compliance-oriented assessment
requirements and most faculty members are indirect participants in the process. They tend to
show a lukewarm attitude and leave the assessment work to administrative staff. In addition,
faculty might have a different view on the definitions and measures of “quality” than that of
institution or accreditors (Perrault, Gregory, & Carey, 2002, p. 273). Finally, the assessment
process incurs tremendous amount of work and resources. To cut costs, the majority of the work
is done by administration at the institution. Faculty consequently perceives that assessment is an
exercise performed by administration for external audiences, instead of embracing the process.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 60
Lack of Institutional Investment
Shortage of resources and institutional support is another challenge in the implementation
of assessment practice. As commented by Beno (2004), “[d]eciding on the most effective
strategies for teaching and for assessing learning will require experimentation, careful research,
analyses, and time” (p. 67). With continuously dwindling federal and state funding in the last two
decades, higher education, particularly at the public institutions, is stripped of resources to
support such an endeavor. A case in point is the recession in early 1990s. Budget cuts forced
many states to abandon the state assessment mandates originated in mid-1980s and switched to
process-based performance indicators as a way to gain efficiency in large public institutions
(Ewell, 2005). The 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment survey shows the
majority of the surveyed institutions undercapitalized resources, tools, and expertise for
assessment work. Twenty percent of respondents indicated they had no assessment staff and 65%
had two or fewer (Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009). Beno (2004) further describes
the resource issue:
A challenge for community colleges is to develop the capacity to discuss what the results
of learning assessment mean, to identify ways of improving student learning, and to make
institutional commitments to that improvement by planning, allocating needed resources,
and implementing strategies for improvement. (p. 67)
Difficulty with Integration into Local Practice
Integrating the value and institutionalizing the practice of assessment into daily
operations can be another tall order in many institutions. In addition to redirecting resources,
leadership’s involvement and commitment, faculty’s participation, and adequate assessment
personnel contribute to the success of cultivating a sustainable assessment culture and framework
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 61
on campus (Banta, 1993; Kuh & Ewell, 2010; Lind & McDonald, 2003; Maki, 2010).
Furthermore, assessment activities, imposed by external authorities, tend to be implemented as
an addition to, rather than an integral part of, an institutional practice (Ewell, 2002). Assessment,
like accreditation, is viewed as a special process with its own funding and committee, instead of
being part of regular business operations. Finally, the work of assessment, program reviews, self-
study, and external accreditation at institutional and academic program levels tends to be handled
by various offices on campus and coordinating the work can be another challenge (Perrault,
Gergory, & Carey, 2002).
Colleges also tend to adopt the institutional isomorphic approach by modeling themselves
after those peers who are more legitimate or successful in dealing with similar situation and the
practice widely used to gain acceptance (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As reported by Ewell
(1993), institutions are prone to “second-guess” and adopt the type of assessment practice
acceptable by external agencies as a safe approach instead of adopting or customizing the one
appropriate to the local needs and situation (Ewell, 1993). Institutional isomorphism offers a
safer and more predictable route for institutions to deal with uncertainty and competition, to
confirm to government mandates or accreditation requirements, or to abide by professional
practices (Bloland, 2001). However, the strategy of following the crowd might hinder in-depth
inquiry of a unique local situation, as well as the opportunity for innovation and creativity.
Furthermore, decision makers may be unintentionally trapped in a culture of doing what
everyone is doing without carefully examining unique local situation, the logic, the
appropriateness, and the limitations behind the common practice (Miles, 2012).
Lack of assessment standards and clear terminology presents another challenge in
assessment and accreditation practice (Ewell, 2001). With no consensus on vocabulary, methods,
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 62
and instrument, assessment practice and outcomes can have limited value. As reported by Ewell
(2005), the absence of outcome metrics makes it difficult for state authorities to aggregate
performance across multiple institutions and to communicate the outcomes to the public. The
exercise of benchmarking is also impossible. Beesciani (2006) stressed the importance of
developing a conceptual definition, framework, and common language at the institutional level.
Outcome Equity
Outcome assessment that focuses on students’ academic performance while it overlooks
the equity and disparity of diverse student population as well as the student engagement and
campus climate issues is another area of concern. In discussing local financing of community
colleges, Dowd and Grant (2006) stressed the importance of including “outcome equity” in
additional to performance-based budget allocation. Outcome equity pays special attention to the
equal outcomes of educational attainment among populations of different social, economic, and
racial groups (Dowd, 2003).
Tension Between Improvement and Accountability
The tension between the equally important goals of outcomes assessment, quality
improvement and external accountability, can be another factor affecting outcome assessment
practice. According to Ewell (2008, 2009), assessment practice evolved over the years into two
contrasting paradigms. The first paradigm, assessment for improvement, emphasizes constantly
evaluating and enhancing the process or outcomes, while the other paradigm, assessment for
accountability, demands conformity to a set of established standards mandated by the state or
accrediting agencies. The strategies, the instrumentation, the methods of gathering evidence, the
reference points of these two paradigms tend to be at the opposite end of the spectrum (Ewell,
2008, 2009). For example, in the improvement paradigm assessment is mainly used internally to
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 63
address deficiencies and enhance teaching and learning. It requires periodic evaluation and
formative assessment to track progress over time. On the other hand, the accountability paradigm
assessment is designed to demonstrate institutional effectiveness and performance to external
constituencies and to comply with pre-defined standards or expectations. The process tends to be
performed on set schedules as a summative assessment. The nature of these two constraints can
create tension and conflict within an institution. Consequently, an institution’s assessment
program is unlikely to achieve both objectives. Ewell (2009) further pointed out that “when
institutions are presented with an intervention that is claimed to embody both accountability and
improvement, accountability wins” (p. 8).
Transparency Challenges
Finally, for outcome assessment to be meaningful and accountable, the process and
information need to be shared and open to the public (Ewell, 2005). Accreditation has long been
criticized as mysterious or secretive with little information to share with stakeholders (Ewell,
2010). In a 2006 survey, the Council of Higher Education Accreditation reported that only 18%
of the 66 accreditors surveyed provide information about the results of individual reviews
publicly; less than 17% of accreditors provide a summary on student academic achievement or
program performance; and just over 33% of accreditors offer a descriptive summary about the
characteristics of accredited institutions or programs (Council of Higher Education
Accreditation, 2006). In the 2014 Inside Higher Education survey, only 9% of the 846 college
presidents indicated that it is very easy to find student outcomes data on the institution’s website,
and only half of the respondents agree that it is appropriate for federal government to collect and
publish data on outcomes of college graduates (Jaschik & Ledgerman, 2014). With the public
disclosure requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an impetus for higher
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 64
education and accreditation agencies to be more open to public and policy makers. It is expected
that further openness will contribute to more effective and accountable business practices as well
as the improvement of educational quality.
It has been three decades since the birth of the assessment movement in U.S. higher
education and a reasonable amount of progress was made (Ewell, 2005). Systematic assessment
of student learning outcomes is now a common practice at most institutions. As reported by two
nationwide surveys, the 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment shows that
more than 75% of surveyed institutions adopted common learning outcomes for all
undergraduate students and most institutions conduct assessments at both the instructional and
program level (Kun & Ikenberry, 2009). The 2008 survey performed by the Association of
American Colleges and Universities also reported that 78% of the 433 surveyed institutions have
a common set of learning outcomes for all their undergraduate students and 68% of the
institutions also assess learning outcomes at the departmental level (Hart Research Associates,
2009).
As the public concern about the performance and quality of American colleges and
universities grows, it is more imperative than ever to embed assessment in the everyday work of
teaching and using assessment outcomes to further improve practice, to inform decision makers,
to communicate effectively with the public, and to be accountable for preparing the national
learners in the knowledge economy. With effort, transparency, continuous improvement and
responsiveness to society’s demands, higher education institutions will regain the public’s trust.
Costs of Accreditation
Gaston (2014) discusses the various costs associated with accreditation. Institutions are
required to pay annual fees to the accrediting body. When an institution applies for initial
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 65
accreditation, it is required to pay an application fee as well as additional fees through the
process. The institution seeking accreditation also pays for any on-site reviews. In addition to
these “external” costs, there are internal costs that must be calculated as well. These internal
costs can include faculty and administrative time invested in the assessment and self-study,
volunteer service in accreditation activities, preparation of annual or periodic filings, and
attendance at mandatory accreditation meetings (p. 9).
Costs of initial accreditation can vary greatly from region to region; however, regardless
of the region, the costs are substantial. It can cost an institution $23,500.00 to pursue initial
accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), regardless of whether pursuit is
successful. This does not require the costs associated with the three required on-site visits nor
does it include the dues that must be paid during the application and candidacy period. For
example, the applicant and candidacy fees for SACS are $12,500. (HLC Initial, 2012)
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) claim there is limited research on the costs of accreditation
within the literature. Calculating the cost can be very complex, as institutions must evaluate both
monetary and non-monetary costs. Reidlinger and Prager (1993) state there are two reasons
thorough cost-based analyses of accreditation have not been pursued. First, there is a belief that
voluntary accreditation is preferable to governmental control and that it accreditation is worth the
cost, despite the price. Second, it is difficult to relate perceived benefits of accreditation to an
actual monetary amount.
The CHEA first published an almanac in 1997, and continues to release a revised version
every two years. This almanac looks at accreditation practices across the United States on the
macro level, looking at data such as number of volunteers, number of employees, and unit
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 66
operating budgets of the regional accrediting organizations. Little, if any, information is provided
on costs incurred by individual institutions as they go through the accreditation process.
In 1998, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools completed a self-study,
on the perception of accreditation costs among the institutions within that region (Lee & Crow,
1998). The study revealed the variance of responses among institutional type. Research and
doctoral institutions were less apt to claim that benefits outweighed costs while also responding
less positively than did other types of institutions regarding the effectiveness and benefits of
accreditation. The study suggested that well-established research and doctoral institutions might
already have internal processes in place that serve the traditional function of the accreditation
process, in which case, a traditional audit system could serve as an appropriate alternative to the
formal process by the regional accreditation organization. Looking at the results of all
institutional types, the self-study found that 53% of respondents considered the benefits of
accreditation outweighed the costs. Approximately 33% of respondents considered benefits of
accreditation to be equal to the costs. The remaining 13% of the respondents believed that the
costs of accreditation outweighed the benefits. There have been similar case studies performed
by Warner (1977) on WASC and by Pigge (1979) on the Committee on Postsecondary
Accreditation. In both studies, cost was labeled as a significant concern of the accreditation
process. Budget allocations are also affected by accreditation results. Warner (1977) found that
approximately one-third of responding institutions changed budget allocations based on
accreditation results; however, there was no further exploration done. The majority of
respondents in the Warner (1977) and Pigge (1979) studies believed the benefits outweighed the
costs.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 67
There are three stages that institutions go through when preparing for accreditation.
Wood (2006) developed the model, which includes the release time required for the various
coordinators of the accreditation review, the monetary costs of training, staff support, materials,
and the site visit of the accreditation team. Each of these stages triggers cost for the institution.
Willis (1994) also examined these costs but differentiated between direct and indirect costs.
Direct costs include this such as accreditation fees, operating expenses (specific to the
accreditation process), direct payments to individuals who participate in the process, self-study
costs, travel costs, and site visit costs. Indirect costs measure things such as time. Willis (1994)
identified indirect costs as “probably many times greater than the direct costs due mainly to the
personnel time required at the institution” (p. 40). He suggests that caution be exercised when
evaluating these costs, and that they should not be underestimated. He states that many times the
normal tasks that cannot be completed by individuals with accreditation responsibilities are
distributed to other individuals who are not identified as participants in the accreditation process.
Kennedy, Moore, and Thibadoux (1985) attempted to establish a methodology for how
costs are determined, with particular interest in monetizing time spent on the accreditation
process. They looked at a time frame of approximately 15 months, from the time of initial
planning for the self-study through the presentation of the study. They used time logs to gather
data on time spent by faculty and administrative staff. There was a high return rate for the time
logs (79% were fully completed, with a 93% return rate overall). After reviewing the time logs,
they discovered that the time spent by faculty and administrative staff accounted for 94% of the
total cost of the accreditation review, over two-thirds of which as attributed to administrative
staff. These figures demonstrate the fact that the time required by both faculty and administrative
staff is the most significant cost involved in the accreditation process. The researchers concluded
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 68
that this cost was not excessive as there is a seven-year span between each self-study review
process.
Kells and Kirkwood (1979) conducted a study in the Middle States region, which looked
at the direct costs of participating in a self-study. Almost 50% of the respondents reportedly
spent under $5,000.00 on the self-study, which did not defined as excessive. It was also
determined that there was maximum number between 100 and 125 people directly involved in
the self-study. The majority of participants were faculty (41-50%), followed by staff (21-30%),
and very few students. The size of the institution was believed to have had the greatest impact
on the composition of the self-study committee (number of faculty vs. staff) as well as the cost of
the self-study itself.
Doerr (1983) used a case study to explore the direct costs of accreditation and to examine
the benefits received when university executives wish to pursue additional programmatic
accreditations. Both financial costs and opportunity costs of institutional accreditation granted by
SACS and four programmatic accreditations cultivated by the University of West Florida in the
1981-1982 term were examined. He assigned an average wage per hour to faculty and
administrative staff, while also adding in the cost of material supplies. It was estimated that the
total direct costs of accreditation for these reviews totaled $50,030.71. It was also projected that
there would be additional costs in the following years, particularly membership costs for the
accrediting organizations and those costs associated with preparing for additional programmatic
reviews. Doerr concluded by looking at the opportunity costs while examining alternative ways
this money might have been spent.
Shibley and Volkwein (2002) evaluated the benefits of a joint accreditation by conducting
a case study of a public institution in the Middle States region. This institution has multiple
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 69
accrediting relationships, including both institutional and programmatic reviews. They confirmed
what Willis (1994) suggested, “the true sense of burden arose from the time contributed to
completing the self-study process rather than from finding the financial resources to support self-
study needs” (Shibley & Volkwein, 2002, p.8). They found that the separate accreditation
processes had more benefits for individuals than did the joint effort; however, the joint process
was less costly and the sense of burden for participants was reduced.
There have been several studies on the expense of accreditation and its value to
institutions. Britt and Aaron (2008) distributed surveys to radiology programs without
specialized accreditation. These institutions reported expense of accreditation as the primary
factor in not pursuing accreditation. A secondary consideration was the time required to go
through the process. Many respondents indicated that a decrease in the expense would allow
them to consider pursuing accreditation in the future. Bitter, Stryker, and Jens (1999) and Kren,
Tatum, and Phillips (1993) looked at specialized accreditation for accounting. Both studies found
that non-accredited programs believed that costs outweighed benefits. Many programs claim they
follow accreditation standards; however, there is no empirical evidence to prove that this is true.
Since the programs do not go through the accreditation process, there is no way to verify if they
are actually meeting the established standards.
Cost is frequently cited as a factor as to why institutions have not pursued accreditation.
In addition to direct costs, things such as resources, time, energy and energy spent are also
included. The Florida State Postsecondary Planning Commission (1995) defined costs in a
variety of ways and only sometimes included indirect costs as part of their definition. Benefits
could potentially affect up to three groups: students, departments, and the institution. The
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 70
commission recommended that institutions seeking accreditation balance the direct and indirect
costs of accreditation with the potential benefits to each group before deciding to pursue it.
As a result of the concerns of the higher education community and the research on costs,
both NACIQI and the American Council of Education (ACE)published reports in 2012. These
reports call for a cost-benefit analysis of the accreditation process in an attempt to reduce
excessive and unnecessary costs. NACIQI recommends that data gathering be responsive to
standardized expectations and that it would only seek out information that is useful and that
cannot be found elsewhere (NACIQI Final, 2012, p. 7). The ACE task force calls for an
evaluation of required protocols such as the self-study, the extent and frequency of on-site visits,
expanded opportunities for the use of technology, greater reliance on existing data, and the
evaluation of potential duplication of requirements imposed by different agencies and the federal
government (ACE, 2012, pp. 26-27).The cost of accreditation can be defined in many ways,
including both time and money. Schermerhorn, Reisch, and Griffith (1980) indicated that the
time commitment required by institutions to prepare for accreditation was one of the most
significant barriers of the entire process.
Due to the limited amount of research in the area on the cost-benefit analysis of the
process, Woolston (2012) distributed a survey to the primary regional accreditation liaison
officer (ALO) at all baccalaureate-granting regionally accredited institutions in the United States.
The survey targeted four primary areas: demographic information, direct costs, indirect costs,
and an open-ended section allowing for possible explanation for the costs. Results showed that
one of the most complicated things is to determine the monetary value of the time associated
with going through the accreditation process. Through analysis of the open-ended response
questions, ALOs indicated that two of the biggest benefits of going through accreditation were
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 71
self-evaluation and university improvement. There were other themes that emerged, such as
campus unity, outside review, ability to offer federal financial aid, reputation, sharing best
practices, celebration, and fear associated with not being accredited. While it was agreed that
costs are significant and excessive, many ALOs believe that the costs are justified and that the
benefits of accreditation outweigh both the direct and indirect costs.
Critical Assessment of Accreditation
Accreditation, it seems, evolved from simpler days of semi-informal peer assessment into
a burgeoning industry of detailed analysis, student learning outcomes assessment, quality and
performance review, financial analysis, public attention, and all-around institutional scrutiny
(Bloland, 2001; Burke & Minassians, 2002; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Zis, Boeke, &
Ewell, 2010). Public scrutiny of institutions to establish their worth, their contribution to student
learning, and a progressively regulated demand for institutional proof of success shown by
evidence and assessment changed accreditation and created a vacuum of knowledge about how
accreditation is truly working in practice (Commission on the Future of Higher Ed, 2006;
Dougherty, Hare, and Natow, 2009; Leef and Burris, 2002). WASC-ACCJC’s recent history
demonstrated profound changes in practices (e.g., updated standards for accreditation and a
rising rate of institutional sanctions) and the need for more information concerning the
relationship of accreditation to institutional data (Baker, 2002). Initial data collection found that
55% of all California community colleges have been sanctioned once since 2002 (Moltz, 2010).
Measures of inputs, outputs, local control versus governmental review, performance
funding versus institutional choice, rising demands, and institutional costs make a difficult task
of understanding trends and movement of regional accreditation in the United States, but
nevertheless have a great influence upon actual implementation of accreditation standards to
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 72
real-world institutions (Leef & Burris, 2002). There have been calls for increased public
transparency of accreditation findings and actions, including full publication of reports by the
commission and by the institutions in question. For example, some institutions are sanctioned for
deficiencies and may be given a detailed list of reporting deadlines to show compliance and
ongoing quality review for those areas noted to be lacking. Some correspondence between
accreditation commissions and the institutions are public, whereas others are private. Therefore,
this semi-public nature to accreditation is a point of contention in the literature on accountability
and assessment (Eaton, 2010; Ikenberry, 2009; Kuh, 2010).
WASC-ACCJC has been at the center of controversies during the past ten years due to its
enlarged emphasis upon student learning outcomes compliance (WASC, 2002; WASC-ACCJC
2011). There is much debate on whether student learning outcomes are the best measure and
appropriate to education, and whether they violate the purview of faculty members, or are truly
in the best interest of students, best practices and learning (Eaton, 2010).
Accreditation evoked emotional opposition since its inception and much was expressed in
very colorful language. Accreditation is accused of “[benefitting] the small, weak, and
uncertain” (Barzun, 1993, p. 60). It is a “pseudo-evaluative process, set up to give the appearance
of self-regulation without having to suffer the inconvenience” (Scriven, 2000, p. 272). It is a
“grossly unprofessional evaluation” (p. 271), and “it is scarcely surprising that in large areas of
accreditation, the track record on enforcement is a farce” (p. 272). Accreditors “[make] the
accreditation process a high-wire act for schools” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni,
2007, p. 12). The system of accreditation is “structured in such a way as to subordinate the
welfare of the educational institution as an entity and of the general public to the interest of
groups representing limited institutional or professional concerns” (American Medical
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 73
Association, 1971, p. F-3). It was stated that “accreditation standards have already fallen to the
lowest common denominator” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007, p. 16), and
accreditation is responsible for the “homogenization of education” and the “perseverance in the
status quo” (Finkin, 1973, p. 369). “It is an impossible game with artificial counters” which
ignores the student (Learned & Wood, 1938, p. 69). It is “a crazy-quilt of activities, processes
and structures that is fragmented, arcane, more historical than logical, and has outlived its
usefulness” (Dickeson, 2006, p. 1). It “seeks not only to compare apples with grapes, but both
with camels and cods” (Wriston, 1960, p. 329). “As a mechanism for the assurance of quality,
the private voluntary accreditation agencies are a failure” (Gruson, Levine, & Lustberg, 1979, p.
6). It is “to be tolerated only as a necessary evil” (Blauch, 1959, p. 23). “While failing to protect
the taxpayer and the consumer from being ripped off by irresponsible institutions, it has also
quashed educational diversity and reform” (Finn, 1975, p. 26). At the same time (and according
to the same author) it constitutes a system of “sturdy walls and deep moats around... academic
city-states” (Carey, 2009, para. 28), and it is a “tissue-thin layer of regulation” (Carey, 2010, p.
166). “The word ‘accreditation’ is so misunderstood and so abused that it should be abandoned,”
(Kells, 1976). According to Gillen, Bennett, and Vedder (2010), “the inmates are running the
asylum” (p. i).
The renewal of the Higher Education Act in 1992 came during a time of heightened
government concern over increasing defaults in student loans. Again concerned about the lack of
accountability demonstrated by accreditation, this legislation established a new institution: the
State Postsecondary Review Entity (Ewell, 2008). The creation of these agencies was intended to
shift the review of institutions for federal aid eligibility purposes from regional accreditors to
state governments. This direct threat to accreditation led to the dissolution of the COPA and the
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 74
proactive involvement of the higher education community resulting in the creation of the CHEA.
It was the issue of cost that ultimately led to the abandonment of the State Postsecondary Review
Entity when legislation failed to provide funding for the initiative (Ewell, 2008). Governmental
concern did not dissipate however, and in 2006 the USDE released a report from the Spellings
Commission criticizing accreditation for being both ineffective and a barrier to innovation
(Eaton, 2012b; Ewell, 2008).
Other concerns are evident. It is problematic that accreditation is considered a chore to
be accomplished as quickly and painlessly as possible rather than an opportunity for genuine
self-reflection for improvement, and institutional self-assessment is ineffectual when there is
faculty resistance and a lack of administrative incentive (Bardo, 2009; Commission on Regional
Accrediting Commissions, n.d.; Driscoll & De Norriega, 2006; Rhodes, 2012; Smith & Finney,
2008; Wergin, 2012). One of the greatest stresses on accreditation is the tension between
assessment for the purpose of improvement and assessment for the purpose of accountability,
two concepts that operate in irresolvable conflict with each other (American Association for
Higher Education, 1997; Burke & Associates, 2005; Chernay, 1990; Ewell, 1984; Ewell, 2008;
Harvey, 2004; NACIQI, 2012; Provezis, 2010; Uehling, 1987b), although some argue that the
two can be effectively coordinated for significant positive results (Brittingham, 2012; El-
Khawas, 2001; Jackson, Davis, & Jackson, 2010; Walker, 2010; Westerheijden, Stensaker, &
Rosa, 2007; Wolff, 1990). Another concern involves the way that being held to external
standards undermines institutional autonomy, which is a primary source of strength in the
American higher education system (Ewell, 1984).
The Spellings Commission’s report detailed a new interest from the USDE in critiquing
the status quo of regional accreditation commissions (Commission on the Future of Higher
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 75
Education, 2006). Ewell (2008) describes the report as a scathing rebuke of inability of regional
accreditors to innovate and a hindrance to quality improvement. Others have called for an
outright “end…. to the accreditation monopoly” (Neal, 2008). There have been increasing calls
within the last several years to reform or altogether replace accreditation, as it is currently known
(American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 2007; Gillen, Bennett, & Vedder, 2010; Neal,
2008). The American Council on Education (2012) recently convened a task force of national
leaders in accreditation to explore the adequacy of current practices. They recognized the
difficulty of reaching a consensus on many issues but recommended strengthening and
reinforcing the role of self-regulation in improving academic excellence. The Spellings
Commission’s report signaled federal interest in setting the stage for new accountability
measures of higher education, raising the worst fears of some defenders of a more autonomous,
peer-regulated industry (Eaton, 2003). Accreditation’s emphasis on value and the enhancement
of individual institutions with regional standards was pressed to achieve accountability roles for
the entire sector of U.S. higher education (Brittingham, 2008).
Accreditation in higher education is at a crossroads. Since the 2006 Spellings Report
called for more government oversight of accreditation to ensure public accountability, the
government and critics began to scrutinize a system that had been nongovernmental and
autonomous for several decades (Eaton, 2012). The U.S. Congress is currently in the process of
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, and it is expected to address accreditation head-on. All
the while, CHEA and other accreditation supporters have been attempting to convince Congress,
the academy, and the public at large of the current and future relevance of accreditation in
quality higher education.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 76
In anticipation of the reauthorization, NACIQI has the charge of providing the U.S.
Secretary of Education with recommendations on recognition, accreditation, and student aid
eligibility (NACIQI, 2012). The committee advised that accrediting bodies should continue their
gatekeeping role for student aid eligibility, but also recommended some changes to the
accreditation process. These changes included more communication and collaboration among
accreditors, states, and the federal government to avoid overlapping responsibilities; moving
away from regional accreditation and toward sector or mission-focused accreditation, creating an
expedited review process and developing more gradations in accreditation decisions; developing
more cost-effective data collection and consistent definitions and metrics; and making
accreditation reports publically available (NACIQI, 2012).
However, two members of the committee did not agree with the recommendations and
submitted a motion to include the Alternative to the NACIQI Draft Final Report, which
suggested eliminating accreditor’s gatekeeping role; creating a simple, cost-effective system of
quality assurance that would revoke financial aid to campuses not financially secure; eliminating
the current accreditation process altogether as means of reducing institutional expenditures;
breaking the regional accreditation monopoly; and developing a user-friendly, expedited
alternative for the re-accreditation process (NACIQI, 2012). The motion did not pass, and the
alternative view was not included in NACIQI’s final report. As a result, Hank Brown, the
former U.S. Senator from Colorado and founding member of the American Council of Trustees
and Alumni, drafted a report seeking accreditation reform and reiterating the alternatives
suggested above, because accreditation had “failed to protect consumers and taxpayers”. (Brown,
2013, p. 1).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 77
The same year the final NACIQI report was released ACE’s’s Task Force on
Accreditation released its own report that identified challenges and potential solutions for
accreditation (ACE, 2012). The task force made six recommendations: (a) increase transparency
and communication, (b) increase the focus on student success and institutional quality, (c) take
immediate and noticeable action against failing institutions, (d) adopt a more expedited process
for institutions with a history of good performance, (e) create common definitions and a more
collaborative process between accreditors, and (f) increase cost-effectiveness (ACE, 2012). They
also suggested that higher education “address perceived deficiencies decisively and effectively,
not defensively or reluctantly”. (ACE, 2012, p. 8).
President Obama also recently spoke out regarding accountability and accreditation in
higher education. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to “change the
Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges
receive certain types of federal aid” (Obama, 2013a, para 39). The address was followed by The
President’s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America, which suggested achieving
the above change to the Higher Education Act “either by incorporating measures of value and
affordability into the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system
of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive
federal student aid based on performance and results” (Obama, 2013b, p. 5). Furthermore, in
August 2013, President Obama called for a performance-based rating system that would connect
institutional performance with financial aid distributions (Obama, 2013c). Though accreditation
was not specifically mentioned in his plan, it is not clear if the intention is to replace
accreditation with this new rating system or utilize both systems simultaneously (Eaton, 2013b).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 78
The president’s actions over the last year have CHEA and other supporters of
nongovernmental accreditation concerned. Calling it the “most fundamental challenge that
accreditation has confronted to date,” Eaton (2012, p. 9) expressed concern over the standardized
and increasingly regulatory nature of the federal government’s influence on accreditation.
Additionally, it is likely that if the U.S. government creates its own process for quality control,
the U.S. higher education system is in trouble, like the government-controlled, Chinese higher
education system.
Alternatives to Accreditation
As the role of accreditation has been thrust into the public spotlight, it is important to
review the alternatives to the current system that have been proposed in previous years.
Generally speaking, past alternatives to accreditation revolved around the common theme of
increased government involvement (either at the state or federal government level). To illustrate
this notion, Orlans (1975) described the development, at the national level, of a Committee for
Identifying Useful Postsecondary Schools that would allow for accrediting agencies to focus on a
wider range of schools. This committee was part of Orlan’s greater overall idea that there be an
increase in the amount of competition among accrediting agencies in order to further the
advancement of education (Orlans, 1975). Trivett (1976) demonstrated that there was a triangular
relationship between accrediting agencies, state governments, and federal governments. Trivett
said:
In its ideal form, the states establish minimum legal and fiscal standards, compliance with
which signifies that the institutions can enable a student to accomplish his objectives
because the institution has the means to accomplish what it claims it will do. Federal
regulations are primarily administrative in nature. Accrediting agencies provide depth to
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 79
the evaluation process in a manner not present in either the state or federal government’s
evaluation of an institution by certifying academic standards. (p. 7)
Trivett’s statement speaks to the ever-present relationship between accreditation agencies, state
governments, and federal governments.
Harcleroad (1976; 1980) identified six different methods for accreditation; three vouched
for an expansion of responsibility for state agencies, one called for an expansion of federal
government responsibility, and the remaining two asked for a modification of the present system
(by increasing staff members or auditors) or keeping the present system in place. Harcleroad
(1980) wrote that:
A combination of the second (present system with modifications) and third options
(increased state agency responsibility without regional and national associations) seems
the most likely plan for the near future. This possibility will become even more viable if
both regional and national associations continue refinements in their process and increase
the objectivity of an admittedly subjective activity. (p. 46)
These methods proposed by Harcleroad clearly demonstrate a preference for increased state
government involvement within the accreditation process. Harcleroad (1976) also spoke of the
use of educational auditing and accountability as an internal review to increase both external
accountability and internal quality. This concept is modeled after the auditing system developed
by the Securities and Exchange Commission that was used to accredit financial organizations
(Harcleroad, 1976).
Another example of internal and external audits was demonstrated by the proposals in the
essay produced by three scholars (Graham, Lyman, and Trow, 1995). The essay (also known as
the Mellon report) was the result of a grant funding the study of accountability of higher
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 80
education institutions to their three major constituencies: students, government, and the public
(Bloland, 2001). This essay emphasized the notion that accountability has both an internal and
external aspect and the authors suggested that institutions conduct internal reviews (primarily
within their teaching and research units) every 5 to 10 years (Bloland, 2001). Once this internal
review was completed, an external review would be conducted in the form of an audit on the
procedures of the internal review (Bloland, 2001). Specifically, this external audit would be
conducted by regional accrediting agencies while institutional accrediting agencies were
encouraged to pay close attention to the internal processes in order to determine if the can learn
and address its weaknesses (Bloland, 2001). These concepts surrounding auditing were later
explored by other authors and, most recently, were linked to discussions regarding the future of
higher education accreditation (Bernhard, 2011; Burke & Associates, 2005; Dill, Massy,
Williams, & Cook, 1996; Ewell, 2012; Ikenberry, 2009; WASC, 1998; Wolff, 2005).
In examining alternatives to accreditation, it is important to note the alternative programs
established by regional accreditors as enhancements to current accreditation processes. For
example, the HLC established, in 2000, an alternative assessment for institutions that were
already accredited: the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). According to Spangehl
(2012), this process instilled the notion of continuous quality improvement through the processes
that would ultimately provide evidence for accreditation. An example of AQIP offering
continuous improvement for higher educational institutions is its encouragement of institutions to
implement the use of various categories (i.e., the Helping Students Learn, category allows for
institutions to continuously monitor their ongoing program and curricular design) to stimulate
organizational improvement (Spangehl, 2012).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 81
Another example of an alternative program is the use of the Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP) by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (Jackson et al., 2010; Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, 2007). QEP was adopted in 2001 and defined as an
additional accreditation requirement that would help guide institutions to produce measurable
improvement in the areas of student learning (Jackson et al., 2010). A few common themes of
student learning utilized by institutions (through the use of QEP) are student engagement,
critical thinking, and promoting international tolerance (Jackson et al., 2010).
This section offered a glimpse into the alternatives to accreditation proposed and
implemented in the past. It is important to note that, while accreditation is criticized, the general
thought is that it is a critical piece of academia and vital to accomplishing the goal of
institutional quality assurance and accountability (Bloland, 2001).
Current and Future State of Accreditation
In anticipation of the reauthorization, NACIQI was charged with providing the U.S.
Secretary of Education with recommendations on recognition, accreditation, and student aid
eligibility (NACIQI, 2012). The committee advised that accrediting bodies should continue their
gatekeeping role for student aid eligibility, but also recommended some changes to the
accreditation process. These changes included more communication and collaboration between
accreditors, states, and the federal government to avoid overlapping responsibilities; moving
away from regional accreditation and toward sector or mission-focused accreditation, creating an
expedited review process and developing more gradations in accreditation decisions; developing
more cost-effective data collection and consistent definitions and metrics; and making
accreditation reports publicly available (NACIQI, 2012).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 82
However, two members of the committee did not agree with the recommendations and
submitted a motion to include the Alternative to the NACIQI Draft Final Report, which
suggested eliminating accreditor’s gatekeeping role; creating a simple, cost-effective system of
quality assurance that would revoke financial aid to campuses not financially secure; eliminating
the current accreditation process altogether as means of reducing institutional expenditures;
breaking the regional accreditation monopoly; and developing a user-friendly, expedited
alternative for the re-accreditation process (NACIQI, 2012). The motion failed to pass, and the
alternative view was not included in NACIQI’s final report. As a result, Hank Brown, the former
U.S. Senator from Colorado and founding member of the American Council of Trustees and
Alumni, drafted a report seeking accreditation reform and reiterating the alternatives suggested
above, because accreditation had “failed to protect consumers and taxpayers.” (Brown, 2013, p.
1).
The same year the final NACIQI report was released, ACE’s Task Force on Accreditation
released its own report that identified challenges and potential solutions for accreditation (ACE,
2012). The task force made six recommendations: increase transparency and communication,
increase the focus on student success and institutional quality, take immediate and noticeable
action against failing institutions, adopt a more expedited process for institutions with a history
of good performance, create common definitions and a more collaborative process between
accreditors, and increase cost-effectiveness (ACE, 2012). They also suggested that higher
education “address perceived deficiencies decisively and effectively, not defensively or
reluctantly.” (ACE, 2012, p. 8).
President Obama has also recently spoken out regarding accountability and accreditation
in higher education. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to “change
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 83
the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which
colleges receive certain types of federal aid” (Obama, 2013a, para 39). The address was
followed by The President’ s Plan for a Strong Middle Class and a Strong America, which
suggested achieving the above change to the HEA “either by incorporating measures of value
and affordability into the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative
system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to
receive federal student aid based on performance and results.” (Obama, 2013b, p. 5).
Furthermore, in August 2013, President Obama called for a performance-based rating system that
would connect institutional performance with financial aid distributions (Obama, 2013c).
Though accreditation was not specifically mentioned in his plan, it is not clear if the intention is
to replace accreditation with this new rating system or utilize both systems simultaneously
(Eaton, 2013b).
The president’s actions over the last year have CHEA and other supporters of
nongovernmental accreditation concerned. Calling it the “most fundamental challenge that
accreditation has confronted to date,” Eaton (2012) has expressed concern over the standardized
and increasingly regulatory nature of the federal government’s influence on accreditation. Astin
(2014) also stated that if the U.S. government creates its own process for quality control, the U.S.
higher education system is “in for big trouble” (para. 9), like the government-controlled, Chinese
higher education system.
Though many agree there will be an inevitable increase in federal oversight after the
reauthorization of the HEA, supporters of the accreditation process have offered
recommendations for minimizing the effect. Gaston (2014) provides six categories of
suggestions, which include stages for implementation: consensus and alignment, credibility,
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 84
efficiency, agility and creativity, decisiveness and transparency, and a shared vision. The
categories maintain the aspects of accreditation that have worked well and that are strived for
around the world–nongovernmental, peer review–as well as addressing the areas receiving the
most criticism. Eaton (2013a) adds that accreditors and institutions must push for streamlining
of the federal review of accreditors as a means to reduce federal oversight; better communicate
the accomplishments of accreditation and how quality peer review benefits students; and
anticipate any further actions the federal government may take.
While the HEA undergoes the process of reauthorization, the future of accreditation
remains uncertain. There have been many reports and opinion pieces on how accreditation
should change and/or remain the same, much of them with overlapping themes. Only time will
tell if the accreditors, states, and the federal government reach an acceptable and functional
common ground that ensures the quality of U.S. higher education into the future.
International Accreditation in Higher Education
The United States developed a unique accreditation process (Brittingham, 2009). The
most obvious difference between the U.S. and other countries is in the way education is
governed. In the U.S., education is governed at the state level, whereas ministries of education of
often govern the institutions in other nations (Ewell, 2008; Middaugh, 2012). Dill (2007)
outlined three traditional models of accreditation. These include “the European model of central
control of quality assurance by state educational ministries, the US model of decentralized
quality assurance combining limited state control with market competition, and the British model
in which the state essentially ceded responsibility for quality assurance to self-accrediting
universities” (p. 3). These models were used in some form by other nations in South America,
Africa, and Asia. Historically, direct government regulation (the European model) of higher
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 85
education is the most prevalent form of institutional oversight outside of the United States
(Dickeson, 2009).
Unfortunately, the low level of autonomy historically granted to postsecondary
institutions limited their ability to effectively compete against institutions in the United States
and other countries (Dewatripont, et al, 2010; Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006; Sursock & Smidt,
2010). Overall, European institutions “suffer from poor governance, are insufficiently
autonomous and offer often insufficient incentives to devote time to research,” (Dewatripont et
al., 2010, p. 3). Many European countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, have a
“very centralized” system of higher education (Van der Ploeg & Veugelers, 2008). In addition,
the level of governmental intervention inhibits European universities from innovating and
reacting quickly to changing demands (Van der Ploeg & Veugelers, 2008).
Institutions in Europe with low levels of autonomy have historically had little to no
control in areas including hiring faculty, managing budgets, and setting wages (Aghion et al.,
2008). Thus, it is difficult for universities with low autonomy to attract and retain the faculty
needed to compete for top spots in global ranking indices (Jacobs & Van der Ploeg, 2006;
Aghion et al., 2008; Dewatripont et al., 2010).
However, some European nations, including Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom conducted serious reform to their higher education systems. Not surprisingly,
universities with high autonomy in these countries have higher levels of research performance
compared to European countries with low levels of institutional autonomy (Dewatripont et al.,
2010). This sentiment is echoed by Aghion et al. (2008), who argue research performance (which
has an impact on academic prestige and rankings) is negatively impacted by less institutional
autonomy.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 86
While research on accreditation’s direct impact on student learning outcomes is sparse,
Jacobs and Van der Ploeg (2006) argue the European system of greater regulation has some
benefits. They concluded that institutions in continental Europe had better access for students
with lower socioeconomic status, better outcomes in terms of student completion, and even
lower spending per student.
Internationalization of Accreditation
Due to globalization, there is an increased focus on how to assure quality of standards in
higher education across nations. Assessment frameworks are initiated and modified to meet these
increased demands for accountability (World Bank, 2002). Recent studies tried to compare these
assessment trends across multiple countries.
Bernhard (2011) conducted a comparative analysis of such reforms in six countries
(Austria, Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada). Stensaker and
Harvey (2011) identified a growing trend that nations rely on forms of accreditation distinctly
different from the U.S. accreditation processes. Specifically, they identified the academic audit
as an increasingly used alternative in countries such as Australia and Hong Kong. Yung-chi Hou
(2014) examined challenges the Asia-Pacific region faces in implementing quality standards that
cross national boundaries.
Another outcome of globalization is the internationalization of the quality assurance
process itself. Rather than each nation setting its own assessment frameworks, international
accords are attempting to bridge academic quality issues between nations. Student mobility
across national borders has driven this need for “international mutual accreditation networks”
(Van Damme, 2000, p. 17). There are many loosely or unconnected initiatives that have formed
over the last decade.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 87
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) began
the discussion on guidelines for international best practices in higher education (UNESCO,
2005). The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education is a
network of quality assurance agencies aimed to help ensure cross-border quality assurance
measures. Public-policy-led initiatives in Europe include the establishment of the “European
Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in higher education (ESG) in the framework of
the Bologna Process” (Cremonini et al., 2012, p. 17). The CHEA International Quality Group
provides a forum to discuss quality assurance issues in an international context.
The U.S. system of accreditation served as a model for higher education assessment
worldwide. Nonetheless, there is considerable difference in how other nations govern quality
assurance. While internationalization of the higher education accreditation process will increase,
the precise frameworks used to achieve cross-national quality standards remains undetermined.
For the immediate future, nations continue to use their own frameworks for accreditation.
International accreditation processes may eventually supersede these existing frameworks, but
not anytime soon.
Student Loans in the United States
Student loans come in two forms to students, one from private sector, such as banks and
private lenders. The other from U.S. Government, such as federal loans: “Subsidized and
unsubsidized loans are federal student loans for eligible students to help cover the cost of higher
education at four-year college or university, community college, or trade, career, or technical
school.” (USDE, 2015d). Student loans have become increasingly important, especially among
recent cohorts of young adults in the United States (U.S.). The focus is on acquisition of human
capital in the form of education, while the repayment flexibility of these loans increases
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 88
enrollment significantly at colleges and universities (Walsemann, Gee, & Gentile, 2015; Ionescu,
2009). These loans provide access to postsecondary education for students, while the cost of
education has increased through tuition and fees, particularly at public and private four-year
colleges (Rothstein & Rouse, 2011). Ionescu (2009), found that, “while a large fraction of
college graduates choose to default on student loans, their life-cycle earnings are higher, on
average, than for non-defaulters”, through quantitative research on enrollment and default rates
with federal student loan programs. Furthermore, Ionescu (2009) research concluded that,
“relaxed eligibility requirements have little effect on enrollment and default rates”, in the process
of investing in human capital through college degree attainment.
Funding Higher Education with Student Loans
Federal Student Loans are student loans funded by the federal government. There are
two types of federal student loans: the Direct loan and Perkins loan. Federal student loans do not
have to be repaid until the student leaves school (graduates or drops to less than half-time
enrollment). The interest rate is fixed each year. Interest paid on federal student loans may be
tax deductible. There are many repayment plans including an option to tie the monthly payment
to the student's income and student can request temporary postponements on their payments if
they suffer economic hardship or return to school. Federal student loans also have forgiveness
programs depending on the student's occupation (Somers, Hollis, & Stokes, 2000; Avery &
Turner, 2012).
Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) is a federal student loan program that is only
available to students with demonstrated financial need. Funds for this program are distributed to
the awarding colleges or universities who then determine which students at their institution are
eligible for the loan (within certain federal guidelines). The amount awarded to each student is
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 89
dependent upon what the institution has available, but can never exceed more than $8,000 per
year per student. Perkins loans have a 5% interest rate, they are subsidized (no interest is
accrued while the student is in school) and the school is considered the lender so payments are
made to the school directly after the student graduates (or drops below half-time enrollment).
This loan has a ten-year repayment period and open to cancellation for teachers who serve in
certain school districts or teach certain subjects (USDE, 2015d).
Direct loan is a type of federal student loan. The USDE is the lender. There are four
types of Direct loan: The Direct Subsidized Loan (Subsidized loan), The Direct Unsubsidized
Loan (Unsubsidized loan), the Direct Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students Loan (PLUS), and
the Direct Consolidation Loan (Consolidation loan). Subsidized loan are a type of Direct loan
that is made to students who demonstrate financial need. Under this program, interest accrued
on the loan while the student is in school is paid by the federal government. Since July 1, 2012
these loans have only been available to undergraduate students. Graduate students who
borrowed after July 1st, 2012 are no longer eligible for this loan program. Unsubsidized loans
are a type of Direct loan that is made to any eligible student, financial need is not required to be
eligible for this loan. Interest accrues on this loan while the student is in school and that interest
is then added to the principle that the student borrowed when they leave school and are required
to repay the loan. After the student leaves school, they are charged interest on both the principle
and the interest that accrued while they were in school. Graduate students are eligible to borrow
up to $20,500 in this loan program each year. No payments are required on this loan until after
the student leaves school (however interest does accrue as noted above). This loan has a ten-year
repayment period (although that can be extended under certain repayment programs) (USDE,
2015e).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 90
The PLUS loan program was initially created for parents of undergraduate student to
borrow for their child while they were in school. The original name of the program was PLUS.
In 2006, Congress created the GRAD PLUS loan program which allowed graduate students to
borrow a PLUS loan that is similar to the original PLUS loan. Both of these loans are now
referred to as Direct PLUS Loans. Graduate students do not need to demonstrate financial need
to borrow a PLUS loan, however, they do have to pass a credit check and the interest rates are
higher than those of the Direct Unsubsidized Loan program. Like the Direct Unsubsidized Loan,
the PLUS loan accrues interest while the student is in school. The maximum amount that a
student can borrow in this loan program is capped by their cost of attendance. No payments are
required on this loan until after the student leaves school (however interest does accrue as noted
above). This loan has a ten-year repayment period (although that can be extended under certain
repayment programs) (USDE, 2015f).
Consolidation loan is a federal program that allows students to combine multiple federal
student loans into one loan. This is typically done after a student leaves school. The benefits are
that the student has one loan payment to make each month and their monthly payments may go
down because the payment period for the loan is 30 years. However because of the extended
payment period, the student may end up paying more in interest than they would with a shorter
payment period. If the loans being combined have special borrower benefits (such as interest
rate discounts or early cancellation terms), those will be lost when the loan is consolidated
(USDE, 2015g).
Student loans are funds that are borrowed and must be paid back with interest. Student
loans can come from two sources: the federal government and private lender. Private student
loans are student loans made by a lender such as a bank, credit union, state agency, school or
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 91
private organization. Many private student loans require payments while the student is in school.
Private student loans can have variable interest rates and often have significantly higher interest
rates than federal student loans. Private student loans are not subsidized; interest accrues while
the student is in school. Most private student loans require an established credit record on the
part of the student or a credit-worthy co-borrower. Often the interest rate of the loan is tied to the
borrower's credit-worthiness. The maximum amount that a student can borrow in this loan
program is capped by their cost of attendance. Interest on private student loans may not be tax
deductible and there may not be income-based repayment plans or the option to request a
postponement in payment due to economic hardship or returning to school (USDE, 2015h).
Articulation Agreements Among Institutions
Articulation Agreement can benefit students, participating institutions and employers by
creating pathways of learning (Reese, 2002; Fincher, Sharp, Burks, Lyon, Parker, Ward, Hall,
Wilson, & Washington, 2014; Jaeger, Dunstan, & Dixon 2015). The University of Southern
California (USC) established articulation agreements with California community colleges, where
students can preview transferable courses from community colleges to USC and states the
following: USC's current articulation agreements with California community colleges are
available by geographical region and by college name. Articulation Agreements list courses that
meet USC's general education categories and other core requirements, course equivalents, and all
transferable courses. Courses not listed in the agreement may be appropriate for transfer in some
instances (USC, 2015a).
Articulation agreements are formal agreements between two campuses. They define how
courses taken at one college or university campus can be used to satisfy a subject matter
requirement at another college or university campus. An articulation agreement can have several
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 92
advantages for the student. It matches coursework between schools and helps students make a
smooth transition from one institution to another by minimizing duplication of coursework. For
instance, if a community college has an articulation agreement with a four-year postsecondary
institution, then students taking appropriate courses at their community college can transfer those
credits. Some articulation agreements arrange for the accepting institution to accept the entire
associate’s degree without question (Fincher et. al., 2014; Krogh & Sherwood, 2002; Montague,
2012; Reese, 2002; USC, 2015b).
An articulation agreement is an officially approved agreement between two institutions,
which allows a student to apply credits earned in specific programs at one institution toward
advanced standing, entry or transfer into a specific program at the other institution. Articulation
Agreements are between institutions and do not require the student to make individual
arrangements. They are specific, formal, written agreements – agreed to and signed by both
colleges. They may be updated often, so checking the college websites and admissions offices is
important. Requirements can vary depending on the particular articulation agreement and can
sometimes go across state lines (Bers, 2013; Stern, 2015; Fincher et. al., 2014; USC, 2015b).
Individual students who wish to transfer credits from one institution to another, that do
not have articulation agreement with each other, can ask to have their transcripts evaluated by
transferred to institution, as it is always at the discretion of the accepting institution to accept the
transferring credits from other institutions. Institutions that have similar accrediting organization
with good-standing from the accrediting organization are usually open to accept credits earned at
other higher education institutions recognized by similar accrediting organization. There is no
guarantee that institutions with similar accrediting agencies (i.e., accreditors or accreditation
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 93
organizations) will accept the transferring credits of students from each other’s institutions
(Anderson, Sun, & Alfonso, 2006; Krogh & Sherwood, 2002; USC, 2015b).
Institutions governed under the same set standards, regulated by the same accrediting
agency, will be more welcoming of credits from each other’s institutions. Students, who look to
higher degrees, such as masters and doctor degrees, have to account for admissions requirements
that ask for particular earned degrees before admissions into masters and doctoral programs.
Thus, considering the earned degrees from institutions with particular institutional accreditation
from accrediting agencies, just as transfer credits are considered before granting acceptance of
credits from institutions with particular institutional/program accreditation (Ignash & Townsend,
2000; Mosholder & Zirkle 2007; Bers, 2013; USC, 2015c; & USC, 2015d).
Public, Private Non-profit and For-profit Postsecondary Accreditation
Public and private non-profit higher education institutions are generally regionally
accredited under the standards of the regional accreditation organizations. Private for-profit
higher education institutions are generally nationally accredited under the standards of the
national accreditation organizations. Long standing private for-profit higher education
institutions that have committed themselves in meeting education standards of regional
accreditation organizations through extensive ongoing process of self-study and evaluation have
been granted regional accreditation by regional accreditation organizations (CHEA, 2015a;
2015t)
Most regionally accredited postsecondary institutions in the Unites States (U.S.) have on-
ground campuses, while some of them are starting to offer courses online and hybrid courses or
blended learning that are both online and in class; very few are primarily online only, with the
exception of particular degree-granting programs offered exclusively online, nevertheless similar
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 94
to the degree-granting programs on campus (Ehrenberg, 2012). Traditionally, regionally
accredited postsecondary institutions have held courses exclusively on campus. Nationally
accredited career colleges also keep a strong on-ground foundation for their course offering and
student training programs. The growth of 21
st
century technology has enabled postsecondary
institutions that are nationally accredited through USDE and CHEA recognized national
accrediting organization of Distance Education and Training Council to offer courses exclusively
online as degree-granting institutions without the means for students to take courses in a physical
traditional building classroom environment (CHEA, 2015b). In academic year 2014-15 it is hard
to find regionally accredited institutions in the U.S. exclusively online, without the foundation of
an on-ground campus presence, while there are very few, like that of Western Governors
University that was founded in 1997 and offers one of the lowest tuition rate to students in
attaining their degrees exclusively online as a private non-profit institution (WGU, 2015).
For-Profit Proprietary Institutions
For-profit proprietary institutions or colleges, owned and operated as business ventures,
through individuals or corporate entities, are the fastest growing postsecondary schools in the
United States (U.S.) (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013; Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of
Education Statistics 2013; Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). These schools
combined have the highest default rates by students they provide service to and take more federal
financial aid afforded to their student-body through the Title IV Higher Education Act of the
U.S., all in the belief of increasing access to postsecondary education (Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2012, 2013). The for-profit education sector dates back to the 18
th
century in the form of “career
colleges” devoted to business programs and trades, but in the 21
st
century has further expended
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 95
their reach to students by offering bachelor's degree and graduate degree programs, matching that
off traditional higher education degree offerings (Chang, 2012; Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013).
The choice of for-profit colleges or universities by students is driven through the
principles of marketing with market focus and location in mind, enrolling disproportionately
high share of disadvantaged and minority students and those ill-prepared for college, while
focusing on new technologies providing online education as a means of achieving degrees in the
21
st
century with open enrollment throughout the year (Chang, 2012; Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2013; Cellini & Chaudhary, 2014; Iloh, 2014; Gilpin, Saunders, & Stoddard, 2015). Federal
regulations have been focused on adjusting for fraud at for-profit postsecondary institutions, with
misleading reporting and misguiding admissions practice (Beaver, 2012; Iloh & Tierney, 2013).
The for-profit education sector seems to value themselves as helping to provide for the highest
proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020 in the U.S., while students choice of for-
profit colleges or universities come out of their socioeconomic background directly related to
wanting a positive productive future, as a result of attending for-profit postsecondary institutions
(Beaver, 2012; Chung, 2012; Iloh & Tierney 2014).
Default Rates at For-Profit Proprietary Institutions
“Students from for-profit institutions have higher default rates on federal student loans
than students in other sectors. And the default rates of for-profit education sector have risen
substantially during the last five years.” (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012). Student loans cannot
be forgiven due to bankruptcy or other financial hardship (USDE, 2015i). As noted by Deming,
Goldin, and Katz (2012):
For-profit institutions receive a disproportionate share of federal Title IV student
financial aid both because they have higher tuition and fees than public institutions
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 96
and because they attract large numbers of students who are financially independent
or come from low-income families. For-profits accounted for 24 percent of Pell
grant disbursements and 26 percent of federal student loan disbursements in 2008–
09 even though they enrolled 12 percent of the students (authors’ tabulations from
the IPEDS and NSLDS). Half of undergraduates at for-profit schools received Pell
grants, as compared with 25 percent at public and private non-profit institutions
combined. (p. 151)
The for-profit postsecondary institutional default rate is 8.7 percentage points higher than
that for four-year public and non-profit postsecondary institutions. For-profit postsecondary
institutions students have a much higher default rates and account for 47 percent of the defaults
(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012). Default rates are only recorded on federal student loans by the
USDE and data are released to all institutions that participate in federal student loan programs
(USDE, 2015t): Accounting for the Federal Three-Year Official Cohort Default Rates calculated
by USDE for individual institutions with number (students) in repayment of their federal student
loans and number (students) in default of their federal student loans. Default means you failed to
make your payments on your student loan as scheduled according to the terms of your
promissory note, the binding legal document you signed at the time you took out the loan
(USDE, 2015i).
Belfield's (2012) study on student loan and repayment rates within for-profit colleges
indicated that, “students in the public system (colleges/universities) borrow the least, followed by
those in the not-for-profit colleges, and student in the for-profit system (colleges/universities)
borrow the most. Belfield (2012) furthermore highlights the gaps in default rates, stating that
there are substantial gaps across the public, not-for-profit, and for-profit sectors: “All for-profit
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 97
colleges, regardless of year span, have higher default rates than the other sectors.” Belfied
(2012) goes on to conclude that, “students at the for-profit colleges have higher balances and
slower repayment rates than students in other types of colleges.” Furthermore, Belfied's (2012)
study shows that, “poorer loan status in the for-profit sector is especially concentrated primarily
in less than two and 2-year colleges; much of the sector difference in the 4-year group are
attributable to the academic ability of students on the entry to college.”
Federal regulation of the for-profit education sector is to ensure that taxpayer money
distributed to for-profit postsecondary institutions through Title IV federal funding are spent
wisely. “The 90/10 rule tries to ensure that for-profit institutions are no more than 90 percent
dependent on the Title IV federal student aid as a share of their total revenues.” The primary
source of funding, thus the lifeblood of for-profit higher education in the United States (U.S.)
comes from federal student financial aid program. “The cohort default rate is defined as the
share of borrowers at each school who enter into repayment on federal loans during a twelve-
month period and subsequently default in the next two or three years. Institutions with a two-
year cohort default rate that exceeds 40 percent in one year, or 25 percent for three consecutive
years, lose their eligibility for Title IV aid for one to three years.” (Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2013).
Deming, Goldin, and Katz (2013) conclude their overview of the for-profit education
sector by highlighting,
Relatively poor performance in terms of completion rates, default rates, and labor
market outcomes of those attending for-profit among seekers of bachelor's degrees
is troubling because the sector seems to be heading in that direction. Large
national chain for-profit have a relatively greater share of their enrollment in
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 98
bachelor's degree programs than other for-profits, and among all for-profits, the
rate of growth in enrollments and degrees awarded in bachelor's and advanced
degree programs has been much greater than that for associate's degree and
certificate programs. (p. 158)
Growth of Postsecondary Institutions
In academic year 2012-13 there were 4,726 (3,026 four-year and 1,700 two-year) degree-
granting postsecondary institutions and 2,527 non-degree-granting institutions offering
postsecondary education in the U.S. Out of the degree-granting postsecondary institutions 1,623
were public and 3,103 were private (1,652 private non-profit and 1,451 private for-profit)
degree-granting institutions. From non-degree-granting institutions in academic year 2012-13
there were 358 public and 2,169 private (168 private non-profit and 2,001 private for-profit) non-
degree-granting institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education Statistics 2013).
In contrast, in academic year 1949-50 there was 1,851 degree-granting postsecondary
institutions in the U.S. Every added decade since has seen an increase in the number of degree-
granting postsecondary institutions. In academic year 1980-81 there were 3,231 (1,957 four-year
and 1,274 two-year) degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S. From the total
degree-granting postsecondary institutions in academic year 1980-81 1,497 were public (552
four-year and 945 two-year) institutions and 1,734 private (1,405 four-year and 329 two-year)
institutions, of which 1,569 were private non-profit (1,387 four-year and 182 two-year)
institutions and 165 were private for-profit (18 four-year and 147 two-year) degree-granting
postsecondary institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education Statistics 2013).
At the start of the 21
st
century in academic year 2000-01 there were 4,182 (2,450 four-
year and 1,732 two-year) degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S. From the total
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 99
degree-granting postsecondary institutions in academic year 2000-01 1,698 were public (622
four-year and 1,076 two-year) institutions and 2,484 private (1,828 four-year and 656 two-year)
institutions, of which 1,695 were private non-profit (1,551 four-year and 144 two-year) and 789
were private for-profit (277 four-year and 512 two-year) degree-granting postsecondary
institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education Statistics 2013).
The difference in growth from the start of the 21
st
century to academic year 2012-13 has
seen 544 additional degree-granting postsecondary institutions available for students to attend in
the U.S. However, within the increase of additional institutions were 75 less public and 619
more private degree-granting postsecondary institutions. The years from academic year 2000-01
to 2012-13 saw a decrease of 43 private non-profit institutions, while an increase in private for-
profit institutions by 662 additional degree-granting postsecondary institutions (Snyder &
Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education Statistics 2013).
Need for Higher Education
Every year millions of students embark on their higher education journey after their
secondary education experience and find themselves in institutions of higher education in the
United States (U.S.). In fall 2013 it was projected that 20.6 million students will be enrolled in
degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S., of which 16.7 million in public
institutions and 6.8 million in private institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education
Statistics 2013). Among the 120 largest degree-granting college and university campuses in fall
2012, a private for-profit institution ranked at the very top as having the highest total enrollment,
surpassing the next public non-profit institution by 156,130 enrollments, while having 182,030
more enrollment than private non-profit institution next on the list (Snyder & Dillow, 2015,
Digest of Education Statistics 2013). Associate's degrees, baccalaureate or higher degrees meet
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 100
the education requirement of many job openings and accepted by employers as creditable
degrees in the U.S. Among the top enrolled degree-granting institutions are institutions with the
strongest online presence and online offering to students within public, private, non-profit or for-
profit postsecondary institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2015, Digest of Education Statistics 2013;
Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014).
Persons 20 to 24 years old between year 2000 and 2013 without a bachelor's degree
experienced higher unemployment rate than the rate of unemployment of their peers with at least
a bachelor's degree (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 4, illustrates
the unemployment rate of persons 20 to 24 years old, by sex and educational attainment from
selected years of 2000 through 2013. As shown in Figure 5, in 2013 the unemployment rate for
young adults was 29.2 percent for those who did not complete high school, 17.5 percent for those
whose highest level of education was high school completion, and 12.2 percent for those with
some college education, compared with an unemployment rate of 7.0 percent for those with at
least a bachelor's degree. Moreover, this pattern of higher unemployment rate among less
educated persons were consistent for young adults (ages 20–24), 25 to 34 year olds, and 35 to 64
year olds. Figure 5, illustrates unemployment rates in 2013 by age group and educational
attainment.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 101

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2014-083)

Figure 4. Unemployment Rates 2000–2013

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 5. Unemployment Rates, By Age Group and Education Attainment: 2013
Monetary earning overtime for young adults ages 25–34 is directly related to education
attainment as the percentage of young adults working full-time, year-round was generally higher
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 102
for those with higher levels of educational attainment (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of
Education 2014). Figure 6, outlines that 73% of young adults with a bachelor's degree worked
full time, year-round in 2012, compared with 60%of young adults who earned only a high school
diploma or its equivalent. While highlighting the cap is increasing overtime as also illustrated in
Figure 6, from 1995 to 2012, that young adults ages 25–34 who worked full time, year-round are
more in demand with higher education degrees than does without higher education degrees.
Figure 7, further illustrates the earning outlook of young adults ages 25–34 who worked full
time, year-round, higher educational attainment was associated with higher median earnings; this
pattern was consistent for year 1995, 2000, 2002, and 2005 through 2012.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 6. Percentage of Young Adults Ages 25–34 Who Worked Full Time, Year Around by
Educational Attainment: 1995–2012
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 103

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 7. Median Annual Earnings of Full-Time Year-Round Wage and Salary Workers Ages
25-34, By Educational Attainment: 1995–2012
Access to Higher Education
The dream of achieving a postsecondary education degree starts at secondary schooling
and in particular high school, as the grades and course choices matter most in gaining acceptance
into top postsecondary institutions in the United States (Hill & Winston, 2010; Nurnberg,
Schapiro, & Zimmerman, 2012). In 2012-13, some 26 percent of four-year institutions had open
admission policies (accepted all applicants), 26 percent accepted three-quarters or more of their
applicants, 34 percent accepted one-half to less than three-quarters of their applicants, and 14
percent accepted less than half of their applicants. Some 39 percent of private for-profit four-
year institutions accepted more than half of their applicants, whereas 66 percent of public four-
year institutions and 67 percent of private non-profit four-year institutions did so (Kena et. al.,
2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 8, points to the application acceptance rate and
control of institution during the 2012-13 academic year, among four-year degree-granting
institutions, a higher percentage of private for-profit institutions (57 percent) than public (18
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 104
percent) and private non-profit institutions (14 percent) had open admission policies (no
application criteria).

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)
Figure 8. Four-Year Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates by Acceptance Rate and
Control of Institution: Academic Year 2012–13
In 2012–13, some 89 percent of two-year institutions had open admissions, 7 percent
accepted three-quarters or more of their applicants, 3 percent accepted one-half to less than
three-quarters of applicants, and 2 percent accepted less than half of their applicants. Almost all
public two-year institutions had open admissions (98 percent), while 82 percent of private for-
profit two-year and 52 percent of private non-profit two-year institutions had open admissions
(Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 9, illustrates the percentage
distribution of two-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates for academic
year 2012-13.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 105

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 9. Two-Year Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates by Application Acceptance
Rate And Control of Institutions: Academic Year 2012-13
In 2012–13, some 73 percent of four-year and 10 percent of two-year institutions had
admission criteria for their applicants. Admission criteria are requirements for all applicants to
an institution to submit specific information, such as secondary school administrative records,
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores, secondary school grades, admission
tests (such as the SAT or ACT), recommendations, and college preparatory programs (i.e.
International Baccalaureate). Among four-year institutions, 74 percent of public institutions had
a requirement for admission tests such as the SAT or ACT, compared with 63 percent of private
non-profit and 1 percent of private for-profit institutions. The percentage of four-year private
non-profit institutions (53 percent) that required recommendations for admission was higher than
the percentages for public (10 percent) and private for-profit four-year institutions (2 percent).
The percentages of four-year public and private non-profit institutions requiring TOEFL scores
(71 and 69 percent, respectively) were higher than the percentage for four-year private for-profit
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 106
institutions (34 percent). Among two-year institutions, 29 percent of private non-profit and 14
percent of private for-profit institutions had a requirement for secondary school records,
compared with 2 percent of public institutions. A small percentage of four-year (1 percent) and
two-year institutions (1 percent) had no admission requirements, only suggested admission
criteria (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 10, visually highlight the
percentage of four-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates by admission
requirements for academic year 2012-13.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)
Figure 10. Four-Year Degree-Granting Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates, By
Admission Requirements and Control of Institution: Academic Year 2012-13
Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions
The postsecondary institutions in the United States consist of public, private non-profit,
and private for-profit degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. In 2012–13, there
were 4,295 degree-granting institutions, including 2,609 four-year institutions offering programs
at the bachelor's or higher degree level and 1,686 2-year institutions offering associate's degrees
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 107
(Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 11, illustrates the growth of
private for-profit institutions between 2000-01 and 2012-13 academic year from 687 to 1,368,
thus nearly doubled since the start of the 21
st
century till 2012-13 academic year. Data from the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in enrollment of college as of October of 2012
for individuals ages 16 to 24 who completed high school during the preceding 12 months
highlight that 3,203,000 students completed high school in 2012 and of those students 66.2
percent enrolled in higher education with 28.8 percent in two-year college and 37.5 in four-year
college.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 11. Degree-Granting Institutions With First-Year Undergraduates, by Level and Control
of Institution: Academic Year 2000-01 and 2012-13
Characteristics of Postsecondary Students
In fall 2012, there were 17.7 million undergraduate students and 2.9 million post-
baccalaureate (graduate) students attending degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the
United States. Undergraduate students can attend either four-year institutions that award
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 108
bachelor’s or higher degrees or they can attend two-year institutions that award associate's
degrees and certificates and offer courses that may be creditable towards a bachelor's degree to
be earned at a four-year institution. Some 10.6 million undergraduate students (60 percent of the
total) attended four-year institutions in fall 2012, while 7.2 million (40 percent of the total)
attended 2-year institutions (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014).
Figure 12, illustrates the percentage distribution of full-time undergraduate enrollment in
degree-granting two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. At public and private non-
profit four-year institutions in 2011, most of the full-time undergraduates (88 and 86 percent,
respectively) were young adults (i.e., under the age of 25). However, in 2011 just 29 percent of
full-time students were young adults at private for-profit four-year institutions (39 percent were
between the ages of 25 and 34, and 32 percent were age 35 and older). While, full-time students
at two-year institutions in 2011, young adults accounted for 71 percent of enrollment at public
institutions, 59 percent of enrollment at private non-profit institutions, and 47 percent of
enrollment at private for-profit institutions. Regarding the remaining age groups of full-time
students in 2011, at public two-year institutions 18 percent were between 25 and 34 years old,
and 11 percent were 35 and older; at private non-profit institutions 25 percent were between 25
and 34, and 16 percent were 35 and older; and at private for-profit institutions 31 percent were
between 25 and 34, and 21 percent were 35 and older.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 109

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 12. Percentage Distribution of Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting
Postsecondary Institutions, By Institutional Level and Control and Student Age: Fall 2011
Figure 13, illustrates the percentage distribution of part-time undergraduate enrollment in
degree-granting two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions. Undergraduate students
enrolled part-time in four-year institutions in 2011, young adults made up half of the enrollment
at public institutions, 32 percent of the enrollment at private non-profit institutions, and 21
percent of the enrollment at private for-profit institutions. Students ages 25–34 and 35 and older
accounted for the other half of the part-time enrollment at public four-year institutions (29 and
21 percent, respectively), two-thirds of the part-time enrollment at private non-profit four-year
institutions (30 and 36 percent, respectively), and over three-quarters of the part-time enrollment
at private for-profit four-year institutions (39 percent each). At public two-year institutions in
2011, some 52 percent of part-time students were young adults, while 25 percent were between
the ages of 25 and 34, and 23 percent were 35 and older. At private non-profit two-year
institutions, some 40 percent of part-time students were young adults, 32 percent were between
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 110
the ages of 25 and 34, and 27 percent were 35 and older. At private for-profit two-year
institutions, 39 percent of part-time students were young adults, 35 percent were between the
ages of 25 and 34, and 26 percent were age 35 and older.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 13. Part-Time Undergraduates by Institutional Level, Control and Student Age: Fall 2011
Characteristics of Undergraduate Degree Attainment
In 2011–12, some 1 million associate's degrees were awarded by postsecondary
institutions, an increase of 8 percent since the previous year. In 2011–12, some 1.8 million
bachelor's degrees were awarded by postsecondary institutions, an increase of 4 percent from
2010–11. Overall, the number of associate's degrees awarded increased by 422,400 degrees, or
71 percent, from academic year 2001–02 to 2011–12. The number of bachelor's degrees
awarded increased by 499,100 degrees from academic year 2001–02 to 2011–12, reflecting an
increase of 39 percent (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014).
Figure 14, highlight the number of associate's degrees awarded by Title IV postsecondary
institutions in selected fields of study. From 2001-02 to 2011-12 degrees awarded for liberal arts
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 111
and sciences increased by 62 percent, from 207,200 to 336,600. Health profession degrees
conferred increased by 165 percent, from 82,400 to 218,000, and business degrees awarded
increased by 41 percent, from 86,700 to 122,000.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 14. Associate's Degrees: Academic Years 2001-02, 2006-07, 2010-11, and 2011-12
Figure 15, highlight the number of bachelor's degrees awarded by Title IV postsecondary
institutions in selected fields of study. From 2001-02 to 2011-12 the two fields of study
awarding the largest percentages of bachelor's degrees, business and social sciences and history,
had increases of 32 percent and 34 percent, respectively. Of the twenty major fields of study in
which the most bachelor's degrees were awarded in 2011–12, the largest percentage increases
occurred in the fields of health professions and related programs (from 72,900 to 163,400
degrees, an increase of 124 percent), and homeland security, law enforcement, and firefighting
(from 25,500 to 53,800 degrees, an increase of 111 percent). The number of psychology degrees
awarded between 2001–02 and 2011–12 increased by 42 percent, from 76,800 to 109,000.
However, the number of degrees conferred declined in computer and information sciences and
support services from 2001–02 to 2011–12 (from 50,400 to 47,400 degrees, a decrease of 6
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 112
percent). The number of bachelor degrees awarded in the field of education in 2011–12
(105,800) was about the same as the number awarded in 2001–02 (106,300).

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 15. Bachelor's Degrees Awarded by Title IV Institutions
Characteristics of Graduate Degree Attainment
The number of master's degrees awarded increased by 266,900 between academic years
2001–02 and 2011–12, reflecting an increase of 55 percent. The number of doctor's degrees
awarded increased by 50,400 between academic years 2001–02 and 2011–12, reflecting an
increase of 42 percent (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 16,
illustrates the number of master's degrees awarded by Title IV postsecondary institutions in
selected fields of study. From 2001-02 to 2011-12 the two fields of study awarding the largest
percentages of master's degrees, business and education, had increases in degrees awarded of 60
percent and 32 percent, respectively; although, education degrees awarded decreased by 4
percent between 2010–12 and 2011–12. In each of the twenty major fields awarding the largest
percentages of master's degrees in 2011–12, the number awarded was higher than the number
awarded a decade earlier.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 113

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 16. Master's Degrees Awarded by Title IV institutions
Figure 17, illustrates the number of doctor's degrees awarded by Title IV postsecondary
institutions in selected fields of study. From 2001-02 to 2011-12 the two fields of study
awarding the largest percentages of doctor's degrees, health professions and related programs and
legal professions and studies, had increases in degrees awarded of 57 percent and 20 percent,
respectively. In each of the twenty major fields of study awarding the largest percentages of
doctor's degrees in 2011–12, the number awarded was higher than the number awarded a decade
earlier.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 114

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 17. Doctorates Awarded by Title IV Institutions
Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution
In academic year 2012–13, the total cost of attendance differed by institution level and
control and by student living arrangements. At four-year institutions, the average total cost of
attendance for first-time, full-time students living on campus and paying in-state tuition was
$21,680 at public institutions, $42,960 at private non-profit institutions, and $30,190 at private
for-profit institutions. At two-year institutions, the average total cost of attendance for first-time,
full-time students living on campus and paying in-state tuition was $13,280 at public institutions,
$27,480 at private non-profit institutions, and $28,250 at private for-profit institutions. Many
students and their families do not pay the full price of attendance because they receive financial
aid or grants to help cover their expenses. The net price is the estimate of the actual amount of
money that students and their families need to pay in a given year to cover educational expenses.
(Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014).
The highest amount of grant and scholarship aid from all sources in academic year 2011-
12 was received by private non-profit four-year institutions, followed by public four-year
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 115
institutions and last by private for-profit four-year institutions. Thus, leaving students without
grants and scholarship aid to look at loans, such that of federal government student loans or
private student loans in order to finance their education. The average amount of grant aid
received and net price paid differs by family income level. In general, the lower the income, the
greater the total amount of grant aid received (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education
2014).
In addition to loans originated by the federal government, students can obtain private
student loans from financial institutions, non-profit lenders, and certain schools that elect to fund
or guarantee loans. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Quarterly Report on
Household Debt and Credit, total student loan debt, across all age groups, stood at nearly $1
trillion ($956 billion) in the fall of 2012. By comparison, in fall 2003, total student loan debt
outstanding was $304 billion (in constant 2011 dollars), meaning that it has more than tripled in
the last 9 years. Further, student loan debt is the only form of consumer debt that has grown
since the peak of consumer debt in 2008, and balances of student loans have eclipsed both auto
loans and credit cards, making student loan debt the largest form of consumer debt outside of
mortgages (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 18, draws the point of
total outstanding student loan debt held by consumers.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 116

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 18. Outstanding Student Loan Debt in Constant 2011 Dollars
Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates
The more selective the institution and higher the retention rate of students attending two-
year and four-year at degree-granting public, private non-profit or private for-profit institutions
(Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 19, illustrate the differences in
six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree
in fall 2006 varied according to institutions’ level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates
were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had
the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that
were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For example, at four-year
institutions with open admissions policies, 33 percent of students completed a bachelor’s degree
within six years. At four-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of
applicants, the six-year graduation rate was 86 percent.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 117

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 19. Six-Year Completion Rates
Figure 20, illustrates from first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking
a bachelor’s degree at a four-year degree-granting institution in fall 2006, the six-year graduation
rate was 57 percent at public institutions, 66 percent at private non-profit institutions, and 32
percent at private for-profit institutions. The six-year graduation rate was 56 percent for males
and 61 percent for females; it was higher for females than for males at both public (60 vs. 54
percent) and private non-profit institutions (68 vs. 63 percent). However, at private for-profit
institutions males had a higher graduation rate than females (35 vs. 28 percent).

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 118

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 20. Six-Year Bachelor's Degree Completion by Control of Institution and Sex
Figure 21 illustrates at two-year degree-granting institutions, 31 percent of first-time, full-
time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a certificate or associate’s degree in fall
2009 attained it within 150 percent of the normal time required to do so. An example of
completing a credential within 150 percent of the normal time required to do so is taking three
years for a two-year degree. This graduation rate was 20 percent at public two-year institutions,
62 percent at private non-profit two-year institutions, and 63 percent at private for-profit two-
year institutions. At two-year institutions overall, as well as at each type of two-year institution,
the completion rate was higher for females than for males. At private non-profit two-year
institutions, for example, 67 percent of females versus 54 percent of males completed a
certificate or associate’s degree within 150 percent of the normal time required.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 119

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 21. Credential Completion within 150% of Normal Time by Control of Institution and
Sex
Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions
From academic year 2000–01 to 2011–12, the total number of postsecondary degrees
conferred by public, private non-profit, and private for-profit institutions increased for each level
of degree. For all Title IV institutions, the total number of certificates awarded increased by 79
percent, associate's degrees increased by 76 percent, bachelor's degrees increased by 44 percent,
master's degrees increased by 59 percent, and doctor's degrees increased by 42 percent from
2000–01 to 2011–12. For all postsecondary degree levels, the percentage increases from 2000–
01 to 2011–12 were smaller for public and private non-profit institutions than for private for-
profit institutions (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014).
Figure 22, illustrates the associate's degrees conferred by private for-profit institutions
increased from 13 percent in 2000–01 to 20 percent in 2011–12, while public and private non-
profit institutions decreased from 2000–01 to 2011–12 (from 79 to 74 percent and from 8 to 5
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 120
percent, respectively). The number of associate's degrees awarded from academic year 2000–01
to 2011–12 increased by 66 percent for public institutions from 456,000 to 756,000 degrees, by
19 percent for private non-profit institutions from 45,700 to 54,300 degrees, and by 170 percent
for private for-profit institutions from 76,700 to 207,000 degrees (Kena et. al., 2014, The
Condition of Education 2014).

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 22. Certificates and Associate's Degrees conferred by Title IV Postsecondary Institutions
From academic year 2000–01 to 2011–12, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded by
public institutions increased by 39 percent from 812,000 to 1.1 million degrees, the number
awarded by private non-profit institutions increased by 29 percent from 409,000 to 527,000
degrees, and the number awarded by private for-profit institutions increased by 476 percent from
23,000 to 133,000 degrees. Despite the gain made by private for-profit institutions, they
awarded 7 percent of all bachelor's degrees conferred in 2011–12, while public institutions
awarded 63 percent and private non-profit institutions awarded 29 percent. From 2010–11 to
2011–12, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded also increased across institutional controls:
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 121
by 16% for private for-profit institutions, by 4% for public institutions, and by 3% for private
non-profit institutions (Kena et. al., 2014, The Condition of Education 2014). Figure 23,
highlights the percentage of degrees conferred by Title IV postsecondary institutions during
academic year 2000-01 and 2011-12, thus illustrating the percentage difference between
conferred bachelor 's, master's, and doctor's degrees in academic year 2000-01 and 2011-12.

Source: The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083)

Figure 23. Degrees Conferred by Title IV Institutions, 2000-2001 and 2011-2012
Goals of Accreditation
The accreditation process currently has four primary purposes. It is a quality assurance
mechanism. It is an instrument for institutional quality improvement. It enables and facilitates
student mobility, and it provides access to federal funding. Because of these uses, acquiring and
maintaining institutional accreditation is an absolute necessity for most institutions of higher
education.
The first purpose, quality assurance, was the concept behind the original ideas that
ultimately evolved into the current system of accreditation (Blauch, 1959; Newman, 1996;
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 122
Pfnister, 1971; Winskowski, 2012). The second purpose, quality enhancement, also figures
among its primary explicit purposes (Zook & Haggerty, 1936). The demonstration of accredited
status by an institution indicates to the public at large that the institution maintains a minimum
level of quality (Eaton, 2009), and when implemented as intended accreditation is a vehicle for
institutional improvement (Ewell, 2008).
Accreditation serves the purpose of enabling student mobility by facilitating the transfer
of credit between institutions (American Council on Education, 2012; Blauch, 1959; Eaton,
2009; Eaton, 2011a; Eaton, 2011b; NACIQI, 2012; Sibolski, 2012; Winskowski, 2012).
Accredited status indicates that the quality of instruction of one institution is similar in rigor to
that of another institution and therefore can be relied upon as being adequate to fulfill similar
curricular requirements, thus allowing students not to repeat previously completed courses. This
particular issue has become increasingly important in the last decade as college students in
general have become increasingly mobile, earning credit from multiple institutions before
completing a degree (Ewell, 2008). The public understands accreditation primarily as the means
by which the federal government determines institutional eligibility for federal fund distribution
via students.
Summary
The heart of the accreditation process is the devotion to delineated institutional standards
as a yardstick for attainment of minimum criteria for respected peer institutions. With Regional
accrediting organizations, national faith-related accrediting organizations, national career-related
accrediting organizations, and programmatic accrediting organizations as accrediting agencies—
with a role in the accreditation of institutions or programs at more than seven thousand
institutions containing close to twenty thousand programs, standards vary widely between
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 123
accreditation organizations (CHEA, 2014, 2015). Such diversity of standards is not surprising
considering the history of American higher education, in which the vast coterie of institutional
types delineated in the Carnegie designation came to be.
Accreditation began as a voluntary method of quality assurance, however because of the
way accreditation has adopted other functions over the course of its evolution (in particular in
adopting the role of determining eligibility for federal funding) it has become imperative for
institutions of higher education to acquire and maintain it. Upon high school graduation,
students need to know there exists a distinction among universities, colleges, and other
institutions. Harvard is a solid example of a university, which holds a significant distinction, as
their accreditation, is unique to their institution, but universally accepted. The quality of
curriculum delivery, management of areas, which require improvement for an instructor, and
student access to financial aid, are all components, which specific accreditations can deliver
before a student selects and applies to a university, college, or other higher learning institution.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 124
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Higher education has given great opportunity to people in their personal and professional
lives. Higher education is looked upon as an investment in the future (Baum, Kurose, &
McPherson, 2013; Haley-Lock, Berman, & Timberlake, 2013). This investment has a cost, and
students who seek higher education find resources in student loans if they do not otherwise have
the monetary support to pay for their degrees (Belfield, 2012; USDE, 2015b).
The demand for higher education has been increasing as employers increasingly look to
employ individuals with college degrees (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). However, the college degree
is not always the answer, since the value and quality of education from particular institutions
matter in the type of employee the employer may want to employ and retain. The training and
overall institutional education that the student gains have a factor in not only finding
employment, but also in retaining it (Richards, 1984; Roksa, 2005; Callanan & Benzing, 2004;
Saks, 2005).
There have been more students attending for-profit proprietary institutions in the past
decade than ever before. Students look for outlets in pursuing higher education and, with open
enrollment at for-profit proprietary, institutions students find means to achieve their degrees for-
(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013; Kena et. al., 2014; Shah & Nair, 2013). However, the means of
achieving degrees is not without cost at postsecondary institutions (Heitner, Kenneth, &
Sherman, 2013). Students find themselves in student loan debt in the process of achieving their
degrees (Belfield, 2012; Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, 2013; Rothstein & Rouse, 2011).
The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between the student outcomes of
WASC-SCUC accredited institutions in terms of student loan default rates. This quantitative
study addressed the following research questions:
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 125
1. Is there a difference between institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary)
institutions with regional institutional accreditation from Western Association of
Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-
SCUC), given their institution cohort default rate?
2. Is there a difference in institution cohort default rate among public, private, or proprietary
institution type based on Regional Accreditor Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) accreditation
status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or
Candidate)?
3. Does institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary) with regional institutional
accreditation from Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College
and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) have any relationship with their
Regional Accreditor WASC-SCUC accreditation status, given their institution
cohort default rate?
Population and Sample
Effectively assessing whether accreditation positively affects student outcomes may
present some challenges. The questions surrounding what student outcomes should be measured,
which institutions should be compared, and which criteria should be used in selecting those
institutions deserved attention. Therefore, conducting a comparative study involving student
outcomes requires that the schools have similar educational goals and have similar assessments
to measure student outcomes.
Postsecondary institutions accredited by WASC-SCUC provide the conditions necessary
for a strong comparative study to measure the effects of accreditation on student outcomes. The
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 126
USDE releases official cohort default rates once per year. A three-year cohort default rate is the
percentage of a school's borrowers who enter repayment on certain loans during a particular
federal fiscal year and default or meet other specified conditions prior to the end of the following
fiscal year.
This study looked at FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 official three-year cohort default rates
published for schools participating in Title IV student financial assistance programs. The
population of this study came from WASC-SCUC. The sample of this study included only
institutions with accreditation status of Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with
Notice of Concern, or Candidate. Additionally, the sample of this study excluded institutions
that did not participate in Title IV programs. The sample took into account that cohort default
rate data is not displayed when “Number in Repay” (number of borrowers entering repayment in
cohort) includes ten or fewer borrowers. The above inclusion and exclusion from the population
of this study are displayed in the Case Processing Summary below (Table 7).
Table 7
Inclusion and Exclusion of Sample (N) from the Population of this Study
Case Processing Summary
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Overall Cohort Default
Rate of FY 2012, 2011,
and 2010

149

92.00%

13

8.00%

162

100.00%

Instrumentation
To learn whether there is a difference in cohort default rate among the institution types,
the percentage of three-year cohort default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 were organized into
the three institution types. Additionally, to learn if there is any relationship given accreditation
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 127
status, the percentage of three-year cohort default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 were
organized into the three institution types alongside current accreditation status.
For the purposes of this study, the independent variables were institution type and
accreditation status, and the dependent variable was the cohort default rate. The cohort default
rates of the different fiscal years were tested for normal distribution through, Q-Q Plots and the
Shapiro-Wilk test. Validity and reliability were established. The results were analyzed using an
Analysis of variance (ANOV A), based on a General Linear Model, with Post Hoc Test for results
of significance (P < .05), with between and within group effects.
Data Collection
The number of institutions, their types, and accreditation status were collected from the
Directory of Institutions in December of 2015 from the WASC-SCUC website. The cohort
default rates were collected from the Cohort Default Rate Home Page of the Official Cohort
Default Rate Search for Postsecondary Schools Fiscal Year 2012, 2011, and 2010. The official
cohort default rate search of each institution as of December 2015 also identified institutions not
eligible for Title IV federal funds. Importantly, institutions with ten or fewer borrowers displayed
no cohort default rate data, thus accounting for missing data.
Limitations
With regard to this study, several limitations should be taken into consideration. First,
the accuracy of data available on each institution in this study from their accrediting agency of
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC) and United States Department of Education (USDE) data of the three-year
cohort default rate in percentage of school’s borrowers who entered repayment on certain
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 128
Loan) Program loans during a particular federal fiscal year (FY). Second, the accuracy of
reporting by the accreditation agency and schools (Higher Education Institutions) of their
borrowers to USDE, particularly for FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 as it relates to this study. Third,
the review process and timeframe of WASC-SCUC as it relates to the accreditation status granted
by the accrediting agency on the institution with their Institutional Accreditation. Lastly, not all
institutions currently with Institutional Accreditation from WASC-SCUC had data on cohort
default rates for all fiscal year in this study, since cohort default rate data is not displayed when
“No. in Repay” (number of borrowers entering repayment in cohort) includes ten or fewer
borrowers of Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) or Direct Loan loans.
Institutional Review Board
The Institutional Review Board at USC determined that the methods of inquiry used in
this study did not directly affect the privacy or wellbeing of individual human subjects. Thus,
Human Subjects Research approval for this study was obtained, but not required, since the data
used in this study were publicly available. The results are found in Chapter Four.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 129
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Federal student loan default rates are not only concerning the USDE, but students take
these loans. It is their responsibility to pay these back, and they do not go away with the claim of
bankruptcy (USDE, 2015i; Somers, Hollis, & Stokes, 2000; Avery & Turner, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between the student outcomes of
postsecondary institution types with regional institutional accreditation from WASC-SCUC,
given institutional accreditation status by regional accreditor WASC-SCUC, measured by
students’ ability to pay back their federal student loans as seen through institutional cohort
default rate. The research questions were:
1. Is there a difference between institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary)
institutions with regional institutional accreditation from Western Association of Schools
and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC), given their
institution cohort default rate?
2. Is there a difference in institution cohort default rate among public, private, or proprietary
institution type based on Regional Accreditor Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) accreditation
status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or
Candidate)?
3. Does institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary) with regional institutional
accreditation from Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and
University Commission (WASC-SCUC) have any relationship with their Regional
Accreditor WASC-SCUC accreditation status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning,
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 130
Accredited with Notice of Concern, or Candidate), given their institution cohort default
rate?
With student loan debt at its highest point (Snyder & Dillow, 2015; Kena et. al., 2014),
accrediting agencies must combat the crisis by holding all institutions accountable. Doing so
will ensure students are able to pay back their federal student loans.
Research Question One
Is there a difference between public, private, and proprietary postsecondary institutions in
terms of their cohort default rates? WASC-SCUC provided regional institutional accreditation to
four-year and/or graduates schools within its region or territory (Table 5). This accreditation
establishes eligibility to participate in Title IV federal funds. The cohort default rates account for
federal student loans taken by students. This quantitative study looked at overall cohort default
rates of WASC-SCUC accredited institutions from the official three-year cohort default rates of
FY 2012, 2011, and 2010. Table 8 shows the overall FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 cohort default
rates of WASC-SCUC accredited institution type.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Cohort Default Rates across Institution Type Groups
Institution Type Mean N Std. Deviation
Public 18.46% 39 11.91%
Private 15.24% 94 10.74%
Proprietary 22.26% 16 14.72%
Total 16.84% 149 11.68%

The descriptive statistics associated with overall cohort default rates across three
institution type groups are reported in Table 8. Private institutions were associated with the
numerically smallest mean level of overall cohort default rates (M = 15.24%, SD = 10.74%) and
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 131
proprietary institutions were associated with the numerically highest mean rates (M = 22.26%,
SD = 14.72%) while the public institutions were in the middle with mean level (M = 18.46%, SD
= 11.91%). In order to test the hypothesis that WASC-SCUS accredited institutions had different
overall cohort default rates, a one-way between-groups ANOVA was performed. Prior to
conducting the ANOV A, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and satisfied
based on Levene's F test, F(2, 146) = 2.71, p = .070.
The independent one-way between-groups ANOVA yielded a statistically significant
effect at the p < .05, F(2, 146) = 3.064, p = .050. The effect size, calculated using eta squared,
was .040. Thus, the null hypothesis of no differences between the means was rejected, and 4.0%
of the variance in this study was accounted for by group membership, concluding there is a
significant difference in overall cohort default rates between institution type groups. Thus, the
Omnibus test tells us there is a significant difference between at least two groups, but it does not
say which groups differ. However, the actual difference in the mean scores between groups was
quite small based on Cohen's (1992) conventions for interpreting effect size. To evaluate the
nature of the differences between the three means further, the statistically significant ANOVA
was followed up with Fisher's LSD post hoc tests (Hayter, 1986).
Post hoc comparisons to evaluate multiple differences among groups means were
conducted with the use of Fisher's LSD test since equal variances were tenable. The difference
between the private institutions and proprietary institutions was statistically significant at the p <
.05: Sig. = .026 or (p = .026). The difference between the private institutions and public
institutions was not statistically significant while the difference between the public institutions
and proprietary institutions was also not statistically significant.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 132
Results for Research Question One
The data indicated there is a difference in overall cohort default rates. Proprietary (for-
profit) institutions have the highest mean compared to public and private (non-profit) institutions
(Figure 24). A statistically significant difference was found only among proprietary (for-profit)
and private (non-profit) institutions, with private (non-profit) institutions having the lowest mean
(Figure 24).

Figure 24. Means Plots Chart with Overall Cohort Default Rates
Research Question Two
Is there a difference in cohort default rates based on accreditation status? Each institution
type is associated with an accreditation status based on that institution’s process and achievement
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 133
on WASC-SCUC standards of accreditation. The data were collected from the official three-year
cohort default rates of fiscal year 2012, 2011 and 2010 and were evaluated based on
accreditation status. Table 9 shows the overall FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 cohort default rates of
WASC-SCUC accreditation status.
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for Overall Cohort Default Rates across Accreditation Status Groups
Accreditation Status Mean N Std. Deviation
Accredited 16.40% 139 11.52%
Accredited on Warning 22.50% 1 .
Accredited with Notice
of Concern
18.85% 4 14.55%
Candidate 26.36% 5 13.44%
Total 16.84% 149 11.68%

The descriptive statistics associated with overall cohort default rates across four
accreditation status groups are reported in Table 9. It can be seen that the Accredited status was
associated with the numerically smallest mean level of overall cohort default rates (M = 16.40%,
SD = 11.52%) and the Candidate Accreditation status was associated with the numerically
highest mean (M = 26.36%, SD = 13.44%), while Accredited on Warning (M = 22.50%) and
Accredited with Notice of Concern (M = 18.85%) were in the middle. In order to test the
hypothesis that accreditation status made a difference on overall cohort default rates, a one-way
between-groups ANOVA was performed. Prior to conducting the ANOV A, the assumption of
homogeneity of variances was tested and satisfied based on Levene's F test, F(2, 1465) = .470, p
= .626.
The independent one-way between-groups ANOVA yielded no statistically significant
effect at the p < .05, F(3, 145) = 1.299, p = .277. Thus, the null hypothesis of no differences
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 134
based on accreditation status was accepted, concluding there is no significant difference in
overall cohort default rates based on WASC-SCUC accreditation status.
Results for Research Question Two
The data indicated there is no difference based on accreditation status, given overall
cohort default rates, among institution type. The institutions with accreditation status of
Accredited, also the most in sample, had the lowest overall cohort default rates. The institutions
with accreditation status of Candidate, just getting started on the process and achievement of
accreditation, had the highest overall cohort default rates (see Figure 25).

Figure 25. Overall Cohort Default Rates Across Accreditation Status Groups
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 135
Research Question Three
Does institution type have any relationship with accreditation status, given cohort default
rates? This quantitative study included independent variables within institution type and
accreditation status. Therefore, in order to test for any relationship between independent
variables within institution type and accreditation status, given their overall cohort default rates,
General Linear Model, between-subjects factors of institution type and accreditation status was
used (Table 10). Multivariate Tests revealed that there is no significant interaction on overall
cohort default rate between Institutions Type and Accreditation Status from the actual results of
the one-way MANOVA.
Table 10
Between-Subjects Factors within Institution Type and Accreditation Status
Value Label N

Institution Type
1 Public 39
2 Private 94
3 Proprietary 16

Accreditation Status
1 Accredited 139
2 Accredited on Warning 1
3 Accredited with Notice of Concern 4
4 Candidate 5

The first effect, labeled Type for institution type, and the Wilks's Lambda, determined that
the one-way MANOVA yielded no statistically significant effect at the p < .05: Sig. = .576 or (p
= .576); F(6, 278) = .793; Wilks' Value = .967. The second effect, labeled Status for
accreditation status, and the Wilks's Lambda, determined that the one-way MANOVA yielded no
statistically significant effect at the p < .05: Sig. = .071 or (p = .071); F(9, 338) = 1.778; Wilks'
Value = .894.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 136
Results for Research Question Three
The data indicated no relationship between institution type with accreditation status,
given their overall cohort default rates. While private institutions having the most regionally
accredited institutions within the sample and with the most accredited institutions having the
status of Accredited, there was no interaction between institutions type and accreditation status.
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate
This quantitative study explored data from the official three-year cohort default rates of
FY 2012, 2011, and 2010, as dependent variable, for overall cohort default rate findings reported
above. This study further explored the relationship of cohort default rates of FY 2012, 2011, and
2010 individually as it relates to independent variables of institutions type and accreditation
status. Importantly, reliability statistics on the large Cronbach's Alpha at .937 indicated that the
scale created to measure overall default rate is very strong. Thus, it is a very reliable assessment.
Additionally, the lack of significance at .368 in the Levene's test indicates that the assumption of
equality of variances was met across the dependent variables, with significance at p < .05.
The factorial ANOVA of Univariate Analysis of Variance within between-subjects factors
(Table 4.2) tested for between-subjects effects at p < .05 indicating significance, for overall
cohort default rates of dependent variables: Status and Type (Institution Type). The highlighted
values of significance (Sig.) indicated that there is no difference on overall cohort default rates
across “Status” at p = .528 and “Type” at p = .671.
Univariate test of dependent variable with Estimated Marginal Means of Accreditation
Status, on overall cohort default rate of p > .05, at Sig. = .537, F = .729, indicate there is no
difference in overall cohort default rates across institutional status, given the accreditation status
on institutions with regional institutional accreditation from WASC-SCUC.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 137
Univariate test of dependent variable with Estimated Marginal Means of Institution Type,
on overall cohort default rate of p < .05, at Sig. = .626, F = .470, indicate there is no difference in
overall cohort default rates across institutional type, given the institution type of institutions with
regional institutional accreditation from WASC-SCUC.
The results of the Univariate test take into account the mean of independent variables of
accreditation status and institution type on overall dependent variable of cohort default rates,
based on modified population marginal mean (Table 11 and 12), thus accounting for the outliers
within cohort default rates of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 (Figure 26, 27, and 28).
Table 11
Estimated Marginal Means across Accreditation Status Groups
Accreditation Status “Status” Mean N
Accredited 18.46% 139
Accredited on Warning 22.50% 1
Accredited with Notice of Concern 15.33% 4
Candidate 25.76% 5

Table 12
Estimated Marginal Means across Institution Type Groups
Institution Type “Type” Mean N
Public 18.46% 39
Private 18.59% 94
Proprietary 22.42% 16

Histogram of Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012 below, (Figure 26), highlights the
frequency within cohort default rate of WASC-SCUC accredited institutions in this study (N =
162) in FY 2012. With Mean = 4.52, Standard Deviation = 3.777, and N = 155 with Missing N =
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 138
7. Importantly, Skewness = 2.828, with Standard Error of Skewness at .195 and Kurtosis =
12.630, with Standard Error of Kurtosis at .387.

Figure 26. Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2012: Illustrating Outliers
Histogram of Cohort Default Rate of FY 2011 below, (Figure 27), highlights the
frequency within cohort default rate of WASC-SCUC accredited institutions in this study (N =
162) in FY 2011. With mean = 5.73, Standard Deviation = 4.317, and N = 155 with Missing N =
7. Importantly, Skewness = 1.564, with Standard Error of Skewness at .195 and Kurtosis =
3.840, with Standard Error of Kurtosis at .387.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 139

Figure 27. Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2011: Illustrating Outliers
Histogram of Cohort Default Rate of FY 2010 below (Figure 28) highlights the frequency
within cohort default rate of WASC-SCUC accredited institutions in this study (N = 162) in FY
2010. With mean = 6.590, Standard Deviation = 4.3392, and N = 149 with Missing N = 13.
Importantly, Skewness = 1.315, with Standard Error of Skewness at .199 and Kurtosis = 3.429,
with Standard Error of Kurtosis at .395.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 140

Figure 28. Frequency of Cohort Default Rate 2010: Illustrating Outliers
Homogenous Group
The sample size of this quantitative study included 162 WASC-SCUC public, private, and
proprietary institutions with accreditation status of Accredited, Accredited on Warning,
Accredited with Notice of Concern, and Candidate. However, the groups within institution type
and accreditation status were not homogenous. Thus, the representation within respective
independent groups was not equal to each respective type and status. There are a substantial
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 141
number of Accredited outliers, indicating that they are not a homogenous group for cohort
default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 (Table 9, 10, and 11).
There are a substantial number of outliers on Institution Types of Private and Public
(Table 8, 10, and 12) for cohort default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 and Not Accredited,
indicating they are not a homogenous group. All public institutions had accreditation status of
Accredited. However, private institutions were Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited
with Notice of Concern, and Candidate, making them not a homogenous group.
Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012, 2011, 2010
The descriptive statistics associated with cohort default rate of fiscal years 2012, 2011,
and 2010 for three institution type groups are reported in Table 13.
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics for Cohort Default Rates of FY 2012, 2010, and 2011
Cohort Default Rate
of FY 2012
Cohort Default Rate
of FY 2011
Cohort Default
Rate of FY 2010
N Valid 155 155 149
Missing 7 7 13
Mean 4.52% 5.73% 6.59%
Std. Deviation 3.78% 4.32% 4.34%

It can be seen that the Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012 was associated with the
numerically smallest mean level across three cohort default rate groups (M = 4.52%, SD =
3.78%) and the cohort default rate of FY 2010 was associated with the numerically highest (M =
6.59%, SD = 4.34%), while that of FY 2011 was in the middle (M = 5.73%, SD = 4.32%), of this
quantitative study. In order to test the hypothesis that WASC-SCUS accredited institutions had
differences across cohort default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010, a one-way between-groups
ANOVA was performed. The unequal variance Welch t-test was tested, for the unequal variance
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 142
t-test within Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010. The null hypothesis is that the
two population means are the same but the two population variances may differ. Therefore,
Welch's t-test, for Cohort Default Rate of FY 2012 was t(2, 34.86) = 2.90, p = .068, the Welch's t-
test, for Cohort Default Rate of FY 2011 was t(2, 35.20) = 2.31, p = .114, and the Welch's t-test,
for Cohort Default Rate of FY 2010 was t(2, 37.99) = 1.40, p = .259. With the P value being
higher than p < .05, the null hypothesis is not rejected, so concluding that the evidence does not
persuade that the two population means are different, even though it is assumed the two
populations have different standard deviations.
The one-way between-groups ANOVA yielded a statistically significant effect for cohort
default rate of FY 2012 at the p < .05, F(2, 152) = 3.808, p = .024 and statistically significant
effect for cohort default rate of FY 2011 at the p < .05, F(2, 152) = 3.211, p = .043. The cohort
default rate of FY 2010 yielded non-statistically significant effect at the p < .05, F(2, 146) =
1.504, p = .226. Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was conducted for cohort default rate of FY
2012, 2011, and 2010, and found normality with significance at p < .05 for Institution Type of
private and public, but not for proprietary institutions, given the sample size (N = 162) without
exclusion of institutions with ten or fewer browsers, and focusing on missing data of cohort
default rate within respective cohort default rate of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010. The conclusion is
that there is a significant difference in cohort default rates between WASC-SCUC accredited
institution type groups within cohort default rate of FY 2012 and 2011. Thus, the Omnibus test
tells us that there is a significant difference between at least two groups, but it does not say which
groups differ. To evaluate the nature of the differences between the means of cohort default rate
of FY 2012 and 2011 further, the statistically significant ANOVA was followed up with Fisher's
LSD post hoc tests (Hayter, 1986).
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 143
Post hoc comparisons to evaluate multiple differences among groups means were
conducted with the use of Fisher's LSD test since equal variances were tenable. The difference
between the private (non-profit) institutions and proprietary (for-profit) institutions was
statistically significant at the p < .05: Sig. = .009 or (p = .009) for cohort default rate of FY 2012.
The difference between the private (non-profit) institutions and proprietary (for-profit)
institutions was statistically significant at the p < .05: Sig. = .023 or (p = .023) for cohort default
rate of FY 2011.
However, among public institutions, results show no statistically significant difference for
cohort default rate for FY 2012 and 2011 when tested for difference between the private
institutions and proprietary institutions.
Regarding the cohort default rate for FY 2010, there was no significant difference in
institution types of public, private, and proprietary WASC-SCUC accredited institutions in this
quantitative study.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 144
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Regional accreditation in the United States is recognized by the federal and state
governments as the de facto means of ascertaining the legitimacy of institutions of higher
learning since the early twentieth century (Blauch, 1959). This unofficial acceptation of
accreditation as the ultimate means of institutional assessment comes in the form of federal and
state loans and financial backing made available only to those schools that are accredited by
recognized accrediting bodies (USDE, 2015j, 2015m). Accreditation, it seems, has evolved from
simpler days of semi-informal peer assessment into a burgeoning industry of detailed analysis,
student learning outcomes assessment, quality and performance review, financial analysis, public
attention, and all-around institutional scrutiny (Bloland, 2001; Burke & Minassians, 2002;
McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Zis, Boeke, & Ewell, 2010). Public scrutiny of institutions
to establish their worth, their contribution to student learning, and a progressively regulated
demand for institutional proof of success shown by evidence and assessment changed
accreditation and created a vacuum of knowledge about how accreditation is truly working in
practice (Commission on the Future of Higher Ed, 2006; Dougherty, Hare, and Natow, 2009;
Leef and Burris, 2002).
The most commonly acknowledged benefits of accreditation include students’ access to
federal financial aid funding, legitimacy in the public, government accountability, consideration
for foundation grants and employer tuition credits, positive reflection among peers, and standards
to support student mobility in terms of transfer and seeking a higher degree. In addition, the U.S.
accreditation process is more cost effective in contrast to international models, which are far
more regulated (Brittingham, 2009). The purpose of this study was to examine the differences
between postsecondary institutions’ student outcomes regarding student loan default rate.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 145
The bulk of this chapter centers on the questions that propelled the research of this study.
The three guiding research questions are:
1. Is there a difference between institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary)
institutions with regional institutional accreditation from Western Association of Schools
and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC), given their
institution cohort default rate?
2. Is there a difference in institution cohort default rate among public, private, or proprietary
institution type based on Regional Accreditor Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC) accreditation
status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or
Candidate)?
3. Does institution type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary) with regional institutional
accreditation from Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and
University Commission (WASC-SCUC) have any relationship with their Regional
Accreditor WASC-SCUC accreditation status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning,
Accredited with Notice of Concern, or Candidate), given their institution cohort default
rate?
The first three sections directly discuss how the data help to answer these three questions.
The fourth section explored the data further through exploration of cohort default rate. The fifth
section addresses the importance of regional institutional accreditation. The sixth section
explores some of the implications for practice. Then some of the limitations of this study are
mentioned, followed by a discussion about possible future studies.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 146
WASC-SCUC: Institution Type and Cohort Default Rates
The results of this study appear to match the national results of cohort default rates in
fiscal years 2012, 2011, and 2010 (Figure 3), highlighting that proprietary four-year(+)
institutions had the highest default rate, while private non-profit four-year(+) institutions had the
lowest default rate among public, private, and proprietary institutions. This study looked to
provide clarity and reliability through a meaningful comparison of institution type and cohort
default rates.
Even with the low number of proprietary (for-profit) institutions within this study,
sixteen, they had the highest overall cohort default rates. Private (non-profit) institutions had the
lowest overall cohort default rates. The data revealed there were statistically significant
differences between private (non-profit) institutions and proprietary (for-profit) institutions given
their overall cohort default rates of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010.
WASC-SCUC: Accreditation Status and Cohort Default Rates
Through its process of institutional accreditation WASC-SCUC confers accreditation
status onto institutions of public, private, proprietary institution type. Among all institutions in
this study (149) the majority (139) held accreditation status of Accredited. These 139
institutions had the lowest overall cohort default rates among all institutions in this study.
Institutions with accreditation status of Candidate had the highest overall cohort default
rates, followed by institutions with accreditation status of Accredited on Warning. The data
revealed there is no statistically significant difference in overall cohort default rates for FY 2012,
2011, and 2010 based on accreditation status.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 147
WASC-SCUC: Institution Type and Accreditation Status
All institutions accredited by WASC-SCUC are subject to review and status change
(Accreditation Status can remain the same after review). Table 5 states the WASC-SCUC
Accreditation Status and the scope of WASC-SCUC Accreditation Status. Each WASC-SCUC
institution shared the same cohort default rates of FY 2012, 2011, and 2010. In testing for
relationships among institution type and accreditation status, the data revealed there is no
significant interaction on cohort default rates for FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 given institutional
accreditation status.
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate
The exploration of data regarding the dependent variable of cohort default rate
highlighted interesting findings with Estimated Marginal Means given the cohort default rates of,
particularly when adjusted for outliers of institution type and accreditation status within cohort
default rates. The estimated marginal means across accreditation status groups and institution
type groups revealed there is no difference in overall cohort default rates when adjusted for
outliers.
Additionally, the cohort default rate for FY 2012 was associated with the numerically
smallest mean level across the three cohort default rate groups (M = 4.52%, SD = 3.78%) and the
cohort default rate of FY 2010 was associated with the numerically highest mean (M = 6.59%,
SD = 4.34%), while that of FY 2011 was in the middle (M = 5.73%, SD = 4.32%). There was a
significant difference in cohort default rates between institution type groups within cohort default
rates for FY 2012 and 2011.
The data further revealed the difference between the private (non-profit) institutions and
proprietary (for-profit) institutions was statistically significant for FY 2012 and 2011 given their
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 148
student loan cohort default rates. The difference between the private institutions and public
institutions was not statistically significant. The difference between public institutions and
proprietary institutions was also not statistically significant for FY 2012 and 2011 given their
student loan cohort default rates. Lastly, for FY 2010, there was no significant difference among
public, private, and proprietary WASC-SCUC accredited institutions given their student loan
cohort default rates.
Importance of the Study
This study provided findings on United States Department of Education (USDE)
recognized accrediting agencies, with a focus on WASC-SCUC, providing institutional
accreditation to postsecondary institutions to establish eligibility to participate in the federal
student financial assistance programs administered under Title IV (USDE, 2015j, 2015m). The
U.S. Secretary of Education's recognition of accrediting agencies aided in amending the Federal
Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and the William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regulations to implement provisions of the
Higher Education Act (HEA) as amended in 2008 and other legislation (USDE, 2009b). These
regulations are effective July 1, 2010 and are directly related to Title IV federal student financial
aid to colleges and universities meeting accrediting requirements (USDE, 2009c; USDE, 2015k).
The USDE has firsthand knowledge of federal student loan debt currently standing at
almost one trillion dollars, while federal student loan debt is projected to increase as students
continue to take these loans to fund their higher education expenses (Kena et. al., 2014; Snyder
& Dillow, 2015). Federal student loans are unlike grants and scholarships, which are free to
qualified students who use the funds to pay for their higher education expenses (USDE, 2015a,
2015b). These federal student loans become part of the student’s responsibility to pay back even
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 149
if s/he does not complete a higher education program(s) or stops attending the postsecondary
institution (USDE, 2015c, 2015i).
The growth of for-profit postsecondary institutions represents the fastest growing area of
the higher education sector (Snyder & Dillow, 2015), with reasonable admissions requirements
and open enrollment throughout the calendar year (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). Students
take on federal student loans at Title IV institutions, including at for-profit four-year
postsecondary institutions (USDE, 2015a, 2015h). Importantly, ignoring student loan payments
puts students at risk of going into default. Default means failure to make payments on a student
loan as scheduled according to the terms of the promissory note, the binding legal document
signed at the time you took out the loan (USDE, 2015i).
“Students from for-profit institutions have higher default rates on federal student loans
than students in other sectors. And the default rates of for-profit education sector have risen
substantially during the last five years” (Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2012, p. 152). Student loans
cannot be forgiven due to bankruptcy or other financial hardship (USDE, 2015i). The for-profit
postsecondary institutional default rate is 8.7 percentage points higher than that for four-year
public and non-profit postsecondary institutions. For-profit postsecondary institutions students
have much higher default rates and account for 47% of the defaults (Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2012). Default rates are only recorded on federal student loans by the USDE, and data are
released to all institutions that participate in federal student loan programs (USDE, 2015t).
Belfield's (2012) study on student loan and repayment rates within for-profit colleges indicated
that, “students in the public system (colleges/universities) borrow the least, followed by those in
the not-for-profit colleges, and student in the for-profit system (colleges/universities) borrow the
most. The primary source of funding, thus the lifeblood of for-profit higher education in the
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 150
United States comes from the federal student financial aid program (Deming, Goldin, & Katz,
2013). Deming, Goldin, and Katz (2013) further highlight, “Institutions with a two-year cohort
default rate that exceeds 40 percent in one year, or 25 percent for three consecutive years, lose
their eligibility for Title IV aid for one to three years” (p. 153-154) as seen through official three-
year cohort default rates published for schools participating in Title IV programs.
The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by postsecondary
institutions meet acceptable quality levels (USDE, 2015r, 2015u). Accreditation is an external
process of quality assurance and improvement (Eaton, 2012). To earn and maintain
accreditation, colleges and universities must demonstrate they meet or surpass certain standards
(MSCHE, 2009). Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Education provides a review
process for renewed recognition of the accrediting agencies by department staff and by NACIQI
(Bloland, 2001; Bresciani, 2006; Brittingham, 2008, 2012; Eaton, 2003, 2009, 2010; Ewell,
2005, 2009, 2012; Gaston, 2013; Ikenberry, 2009; Leef & Burris, 2002; USDE, 2015l, 2015m,
2015p, 2015q, 2015r).
Accrediting agencies are nongovernmental and include regional accreditors that accredit
public, private, and proprietary degree-granting two-year, four-year and/or higher postsecondary
institutions; national faith-related accreditors that accredit religiously affiliated institutions that
are non-degree-granting less than two-year and degree-granting two-year, four-year and/or
higher postsecondary institutions; national career-related accreditors that accredit career-based,
single-purpose institutions, non-degree-granting less than two-year, and degree-granting two-
year, four-year and/or higher postsecondary institutions; and programmatic accreditors that
accredit specific program and professional schools in areas such as law, medicine, health,
engineering, business, or education at postsecondary institutions (Eaton, 2012a; CHEA, 2014,
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 151
2015, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). These are independent accrediting agencies that develop standards
to ensure institutions or programs meet the thresholds of academic quality and quality
improvement (USDE, 2015s).
Implications for Practice
Gaining institutional accreditation comes with meeting accrediting agencies standards,
going through ongoing self-study and guidance focused on institutional performance and on
identifying areas needing improvement (WASC-SCUC, 2015a).
WASC-SCUC Institutional Accreditation
The findings of this study indicate that WASC-SCUC accreditation does not provide the
same institutional performance when it comes to default on federal student loans. Therefore,
WASC-SCUC needs to identify how they can provide guidance and support whereby all
institutions, particularly proprietary (for-profit) ones, can keep their students from defaulting on
their federal loans.
Institution Type and Accreditation Status
The findings on institution type and accreditation status indicated that there is no
relationship between accreditation status and institution type. The implication for practice is that
there needs to be more scrutiny and focus placed on levels of accreditation status. There is no
significant difference in overall cohort default rates based on accreditation status. Thus, the
levels of status can reinforce the focus on institutional performance and improvements as these
relate to default on federal student loans under the guidance of providing eligibility to for federal
student loan programs.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 152
Exploration of Cohort Default Rate
The implication for practice is that institutional accreditors, particularly WASC-SCUC,
have room for improvement as it relates to ensuring institutions meet the direct investment in
students' personal and professional development.
The findings focused on outliers in terms of the dependent cohort default rates of FY
2012, 2011, and 2010, highlighting that, when adjusted for outliers, there were no differences in
independent variables of accreditation status and institution type. The findings suggest that
greater scrutiny and improvement of student support services, focusing on career counseling and
placement, can have a positive impact on institutions in reducing their student loan default rate.
Deterrence of Regional Accreditation
Regional Accreditor Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and
University Commission (WASC-SCUC) as an organization is part of the very first group of
accrediting agencies formed to promote the development and excellence of higher education in
the United States. Historically, WASC-SCUC has only provided Institutional Accreditation to
traditional universities and colleges, thus private (non-profit) and public higher education
institutions offering four-year and graduate (professional) degrees. Hence, the low number of
proprietary (for-profit) institutions in this study reflects the very nature of WASC-SCUC, while
acknowledging that Regional Accreditors have a deterrence process without realizing it, as
proprietary (for-profit) institutions that choice to gain Institutional Accreditation from their
Regional Accreditor must meet the same standards of accreditation just as the private (non-
profit) and public higher education institutions do under the guidance of Regional institutional
accrediting agencies (Table 3) in the United States.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 153
Limitations
This quantitative study did not seek specific accreditation measures responsible for
student outcomes. Only institution type and accreditation status at the macro level were
considered, and specific actions by individual schools to improve student outcomes were
unexplored. Therefore, there is only general association and no specific causal relationships
discovered between student outcomes and elemental standards of accreditation. This lack of
specificity limits the types of implications for practice that can be suggested.
This quantitative study was limited to looking at differences among institutional cohort
default rates across institution type and accreditation status while assessing the relationship
between institution type and accreditation status given institutional cohort default rates. To
further this study, one could look at official cohort default rates beyond the 3 years used here to
understand differences in cohort default rates by institution type and accreditation status.
This quantitative study found strong results when it came to testing for differences
between public (non-profit) and proprietary (for-profit) institutions, but only with three-year
official cohort default rates for FY 2012, 2011, and 2010. This study was a comparative study
using similar institutions with similar education goals and similar assessments to measure student
outcomes. This study was limited to one accreditation agency. Furthermore, this study was
limited by the institutional cohort default rates of fiscal years 2012, 2011, and 2010 only.
Future Research
Future research can expand on this study and look for significance within institution type
under other accrediting agencies adhering to the same accreditation status process. Future study
can also look to expand upon the official cohort default rates for schools either in previous or
future years.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 154
Additionally, future studies can take a qualitative approach by focusing on interviewing
students with federal student loans from public, private, and proprietary institutions and
questioning how their respective institutions supported their growth towards repaying their loans.
It is important to assess whether institutions assist students with personal and professional
development, both during school and after graduation, to avoid defaulting on their federal
student loans.
Qualitative research methodology can also explore how administrators, staff, and faculty
from different institutions support and guide their students to avoid defaulting on their federal
loans. It is important to understand if institutional accreditation helps administrators, staff, and
faculty provide personal and professional development to their students, or whether it is
dependent upon the individual institutions to provide it, since this study did not find any
relationship between institution type and accreditation status.
Conclusion
This study found that proprietary (for-profit) higher education institutions have the
highest mean among overall cohort default rates although they are the fewest in number. Private
(non-profit) institutions had the lowest mean. The findings indicated statistical significance
between private (non-profit) and proprietary (for-profit) institutions given their institution cohort
default rates. It is important to note that both private (non-profit) institutions and proprietary
(for-profit) institutions are private and have complete autonomy over their operations and
administrations while public (non-profit) institutions with subsidies from their respective states
are accountable to scrutiny from their state government.
Nevertheless, all institutions gain access to federal student loans through accreditation
agencies. Accrediting agencies have a responsibility to support institutions with direct
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 155
investment in students' personal and professional development. Thus, these agencies should hold
institutions accountable for student support services like WASC-SCUC does under their
standards of accreditation.
This study asserts that all institutions under the guidance and support of the accrediting
agencies and taking advantage of federal student loan programs should provide greater scrutiny
in combating cohort default rates. With institutions having complete autonomy over their
operations and administrations, the accreditors must focus on reducing default rates, particularly
those of proprietary institutions.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 156
References
Adelman, C., & Silver, H. (1990). Accreditation: The American experience. London, England:
Council for National Academic Awards.
ACE. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21
st
century. Self-regulation in a new era.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges. (2015). Mission, vision, and
core values: Accrediting commission of career schools and colleges. Retrieved
from http://www.accsc.org/About-Us/Mission-and-Vision.aspx
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. (2015). About us: Accrediting
council for independent colleges and schools. Retrieved from
http://www.acics.org/aboutus.aspx
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher
aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities. Brussels: Bruegel.
American Accounting Association, Committee on Consequences of Accreditation. (1977).
Report of the Committee on Consequences of Accreditation, 52, 165, 167–177.
American Association for Higher Education. (1992). 9 principles of good practice for assessing
student learning. North Kansas City, MO: American Association for Higher Education.
American Association for Higher Education. (1997). Assessing impact: Evidence and action.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2007). Why accreditation doesn’t work and what
policymakers can do about it. Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and
Alumni. Retrieved from
https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/Accreditation2007Final.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 157
American Council on Education. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21st century: Self-
regulation in a new era: A report of the ACE National Task Force on institutional
accreditation Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Government_Relations_and_
Public_Policy&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=45275
American Medical Association. (1971). Accreditation of health educational programs. Part I:
Staff working papers. Washington, DC: American Medical Association.
Andersen, C. J. (1987). Survey of accreditation issues. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Anderson, G. M., Sun, J. C., & Alfonso, M. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation
agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. The Review of
Higher Education, 29(3), 261-291.
Arnstein, G. (1979). Two cheers for accreditation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 60(5), 357–361.
Asgill, A. (1976). The importance of accreditation: Perceptions of black and white college
presidents. The Journal of Negro Education, 45(3), 284-294.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College learning for the new global
century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved
from: http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1968). Undergraduate achievement and institutional “excellence.” Science,
161(3842), 661-668.
Astin, A.W. (2014, February 18). Accreditation and autonomy. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/02/18/accreditation-helps-limit-government-
intrusion-us-higher-education-essay
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 158
Atwell, R. H. (1994). Putting our house in order. American Association of University Professors,
80(4), 9-12.
Avery, C., & Turner, S. (2012). Student loans: Do college students borrow too much – or not
enough? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), pp. 165-192.
Baker, R. L. (2002). Evaluating quality and effectiveness: Regional accreditation principles and
practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 3-7.
Banta, T. W. (1993). Summary and conclusion: Are we making a difference? In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education (pp.
357-376). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., & Associates. (1993). Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., & Associates. (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W., & Associates. (2004). Hallmarks of effective outcomes assessment: Assessment
update collections. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barak, R. J., & Breier, B. E. (1990). Successful program review: A practical guide to evaluating
programs in academic settings. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual
college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher
Education, 145, 47-58.
Barzun, J. (1993). The American university: How it runs, where it is going. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 159
Baum, S., Kurose, C., & McPherson, M. (2013). An overview of American higher education.
The Future of Children, 23(1), 17–39.
Beaver, W. (2012). Fraud in for-profit higher education. Social Science and Public Policy, 49,
274-278.
Belfield, R. C. (2012). Student loans and repayment rates: The role of for-profit colleges.
Research in Higher Education, 54, 1-29.
Beno, B. A. (2004). The role of student learning outcomes in accreditation quality review. New
Directions for Community College, 236, 65-72.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111.
Bernhard, A. (2011). Quality assurance in an international higher education area: A case study
approach and comparative analysis. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Bers, T. H. (2008). The role of institutional assessment in assessing student learning outcomes.
New Directions for Higher Education, 141, 31-39. doi: 10.1002/h3
Bers, T. H. (2013). Deciphering articulation and state/system policies and agreements. New
Directions for Higher Education, 162, 17-26, doi: 10.1002/he.20053
Bitter, M. E., Stryker, J. P, & Jens, W. G. (1999). A preliminary investigation of the choice to
obtain AACSB accounting accreditation. Accounting Educators’ Journal, XI, 1-15.
Blauch, L. E. (1959). Accreditation in higher education. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=mdp.39015007036083;view=1up;seq=1
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 160
Bloland, H. G. (2001). Creating the council for higher education accreditation (CHEA).
American Council on Education, Phoenix, AZ. ORYX Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bok, D. (2013). Higher eduction in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brennan, J. (1997). Authority, legitimacy and change: The rise of quality assessment in higher
education. Higher Education Management, 9(1), 7-24.
Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A
compilation of institutional good practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Britt, B., & Aaron, L. (2008). Nonprogrammatic accreditation: Programs and attitudes.
Radiologic Technology, 80(2), 123-129.
Brittingham, B. (2008, September/October). An uneasy partnership: Accreditation and the
federal government. Change, 32-38.
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are?
New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27. doi:10.1002/he.331
Brittingham, B. (2012). Higher education, accreditation, and change, change, change: What’s
teacher education to do? In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence,
and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance (59-75). Washington, DC:
Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 161
Brown, H. (2013, September). Protecting students and taxpayers: The federal government’s
failed regulatory approach and steps for reform. American Enterprise Institute, Center on
Higher Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/files/2013/09/27/-
protecting-students-and-taxpayers_164758132385.pdf
Burke, J. C. & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing
public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Developing performance indicators for
assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning: The case of engineering.
Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 327-352.
Callanan, G., & Benzing, C. (2004). Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented
employment of graduating college students. Education and Training, 46(2), 82-89.
Capen, S. P. (1931). The principles which should govern standards and accrediting practices.
Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, 17(7), 550-552.
Capen, S. P. (1939). Seven devils in exchange for one. In Coordination of Accrediting Activities,
(5-17). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Carey, K. (2009, September/October). College for $99 a month. Washington Monthly. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com
Carey, K. (2010). Death of a university. In K. Carey & M. Schneider (Eds.), Accountability in
American higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Casile, M., & Davis-Blake, A. (2002). When accreditation standards change: Factors affecting
differential responsiveness of public and private organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(1), 180-195.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 162
Cellini, R. S., & Chaudhary, L. (2014). The labor market returns to a for-profit college
education. Economics of Education Review, 43, 125-140.
Chambers, C. M. (1983). "Council on postsecondary education." P. 289-314 in Understanding
Accreditation, edited by K. E. Young, C. M. Chambers, and H. R. Kells. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Chernay, G. (1990). Accreditation and the role of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Washington, DC: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Christal, M. E., & Jones, D. P. (1995). A common language for postsecondary accreditation:
Categories and definitions for data collection. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems.
Chung, A. S. (2012). Choice of for-profit college. Economics of Education Review, 31, 1084-
1101.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross–national
perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clitheroe, H. (2010). Academic accreditation and the postmodern condition: A critical analysis
of practices in postsecondary education. Journal of Integrated Studies, 1(1), 1-10.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. (2011a). Administrative
compensation survey: For the 2010-11 academic year. Retrieved from
http://www.cupahr.org/surveys/files/salary2011/AdComp11 ExecutiveSummary.pdf

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 163
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. (2011b). Mid- level
administrative & professional salary survey: For the 2010-11 academic year. Retrieved
from http://www.cupahr.org/surveys/files/salary2011/MidLevel11_
Executive_Summary.pdf
Commission of the European Communities. (1993). Quality management and quality assurance
in European higher education: Methods and mechanisms. Brussels, Belgium:
Commission of the European Communities.
Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission Report) (2006). U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). The fundamentals of accreditation: What do
you need to know? Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/fund_accred_20ques_02.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2003). Statement of mutual responsibilities for
student learning outcomes: Accreditation, institutions, and programs. Washington, DC:
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/StmntStudentLearningOutcomes9-03.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2006). CHEA survey of recognized accrediting
organizations: Providing information to the public. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2006). Presidential perspectives on accreditation:
A report of the CHEA presidents project. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2010). Quality review 2009: CHEA almanac of
external quality review. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 164
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). The CHEA initiative final report.
Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/TheCHEAInitiative_Final_Report8.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2014). 2013-2014 directory of CHEA-recognized
organizations. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2013-
2014_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015). 2015-2016 directory of CHEA-recognized
organizations. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2015-
2016_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015a). Database of institutions and
programs accredited by recognized United States accrediting organizations.
Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/search/default.asp
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015b). Directories: Private. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/Directories/private.asp
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015c). Directories: Regional. Retrieved
from http://www.chea.org/Directories/private.asp
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2015d). Directories: Faith. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/Directories/faith.asp
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (n.d.) The CHEA initiative: Building the future of
accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/About/CI/index.asp
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC). (2003). Regional accreditation and
student learning: Principles for good practices. Retrieved from
http://www.ncahlc.org/download/0412AssessmentAccredLearningPrinciples.PDF
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 165
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC). (n.d.). A guide for institutions and
evaluators. Retrieved from
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/handbooks/GuideForInstitutions.pdf
Cremonini, L., Epping, E., Westerheijden, D., & Vogelsang, K. (2012). Impact of quality
assurance on cross-border higher education. Enschede, Netherlands: Center for Higher
Education Policy Studies.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Crow, S. (2009). Musings on the future of accreditation. New Directions for Higher Education,
145, 87-97. doi:10.1002/he.338
Daoust, M. P., Wehmeyer, W., & Eubank, E. (2006). Valuing an MBA: Authentic outcome
measurement made easy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://www.momentumbusinessgroup.com/resourcesValuingMBA.pdf
Davenport, C. A. (2000). Recognition chronology. Retrieved from http://www.aspa-
usa.org/documents/Davenport.pdf
Davis, C. O. (1932). The North central association of colleges and secondary schools: Aims,
organization, activities. [Chicago]: The Association. Retrieved from http://
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031490645;view=1up;seq=15
Davis, C. O. (1945). A history of the north central association of colleges and secondary schools
1895-1945. Ann Arbor, MI: The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools. Retrieved from http://library.usc.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi
/x/0/0/5?Searchdata1=1175460{CKEY}
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 166
Degree Mills. (2014). Retrieved from Council for Higher Education Accreditation website:
http://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm
Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector:
Nimble critters or agile predators. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164.
Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2013). For-profit colleges. The Future of Children, 23(1),
137-163.
Denice, P. (2015). Does it pay to attend a for-profit college? Vertical and horizontal stratification
in higher education. Social Science Research, 52, 161-178.
Denoya, L. E. (2005, July). Accreditation, curriculum model, and academic audit strategies for
quality improvement in higher education. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual
International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and
Training. Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic. Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore/ieee/org/stamp/stamp.jsp? arnumber=01560271
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1973). The second newman report: National
policy and higher education. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dewatripont, M., Sapir, A., Van Pottelsberghe, B., & Veugelers, R. (2010). Boosting innovation
in Europe. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2010/06.
Dickeson, R. (2009). Recalibrating the accreditation-federal relationship. Washington, DC:
University of Northern Colorado.
Dickeson, R. C. (2006). The need for accreditation reform. Issue paper (The Secretary of
Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education). Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 167
Dickey, F. G., & Miller, J. W. (1972). A current perspective on accreditation. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Dickey, F., & Miller, J. (1972). "Federal involvement in nongovernmental accreditation."
Educational Record 53, No. 2 (Spring): 139.
Dill, D. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: Practices and issues. University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dill, D. D., Massy, W. F., Williams, P. R., & Cook, C. M. (1996, September/October).
Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here? Change
28(5), 16-24.
Dill, W. D. (1998). Specialized accreditation: An idea whose time has come? Or gone? Change
30(4), 18-25.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dillon, P. (1997). Credentialing of teacher professional development activities. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/dillp353.htm
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-
160.
Directories. (2014). Retrieved from Council for Higher Education Accreditation website:
http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp
Doerr, A. H. (1983). Accreditation: Academic boon or bane. Contemporary Education, 55(1), 6-
8.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 168
Dougherty, K. J., Hare, R., & Natow, R. S. (2009). Performance accountability systems for
community colleges: Lessons for the voluntary framework of accountability for
community colleges. Community College Research Center. Columbia University, NYC:
Teachers College.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the
community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
586, 92-119.
Dowd, A. C., & Grant, J. L. (2006). Equity and efficiency of community college appropriations:
The role of local financing. The Review of Higher Education, 29(2), 167-194.
Driscoll, A., & De Noriega, D. C. (2006). Taking ownership of accreditation: Assessment
processes that promote institutional improvement and faculty engagement. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing, L.L.C.
Dynarski, M. S., Hemelt, W. S., & Hyman, M. J. (2015). The missing manual: Using national
student clearinghouse data to track postsecondary outcomes. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 37(1), pp. 53S-79S.
Eaton, J. S. (2001, March/April). Regional accreditation reform: Who is served? Change, 33(2),
38-45.
Eaton, J. S. (2003a). Is accreditation accountable? The continuing conversation between
accreditation and the federal government. Washington, DC: Council for Higher
Education Accreditation.
Eaton, J. S. (2003b). The value of accreditation: Four pivotal roles. Washington, DC: Council
for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/pres_ltr_value_accrd_5-03.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 169
Eaton, J. S. (2007, September/October). Institutions, accreditors, and the federal government:
Redefining their “appropriate relationship.” Change, 16-23.
Eaton, J. S. (2008, July/August). Attending to student learning. Change, 22-27.
Eaton, J. S. (2009). Accreditation in the United States. New Directions for Higher Education,
145, 79-86. doi:10.1002/he.337
Eaton, J. S. (2010). Accreditation and the federal future of higher education. Academe, 96(5), 21-
24.
Eaton, J. S. (2011a). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Washington, DC: Council for Higher
Education Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/
Overview%20of%20US%20Accreditation%2003.2011.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2011b). U.S. accreditation: Meeting the challenges of accountability and student
achievement. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 1-20.
Eaton, J. S. (2012). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Council for Higher Education
Accreditation. Retrieved from:
http://www.chea.org/pdf/Overview%20of%20US%20Accreditation %202012.pdf
Eaton, J. S. (2012a). The future of accreditation. Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Eaton, J. S. (2012b). What future for accreditation: The challenge and opportunity of the
accreditation – federal government relationship. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden
(Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality assurance
(77-88). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from
http://www.teac.org/wp–content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 170
Eaton, J.S. (2012, April-June). The future of accreditation: Can the collegial model flourish in
the context of the government’s assertiveness and the impact of nationalization and
technology? How? Society for College and University Planning, 40, 8-15. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/The%20Future%20of%20Accreditation_Planning_HE_JE.pdf
Eaton, J.S. (2013a, June 13). Accreditation and the next reauthorization of the higher education
act. Inside Accreditation with the President of CHEA, 9(3). Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2013.05.31.html
Eaton, J.S. (2013b, November-December). The changing role of accreditation: Should it matter
to governing boards? Trustee. Retrieved from
http://agb.org/trusteeship/2013/11/changing-role-accreditation-should-it-matter-
governing-boards
Edler, F. H. W. (2004). Campus accreditation: Here comes the corporate model. Thought and
Action, 19(2), 91-104.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2012). American higher education in transition. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 26(1), 193-216.
El-Khawas, E. (1993). Accreditation and evaluation: Reciprocity and exchange. Paper presented
at Conference on frameworks for European quality assessment of higher education.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
El-Khawas, E. (1998). Accreditation’s role in quality assurance in the United States. Higher
Education Management, 10(3), 43-56.
El-Khawas, E. (2000). The impetus for organizational change: An exploration. Tertiary
Education and Management, 6, 37-46.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 171
El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, developments and future prospects.
Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Elliott, L. H. (1970, December). Accreditation or accountability: Must we choose? Paper
presented at the Middle States Association of Collegiate Registrars and Officers of
Admission.
Engdahl, L. E. (1981). Objectives, objections, and options: Current perceptions of regional
accreditation. North Central Association Quarterly, 56(1), 3-13.
Ewell, P. T. (1984). The self-regarding institution: Information for excellence. Boulder, CO:
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Ewell, P. T. (1993). The role of states and accreditors in shaping assessment practice. In T. W.
Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher
education (pp. 339-356). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (1994, November/December). A matter of integrity: Accountability and the future of
self-regulation. Change, 26(6), 24-29.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of
departure. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/award/StudentLearningOutcomes2001.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2002). An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta
(Ed.), Building a scholarship of assessment (pp. 3-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (2005). Can assessment serve accountability? It depends on the question. In J. C.
Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands (pp. 78-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 172
Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(S1), 7–17.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). U.S. accreditation and the future of quality assurance: A tenth anniversary
report from the council for higher education accreditation. Washington, DC: Council for
Higher Education Accreditation.
Ewell, P. T. (2009). Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension.
Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/PeterEwell_005.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2009). Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension.
Champaign, IL: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/PeterEwell_006.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened
what’s different? Quality in higher education, 16(2), 173-175.
Ewell, P. T. (2012). Disciplining peer review: Addressing some deficiencies in U.S. accreditation
practices. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence:
The promise and practice of quality assurance (89–105). Washington, DC: Teacher
Education Accreditation Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Ewell, P. T., Wellman, J. V., & Paulson, K. (1997). Refashioning accountability: Toward a
coordinated system of quality assurance for higher education. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 173
Fallon, D. (2012). Knowing by asking: Frank B. Murray’s life of inquiry. In M. LaCelle–
Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and
practice of quality assurance (1-12). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation
Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp–content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-
Book.pdf
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education. (1970). A report on
institutional accreditation in higher education. Chicago, IL: Federation of Regional
Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education.
Fincher, M., Sharp, L., Burks, J., Lyon, K., Parker, M., Ward, J., Hall, A., Wilson, V., &
Washington, B. (2014). Articulation visibility at two-year colleges. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 38(7), 684-692, doi: 10.1080/10668926.2011.585111
Finkin, M. W. (1973). Federal reliance on voluntary accreditation: The power to recognize as the
power to regulate. Journal of Law and Education, 2(3), 339-375.
Finkin, M. W. (1978). Federal reliance on educational accreditation: The scope of
administrative discretion. Washington, DC: The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Finkin, M. W. (1979). Reforming the federal relationship to educational accreditation. North
Carolina Law Review, 57(3), 379-413.
Finkin, M. W. (1994a). Recent developments concerning accrediting agencies in postsecondary
education. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(4), 121-149.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 174
Finkin, M. W. (1994b). The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private
accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(4), 89–120.
Finn, Jr. C. E. (1975, Winter). Washington in academe we trust: Federalism and the universities:
The balance shifts. Change, 7(10), 24-29, 63.
Flexner, A. (1910). Medical education in the United States and Canada: A report to the
Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. New York, NY: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Floden, R. E. (1980). Flexner, accreditation, and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 2(2), 35-46. doi:10.3102/01623737002002035
Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission. (1995). A review of specialized
accreditation. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning
Commission.
Freitas, F. A. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of professional accreditation: A national study of
baccalaureate nursing programs (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University).
Fuller, M. B., & Lugg, E. T. (2012). Legal precedents for higher education accreditation
Journal of Higher Education Management 27(1). Retrieved from
http://www.aaua.org/images/JHEM_-_Vol_27_Web_Edition_.pdf#page=53
Gaston, P. L. (2014). Higher education accreditation: How it's changing, why it must. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing.
Geiger, L. G. (1970). Voluntary accreditation: A history of the north central association 1945-
1970. Menasha, WI: George Banta Company.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 175
Gillen, A., Bennett, D. L, & Vedder, R. (2010). The inmates running the asylum?: An analysis of
higher education accreditation. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and
Productivity. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Accreditation.pdf
Gilpin, A. G., Saunders, J., & Stoddard, C. (2015). Why has for-profit colleges' share of higher
education expanded so rapidly? Estimating the responsiveness to labor market changes.
Economics of Education Review, 45, 53-63.
Global University Network for Innovation. (2007). Higher education in the world 2007:
Accreditation for quality assurance: What is at stake? New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Graffin, S. D., & Ward, A. J. (2010). Certifications and reputation: Determining the standard of
desirability amidst uncertainty. Organization Science, 21(2), 331-346.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0400
Graham, P. A., Lyman, R. W., & Trow, M. (1995). Accountability of colleges and universities:
An essay. New York, NY: Columbia University.
Gruson, E. S., Levine, D. O, & Lustberg, L. S. Issues in accreditation, eligibility and
institutional quality. Cambridge, MA: Sloan Commission on Government and Higher
Education.
Hagerty, B. M. K., & Stark, J. S. (1989). Comparing educational accreditation standards in
selected professional fields. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(1), 1-20.
Haley-Lock, A., Berman, D., & Timberlake, J. M. (2013). Work and Occupations, 40(3), 281-
311.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 176
Harcleroad, F. F. (1976). Educational auditing and accountability. Washington, DC: The
Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Harcleroad, F. F. (1980). Accreditation: History, process, and problems. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Harcleroad, F. F., & Dickey, F. G. (1975). Educational auditing and voluntary institutional
accrediting. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Hardin, J. R., & Stocks, M. H. (1995). The effect of AACSB accreditation on the recruitment of
entry-level accountants. Issues in Accounting Education, 10(1), 83–90.
Hartle, T. W. (2012). Accreditation and the public interest: Can accreditors continue to play a
central role in public policy? Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Hart Research Associates. (2009). Learning and assessment: Trends in undergraduate
education. (A survey among members of the Association of American College and
Universities). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/membership/documents/2009MemberSurvey_Part1.pdf
Harvard. (2015). About harvard: Harvard at a glance: History: Harvard university.
Retrieved from http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/history
Harvey, L. (2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207-223.
Haviland, D. (2009, February 20). Leading assessment: From faculty reluctance to faculty
engagement. Academic Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.academicleadership.org/article/leading-assessment-from-faculty–reluctance-
to-faculty-engagement
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 177
Hawkins, H. (1992). Banding together: The rise of national associations in American higher
education, 1887-1950. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Hayter. A. J. (1986). The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher's least significant difference
test. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 1000-1004.
Hayward, F. M. (2001, June). Finding a common voice for accreditation internationally.
Prepared for the 2001 Council for Higher Education Accreditation conference. Chicago,
IL. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/international/common–voice.html
Haywood, C. R. (1974). The mythus of accreditation. The Educational Forum, 38(2), 225-229.
Heitner, K., & Sherman, C. K. (2013). The role of career colleges: Implications for serving racial
and ethnic minority students. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture,
3(S1), 78-103.
Hercleroad, F. F. (1990). Are voluntary accrediting associations becoming government
agencies? The current answer: No! But the struggle continues. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED421024)
Hill, B. C, & Winston, C. G. (2010). Low-income students and highly selective private colleges:
Geography, searching, and recruiting. Economics of Education Review, 29, 495-503.
HLC Initial. (2012). Seeking accreditation. Chicago, IL: Higher Learning Commission of the
North Central Association. Accessed from http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-
Institutions/obtaining-accreditation.html
Huffman, J., & Harris, J. (1981). Implications of the “input-outcome” research for the evaluation
and accreditation of educational programs. North Central Association Quarterly, 56(1),
27-32.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 178
Hunt, G. T. (1990, April). The assessment movement: A challenge and an opportunity.
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 72, 5-12.
Ignash, J. M., & Townsend, B. K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements
according to good practice. Community College Review, 28(3), 1-19.
Ikenberry, S. O. (2009). Where do we take accreditation? Retrieved from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/2009_AC_Where_Do_We_Take_Accreditation_Ikenberry.pdf
Iloh, C. (2014). A critical comparison of website marketing at for-profit colleges and community
colleges. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 15(2), 91-106.
Iloh, C., & Tierney, G. W. (2013). A comparison of for-profit and community colleges'
admissions practices. College and University, 88(4). 2-12.
Iloh, C., & Tierney, G. W. (2014). Understanding for-profit college and community college
choice through rational choice. Teachers College Record, 116(080304), 0161-4681.
Ionescu, F. (2009). The federal student loan program: Quantitative implications for college
enrollment and default rates. Review of Economic Dynamics, 12, 205-231.
Jackson, R. S., Davis, J. H., & Jackson, F. R. (2010). Redesigning regional accreditation: The
impact on institutional planning. Planning for Higher Education, 38(4), 9-19.
Jacobs, B. & Van der Ploeg, F. (2006, July). How to reform higher education in Europe.
Economic Policy, 535-592.
Jaeger, A. J., Dunstan, S. B., & Dixon, K. G. (2015). College student access: How articulation
agreements support rural students. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 615-635, doi:
10.1080/0161956X.2015.1087771
Jaschik, S., & Ledgerman, D. (2014). The 2014 Inside Higher Ed survey of college & university
presidents. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 179
Johnstone, B. D. (2001). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In J. J. Yeager, G. M.
Nelson, E. A. Porter, J. C. Weidman, & T. G. Zullo (Eds.), ASHE reader on finance in
higher education (2nd ed.), (pp. 3-16). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Jung, S. M. (1986). The role of accreditation in directly improving educational quality.
Washington, DC: The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
Kelderman, E. (2011, November 13). Accreditors examine their flaws as calls for change
intensify. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-Examine-Their/129765/
Kells, H. R. (1976) The reform of regional accreditation agencies. Educational Record, 57(1),
24-28.
Kells, H. R., & Kirkwood, R. (1979). Institutional self-evaluation processes. The Educational
Record, 60(1), 25-45.
Kells, H. R., & Parrish, R. M. (1979). Multiple accreditation relationships of postsecondary
institutions in the United States. Washington, DC: The Council on Postsecondary
Accreditation.
Kells, H. R., & Parrish, R. M. (1986). Trends in the accreditation relationships of U.S.
postsecondary institutions. 1978-1985. Washington, DC: The Council on Postsecondary
Accreditation.
Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., and
Kristapovich, P. (2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences. Washington, DC Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
(http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf)
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 180
Kennedy, V. C., Moore, F. I., & Thibadoux, G. M. (1985). Determining the costs of self–study
for accreditation: A method and a rationale. Journal of Allied Health,14(2), 175-182.
Ketcheson, K. A. (2001). Public accountability and reporting: What should be the public part of
accreditation? New Directions for Higher Education, 113, 83-93.
Kezar, A. (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough, or too much? Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 41(6), 18-23. doi: 10.1080/00091380903270110
Kis, V. (2005). Quality assurance in tertiary education: Current practices in OECD countries
and a literature review on potential effects. Unpublished manuscript, Institut d’Etudes
Politiques de Paris. Paris, France. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/30/38006910.pdf
Koerner, J. D. (1971, March/April). Preserving the status quo: Academia’s hidden cartel.
Change, 50-54.
Kren, L., Tatum, K. W., & Phillips, L. C. (1993). Separate accreditation of accounting programs:
An empirical investigation. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(2), 260–272.
Krogh, S. L., & Sherwood, F. (2002). Impact of mandatory articulation agreements between
two‐ year and four ‐ year programs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
23(3), 297-297, doi: 10.1080/1090102020230315
Kuh, G. D. (2010). Risky business: Promises and pitfalls of institutional transparency. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 30-35.
Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United
States. Higher education management and policy, 22(1), 1-20.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 181
Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes
assessment in American higher education. Retrieved from National Institute for Learning
Outcomes Assessment website:
carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/niloafullreportfinal2.pdf
Larsen, K., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2002). International trade in educational services: Good or
bad? Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(3), 9-45.
Lasher, W. F., & Greene, D. L. (2001). College and university budgeting: What do we know and
what do we need to know? In M. B. Paulsen and J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of
higher education: Theory, research, policy and practice (pp. 501-542). New York, NY:
Agathon Press.
Learned, W. S., & Wood, B. D. (1938). The student and his knowledge: A report to the Carnegie
Foundation on the results of the high school and college examinations of 1928, 1930, and
1932. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Lee, M. B., & Crow, S. D. (1998). Effective collaboration for the twenty-first century: The
Commission and its stakeholders. (Report and Recommendations of the Committee on
Organizational Effectiveness and Future Directions). Chicago, IL: North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools.
Leef, G. C., & Burris, R. D. (2002). Can college accreditation live up to its promise?
Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Retrieved from
https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/CanAccreditationFulfillPromise. pdf
Lenn, M. P. (1996). The globalization of accreditation. The College Board Review, 178, 6-11.
Leslie, L. L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanation. Journal of
Higher Education, 66(2), 187-212.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 182
Lillis, D. (2006). Bar raising or navel-gazing?: The effectiveness of self-study programmes in
leading to improvements in institutional performance. Paper presented at the 2006
conference of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Retrieved from
http://arrow.dit.ie/scschcomcon/41
Lind, C. J., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating and assessment culture: A case study of success
and struggles. In S. E. Van Kollenburg (Ed.), A collection of papers on selfstudy and
institutional improvement, 3. Promoting student learning and effective teaching, pp.21-
23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 476 673). Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476673.pdf#page=22
Longanecker, D. A. (2011, September). Institutional accreditation and quality assurance in
American higher education from a federal and state perspective. Prepared for the
National Task Force on Institutional Accreditation. Retrieved from
http://www.wiche.edu/PPT/090811_Washington_DC.pdf
Lubinescu, E. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Gaffney, M. A. (2001). Two continuums collide:
Accreditation and assessment. New Directions for Higher Education, 113, 5-21.
Maki, P. L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: StylusPublishing.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins
and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
Michael, S. O. (2005). Chapter 1: A contextual background. In S. O. Michael & M. Ketrovics
(Eds.), Financing higher education in a global market (3-31). New York: Algora.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 183
Middaugh, M. F. (2012). Introduction to themed PHE issue on accreditation in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). (2009). Highlights from the
commission’s first 90 years. Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.msche.org/publications/90thanniversaryhistory.pdf
Miles, J. A. (2012). Jossey-bass business and management reader: Management and
organization theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Moltz, D. (2010). Redefining community college success. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved From
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/06/u_s_panel_drafts_and_debates_measur
es_to_gauge_community_college_success.
Montague, N. R. (2012). Articulation agreements: No credits left behind. Issues in Accounting
Education, 27(1), 281-298.
Mosholder, R. S., & Zirkle, C. J. (2007). Historical trends of articulation in America: A review
of the literature. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(9), 731-745,
doi: 10.1080/10668920701366875
NACIQI Final. (2012, April). Higher Education Act accreditation policy recommendations By
the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. Washington,
DC: USDE. Accessed from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/listNaciqi-dir/2012-
spring/teleconference-2013/naciqi-final-report.pdf
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. (2011). Higher education
accreditation reauthorization policy considerations. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/hea-recommendations.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 184
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. (2012). Higher education
accreditation reauthorization policy recommendations. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/naciqi_draft_final_report.pdf
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. (2012, April). Report to the
U.S. secretary of education, higher education act reauthorization, accreditation policy
recommendations. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-
dir/2012-spring/teleconference-2012/naciqi-final-report.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013). For-profit colleges and universities.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/for-profit-
colleges-and-universities.aspx
National Policy Board on Higher Education Institutional Accreditation. (1994). Independence,
accreditation, and the public interest. Washington, DC: National Policy Board on Higher
Education.
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). (2015). Home: NSLDS student access.
Retrieved from https://www.nslds.ed.gov/nslds/nslds_SA/
Neal, A. D. (2008). Dis-accreditation. Academic Questions, 21(4), 431-445.
Nettles, M. T., Cole, J. K., & Sharp, S. (1997). Benchmarking assessment. Assessment of
teaching and learning in higher education and public accountability: State Governing,
Coordinating Board & regional accreditation association policies and practices.
Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
Nevins, J. F. (1959). A study of the organization and operation of voluntary accrediting
agencies. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 185
New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (1986). The first hundred years: 1885-1985.
Winchester, MA: New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
Newman, M. (1996). Agency of change: One hundred years of the north central association of
colleges and schools. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press.
Niu, S. X., & Tienda, M. (2008). Choosing colleges: Identifying and modeling choice sets.
Social Science Research, 37, 416-433.
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. (2015). Frequently asked questions.
Retrieved from
http://www.nwccu.org/Glossary%20and%20FAQs/FAQs/FAQs.htm#1
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. (2015a). Home: Northwest
commission on colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://www.nwccu.org/index.htm
Nurnberg, P., Schapiro, M., & Zimmerman, D. (2012). Students choosing colleges:
Understanding the matriculation decision at a highly selective private institution.
Economics of Education Review, 31, 1-8.
Obama, B. (2013a, February 12). State of the Union address. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/president-barack-obamas-state-
union-address
Obama, B. (2013b, February 12). The President’s plan for a strong middle class and a strong
America. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sotu_2013_blueprint_embargo.pdf

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 186
Obama, B. (2013c, August 22). Fact sheet on the president’s plan to make college more
affordable: A better bargain for the middle class. The White House. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/22/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-
make-college-more-affordable-better-bargain-
Orlans, H. O. (1974). Private accreditation and public eligibility: Volumes 1 and 2. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED097858)
Orlans, H. O. (1975). Private accreditation and public eligibility. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath
and Company.
Parks, R. P. (1982). Costs of programmatic accreditation for allied health education in the
CAHEA [Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation] system: 1980.
Executive summary. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, Department of Allied
Health Education and Accreditation.
Persell, C. H., & Wenglinsky, H. (2004). For-profit post-secondary education and civic
engagement. Higher Education, 47(3), pp. 337-359.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Peterson, M. W. (1974). Organization and administration in higher education: Sociological and
social-psychological perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 2, 296-347.
Peterson, M. W., & Augustine, C. H. (2000). External and internal influences on institutional
approaches to student assessment: Accountability or improvement? Research in Higher
Education, 41(4), 443–479.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 187
Perrault, A. H.; Gergory, V. L.; & Carey, J. O. (2002). The integration of assessment of student
learning outcomes with teaching effectiveness. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 43(4), 270-282.
Pfnister, A. O. (1971). Regional accrediting agencies at the crossroads. The Journal of Higher
Education, 42(7), 558-573.
Pfnister, A. O. (1977, February). [Review of the book Private accreditation and public eligibility,
by H. O. Orlans]. Higher Education, 6(1), 125-127.
Pigge, F. L. (1979). Opinions about accreditation and interagency cooperation: The results of a
nationwide survey of COPA institutions. Washington, DC: Committee on Postsecondary
Education.
Procopio, C. H. (2010). Differing administrator, faculty, and staff perceptions of organizational
culture as related to external accreditation. Academic Leadership Journal, 8(2), 1-15.
Retrieved from http://www.chairacademy.com/membership/journal.html
Provezis, S. J. (2010). Regional accreditation and learning outcomes assessment: Mapping the
territory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign).
Puffer, C. E. (1970). A study prepared for The Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions
of Higher Education. Washington, DC: Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions
of Higher Education.
Raessler, K. R. (1970). An analysis of state requirements for college or university accreditation
in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(3), 223-233.
Rainwater, T. (2006). The rise and fall of SPRE: A look at failed efforts to regulate
postsecondary education in the 1990s. American Academic, 2(1), 107-122.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 188
Ratcliff, J. L. (1996). Assessment, accreditation, and evaluation of higher education in the US.
Quality in Higher Education, 2(1), 5-19.
Ratcliff, J. L., Lubinescu, E. S., & Gaffney, M. A. (2001). How accreditation influences
assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ratteray, O. M. T. (2008). History revisited: Four mirrors on the foundations of accreditation in
the middle states region. Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Middle States
Association of Colleges and Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.msche.org/documents/History- Revisited.pdf
Reese, S. (2002). Articulation agreements … ease the way. Techniques, 77(3), 37-38.
Reidlinger, C. R., & Prager, C. (1993). Cost-benefit analyses of accreditation. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 83, 39-47.
Rhodes, T. L. (2012). Show me the learning: Value, accreditation, and the quality of the degree.
Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 36-42.
Richards, W. E. (1984). Undergraduate preparation and early career outcomes: A study of recent
college graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 279-304.
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user–friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Roksa, J. (2005). Double disadvantage or blessing in disguise? Understanding the relationship
between college major and employment sector. Sociology of Education, 78(3), 207-232.
Romine, S. (1975). Objectives, objections, and options: Some perceptions of regional
accreditation. North Central Association Quarterly, 49(4), 365-375.
Rothstein, J., & Rouse, C. E. (2011). Constrained after college: Student loans and early-career
occupational choices. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 149-163.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 189
Ruppert, S. S. (1994). Charting higher education accountability. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.
Rusch, E. A., & Wilber, C. (2007). Shaping institutional environments: The process of becoming
legitimate. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 301-318. doi:10.1353/rhe/2007.0014
Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial
resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher
Education, 46(2), 235-245).
Saks, M. A. (2006). Multiple predictors and criteria of job search success. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 400-415.
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Schermerhorn, J. W., Reisch, J. S., & Griffith, P. J. (1980). Educator perceptions of
accreditation. Journal of Allied Health, 9(3), 176-182.
Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2004). Accreditation and evaluation in the European
higher education area. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation ideologies. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan
(Eds.), Evaluation models (250-278). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Selden, W. K. (1957). The National Commission on Accrediting: Its next mission. Educational
Record, 38, 152-156.
Selden, W. K. (1960). Accreditation: A struggle over standards in higher education. New York:
Harper & Brothers.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 190
Shah, M., & Nair, S. C. (2013). Private for-profit higher education in Australia: Widening
access, participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration. Higher Education
Research & Development, 32(5), 820-832, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.777030
Shaw, R. (1993). A backward glance: To a time before there was accreditation. North Central
Association Quarterly, 68(2), 323-335.
Shibley, L. R., & Volkwein, J. F. (2002, June). Comparing the costs and benefits of re–
accreditation processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Institutional Research. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sibolski, E. H. (2012). What’s an accrediting agency supposed to do?: Institutional quality and
improvement vs. regulatory compliance. Planning for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
Smith, V. B., & Finney, J. E. (2008, May/June). Redesigning regional accreditation: An
interview with Ralph A. Wolff. Change, 18-24.
Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015011.pdf)
Somers, P., Hollis, M. J., & Stokes, T. (2000). The federal government as first creditor on
student loans: Politics and policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), pp.
331-339.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2007). The quality enhancement plan. Retrieved
from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/QEP%20Handbook.pdf
Spangehl, S. D. (2012). AQIP and accreditation: Improving quality and performance. Planning
for Higher Education, 40(3), 6-7.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 191
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2006). Old wine in new bottles? A comparison of public and private
accreditation schemes in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 19, 65-85.
Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on
trust and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stern, J. M. B. (2015). The effect of articulation agreements on community college transfers and
bachelor’s degree attainment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-
15, doi: 10.1080/10668926.2015.1065209
Stoodley, R. V., Jr. (1985). An approach to postsecondary accreditation with the efficient use of
human resources and cost containment methods.
Stufflebeam, D. L, & Webster, W. J. (1980). An analysis of alternative approaches to education.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(3), 5-20.
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher
education. Brussels: European University Association.
Theule, R.W. (2012). An exploratory, quantitative study of accreditation actions taken by the
western association of schools and colleges’ accrediting commission for community and
junior colleges (WASC-ACCJC) since 2002. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California).
Thornton, S. (2011). It’s not over yet: The annual report on the economic status of the
profession, 2010-11. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/17BABE36-
BA30-467D-BE2F–34C37325549A/0/zreport.pdf
Tierney, G. W., & Hentschke, C. G. (2007). New players, different game: Understanding the rise
of for-profit colleges and universities. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 192
Trivett, D. A. (1976). Accreditation and institutional eligibility. ERIC/Higher Education
Research Report No. 9. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education.
Troutt, W. E. (1978). The quality assurance function of regional accreditation (Master’s
dissertation, University of Louisville).
Troutt, W. E. (1981). Relationships between regional accrediting standards and educational
quality. New Directions for Institutional Research, 29, 45-59.
Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets, and accountability in higher education: A comparative
perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309-24.
Uehling, B. S. (1987a). Accreditation and the institution. North Central Association Quarterly,
62(2), 350-360.
Uehling, B. S. (1987b). Serving too many masters: Changing the accreditation process.
Educational Record 68(3), 38-41.
UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Paris:
UNESCO.
Underwood, D. G. (1991). Taking inventory: Identifying assessment activities. Research in
Higher Education, 32(1), 59-69.
United States Department of Education. (1965). Higher education act (Public Law 89-329)
(HEOA). U.S. Government Publishing Office. Washington, DC Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg1219.pdf
United States Department of Education . (2008). Higher education opportunity Act (Public Law
110-315) (HEOA). U.S. Government Publishing Office. Washington, D.C. Retrieved
from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 193
United States Department of Education. (2009a). Institutional eligibility under the higher
education act of 1965, as amended, and the secretary's recognition of accrediting
agencies; Final rule (Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 206). U.S. Government
Publishing Office. Washington, DC Retrieved from
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-25186.htm
United States Department of Education. (2009b). Institutions and lender requirements relating to
education loans, student assistance general provisions, Federal Perkins Loan program,
federal family education loan program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
program; Final rule (Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 207). U.S. Government
Publishing Office. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-25073.htm
United States Department of Education. (2009c). Federal perkins loan program, federal family
education loan program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Federal
Register, Volume 74 Issue 208). U.S. Government Publishing Office. Washington, DC
Retrieved from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-25190.htm
United States Department of Education. (2014). Accreditation in the United States. ED.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html
United States Department of Education. (2015a). Federal student loans for college or career
school are an investment in your future. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 194
United States Department of Education. (2015b). When it comes to paying for school, you're not
alone. Grants, work-study, and low-interest loans help make college affordable. Federal
Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC Retrieved
from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types
United States Department of Education. (2015c). Here's your guide to repaying your federal
student loans. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans#forgiveness
United States Department of Education. (2015d). The Federal Perkins Loan Program provides
money for college or career school for students with financial need. Federal Student Aid:
An Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC Retrieved from
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/perkins
United States Department of Education. (2015e). The U.S. Department of Education offers low-
interest loans to eligible students to help cover the cost of college or career school.
Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC
Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized
United States Department of Education. (2015f). PLUS loans are federal loans that graduate
students and parents of dependent undergraduate students can use to help pay for college
or career school. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/plus
United States Department of Education). (2015g). Consolidating your federal education loans
can simplify your payments, but it also can result in loss of some benefits. Federal
Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC Retrieved
from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/consolidation
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 195
United States Department of Education. (2015h). When it comes to paying for college, career
school, or graduate school federal student loans offer several advantage over private
student loans. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/federal-vs-
private
United States Department of Education. (2015i). Don't ignore your student loan payments or
you'll risk going into default. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-
loans/default
United States Department of Education. (2015j). Accrediting agencies recognized for title IV
purposes. Administrators: Financial Aid for Postsecondary Students. Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg9.html#TitleIVRecognition
United States Department of Education. (2015k). 2009 Negotiated rulemaking for higher
education – team III – accreditation. Administrators. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/accreditation.html
United States Department of Education. (2015l). Accreditation in the United States. Laws &
Guidance. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html
United States Department of Education. (2015m). Regional and national institutional accrediting
agencies. Laws & Guidance. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg6.html
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 196
United States Department of Education. (2015n). History and context of accreditation in the
United States. About ED: Offices. Washington, DC Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg2.html#U.S.
United States Department of Education. (2015o). Three-year official cohort default rates for
schools. Default Management. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html
United States Department of Education. (2015p). Glossary. The Database of Accredited
Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Glossary.aspx
United States Department of Education. (2015q). Accreditation: Agency list. The
Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Washington,
D.C. Retrieved from http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Agencies.aspx
United States Department of Education. (2015r). Home. The Database of Accredited
Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Index.aspx
United States Department of Education. (2015s). FAQs about accreditation. The Database
of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/FAQAccr.aspx
United States Department of Education. (2015t). College navigator. Institute of Education
Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. Retrieve
from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 197
United States Department of Education. (2015u). Overview of accreditation in the United
States. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html#Overview
United States Department of Education. (2015v). IPEDS data center. Institute of Education
Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. Retrieve
from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
United States Department of Education. (2015w). 2.1 how the cohort default rates are
calculated: Understanding the CDR calculation process. Federal Student Aid: An
Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/guide/attachments/
CDRGuideCh2Pt1CDRCalculation.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2015x). 2.4 cohort default rate effects: Sanctions
and benefits. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/guide/attachments/
CDRGuideCh2Pt4CDREffects.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2015y). Three-year official cohort default rates
for schools. Federal Student Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html
United States Department of Education. (2015z). Federal student loan programs. Federal Student
Aid: An Office of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/federal-loan-programs.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 198

University of Southern California. (2015a). USC articulation agreements. Retrieved from
https://camel2.usc.edu/articagrmt/artic.aspx
University of Southern California. (2015b). Office of academic records and registrar:
Glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/ARR/glossary/a.html#Aagreement
University of Southern California. (2015c). Undergraduate admission. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/transfer/prospective/transfercredit.ht
ml
University of Southern California. (2015d). Graduate admission. Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/admission/graduate/apply/application1.html
United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final- report.pdf
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Boards & commissions: National advisory
committee on institutional quality and integrity. Retrieved from:
http://ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.html
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Wages. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm
USDE Test. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education. A report of
the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Washington,
DC: USDE. Accessed from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/-
reports/final-report.pdf.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 199
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 4, 1-20.
Van Damme, D. (2002). Trends and models in international quality assurance in higher
education in relation to trade in education. Higher Education Management and Policy,
14(3), 93-136.
Van der Ploeg, F. & Veugelers, R., (2008). Towards evidence-based reform of European
universities. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 99‒120.
Van Vught, F. S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment
in higher education. Higher Education, 28, 355-371.
Vaughn, J. (2002). Accreditation, commercial rankings, and new approaches to assessing the
quality of university research and education programmes in the United States. Higher
Education in Europe, XXVII(4), 433-441.
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Caffrey, H. S. & Reindl, T. (2005). What works to ensure quality
in higher education institutions: A summary of accreditation’s role. In What Works:
Policy seminar on student success, accreditation and quality assurance. New York, NY:
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC: &
Pennsylvania State University Center for the Study of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.aascu.org/media/pdf/whatworks_03.pdf
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Harper, B. J., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). Measuring the impact of
professional accreditation on student experiences and learning outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 48(2), 251-282. doi: 10.1007/s11162–006-9039-y

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 200
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., & Terenzini, P. T. (2008). Measuring the impact of engineering
accreditation on student experiences and learning outcomes. In W. E. Kelly (Ed.),
Assessment in engineering programs: Evolving best practices (17–43). Tallahassee, FL:
Association for Institutional Research.
Volkwein, J. F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Research
in Higher Education, 44(2), 149-171. doi: 10.1023/A:1022099612036
Walker, J. J. (2010). A contribution to the self-study of the postsecondary accreditation protocol:
A critical reflection to assist the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Paper
presented at the WASC Postsecondary Summit. Temecula, CA.
Walsemann, K. M., Gee, G. C., & Gentile, D. (2015). Sick of our loans: Student borrowing and
the mental health of young adults in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 124,
85-93.
Warner, W. K. (1977). Accreditation influences on senior institutions of higher education in the
Western accrediting region: An assessment. Oakland, CA: Western Association of
Schools and Colleges.
Warren, D. R. (1974). To enforce education: A history of the founding years of the United States
office of education. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). (2015). About us: WASC
senior college and university commission. Retrieved from
http://www.wascsenior.org/about
Weissburg, P. (2008). Shifting alliances in the accreditation of higher education: Self-regulatory
organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-A 70/02, August 2009.
ProQuest ID 250811630.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 201
Wellman, J. V. (2000, September 22). Accreditors have to see past “learning objectives.”
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-
Have-to-See-Pas/23720/
Wergin, J. F. (2005, May/June). Waking up to the importance of accreditation. Change, 35-41.
Wergin, J. F. (2012). Five essential tensions in accreditation. In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D.
Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The promise and practice of quality
assurance (27-38). Washington, DC: Teacher Education Accreditation Council.
Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp–content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in higher
education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (1998). Eight perspectives on how to focus the
accreditation process on educational effectiveness. Oakland, CA: Accrediting
commission for Senior Colleges and Universities WASC.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2009). WASC resource guide for ‘good practices’
in academic program review. Retrieved from
http://www.wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/WASC_Program_Review_Resource
_Guide_Sept_2009.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2002). Guide to using evidence in the
accreditation process: A resource to support institutions and evaluation teams. Retrieved
from www.wascweb.org/senior/Evidence_Guide.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC). (2011). Retrieved from http://www.accjc.org
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 202
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2015). About us: WASC senior college and
university commission. Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/about
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC). (2015a). WASC glossary: WASC senior college and university
commission. Retrieve from
http://www.wascsenior.org/lexicon/14#Standards_of_accreditation
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC). (2015b). WSCUC standards of accreditation: WASC senior
college and university commission. Retrieved from
http://www.wascsenior.org/resources/handbook-accreditation-2013/part-ii-core-
commitments-and-standards-accreditation/wasc-standards-accreditation-2013
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC). (2015c). Handbook of accreditation 2013 revised: WASC senior
college and university commission. Retrieved from
https://wascsenior.box.com/shared/static/oxgx719tnw5bn8b4kp28.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC). (2015d). Standards at a glance 2013: WASC senior college and
university commission. Retrieved from
https://wascsenior.box.com/shared/static/nrraop98ob2zec99yvm1.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
(WASC-SCUC). (2015e). Institutions: WASC senior college and university
commission. Retrieved from http://www.wascsenior.org/institutions
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 203
Western Governors University. (2015). About WGU: A school unlike other schools.
Retrieved from http://www.wgu.edu/about_WGU/overview
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Quality assurance in higher
education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Whalen, E. L. (1991). Responsibility center budgeting. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
White House. (2013, February 12). The President's plan for a strong middle class and a strong
America. Accessed from http://www.whitehouse.gov/th e-press-
office/2013/02/12/president- s-plan-strong-middle-class-and-strong-America
Wiedman, D. (1992). Effects on academic culture of shifts from oral to written traditions: The
case of university accreditation. Human Organization, 51(4), 398-407.
Wiley, M. G., & Zald, M. N. (1968). The growth and transformation of educational accrediting
agencies: An exploratory study in social control of institutions. Sociology of Education,
41(1), 36-56.
Willis, C. R. (1994). The cost of accreditation to educational institutions. Journal of Allied
Health, 23, 39-41.
Wilson, S. M. (2012). Doing better: Musings on teacher education, accountability, and evidence.
In M. LaCelle-Peterson & D. Rigden (Eds.), Inquiry, evidence, and excellence: The
promise and practice of quality assurance (39-57). Washington, DC: Teacher Education
Accreditation Council. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/Festschrift-Book.pdf
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 204
Winskowski, C. (2012, March). U.S. accreditation and learning outcomes assessment: A review
of issues. Bulletin of Morioka Junior College Iwate Prefectural University, 14, 21-40.
Wolff, R. A. (1990, June 27-30). Assessment 1990: Accreditation and renewal. Paper presented
at The Fifth AAHE Conference on Assessment in Higher Education. Washington, DC.
Wolff, R. A. (1993). The accreditation of higher education institutions in the United States.
Higher Education in Europe, 18(3), 91-99.
Wolff, R. A. (2005). Accountability and accreditation: Can reforms match increasing demands?
In J. C. Burke and Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education:
Balancing public, academic, and market demands (78-103). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Wood, A. L. (2006). Demystifying accreditation: Action plans for a national or regional
accreditation. Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 43-62. doi: 10.1007/s10755–006-
9008-6
Woolston, P. J. (2012). The Costs of Institutional Accreditation: A study of direct and indirect
costs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wriston, H. M. (1960). The futility of accrediting. The Journal of Higher Education, 31(6), 327-
329.
Young, J. L. (2010). A community college’s loss of accreditation: A case study (Doctoral
dissertation, California State University, Long Beach).
Young, K. E. (1983). Understanding accreditation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 205
Yung-chi Hou, A. (2014). Quality in cross-border higher education and challenges for the
internationalization of national quality assurance agencies in the Asia-Pacific region: The
taiwanese experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1). 135-152.
Zis, S., Boeke, M., & Ewell, P. (2010). State policies on the assessment of student learning
outcomes: Results of a fifty-state inventory. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).
Zook, G. F., & Haggerty, M. E. (1936). The evaluation of higher institutions: Principles of
accrediting. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press.

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 206
Appendix A
Regional and National Institutional Accrediting Agencies (USDE, 2015m)
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges
1967/2011/S2016
Scope of recognition: the accreditation of postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and
degree-granting institutions in the United States, including those granting associate ,
baccalaureate and master’s degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for
occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via
distance education.
Michale McComis, Executive Director
2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 302
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Tel. (703) 247-4212, Fax (703) 247-4533
E-mail address: mccomis@accsc.org
Web address: www.accsc.org
Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training
1978/2013/S2018
Scope of recognition: the accreditation throughout the United States of institutions of higher
education that offer continuing education and vocational programs that confer certificates or
occupational associate degrees, including those programs offered via distance education.
Title IV Note: Only those institutions classified by this agency as "vocational " may use
accreditation by the agency to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.
William V . Larkin, Executive Director
1722 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 955-1113, Fax (202) 955-1118
E-mail address: wvlarkin@accet.org
Web address: www.accet.org
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools
1956/2013/S2016
Scope of recognition: the accreditation of private postsecondary institutions offering certificates
or diplomas, and postsecondary institutions offering associate, bachelor's, or master's degrees in
programs designed to educate students for professional, technical, or occupational careers,
including those that offer those programs via distance education.
Albert C. Gray
Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
750 First Street, NE, Suite 980
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Tel. (202) 336-6780, Fax (202) 842-2593
E-mail address: agray@acics.org
Web address: www.acics.org
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 207
Council on Occupational Education
1969/2013/S2016
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidacy Status") throughout the
United States of postsecondary occupational education institutions offering non-degree and
applied associate degree programs in specific career and technical education fields, including
institutions that offer programs via distance education.
Gary Puckett, Executive Director
7840 Roswell Road, Building 300, Suite 325
Atlanta, Georgia 30350
Tel. (770) 396-3898, (800) 917-2081, Fax (770) 396-3790
E-mail address: puckettg@council.org
Web address: www.council.org
Distance Education Accrediting Commission
1959/2012/S2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States that
offer degree and/or non-degree programs primarily by the distance or correspondence education
method up to and including the professional doctoral degree, including those institutions that are
specifically certified by the agency as accredited for Title IV purposes.
Title IV Note:Only accredited institutions that are certified by the agency as accredited for Title
IV purposes may use accreditation by this agency to establish eligibility of its degree and/or non-
degree programs to participate in Title IV programs.
Leah K. Matthews, Executive Director
1101 17th Street NW, Suite 808
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 234-5100, Fax (202) 332-1386
E-mail address: info@deac.org
Web address:www.deac.org
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
1952/2012/F2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidacy status") of institutions
of higher education in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including distance and correspondence
education programs offered at those institutions.
Elizabeth H. Sibolski, President
3624 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Tel. (267) 284-5000, Fax (215) 662-5950
E-mail address: info@msche.org
Web address: www.msche.org

COHORT DEFAULT RATES 208
Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
2004/2014/S2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation of institutions with postsecondary, non-degree granting
career and technology programs in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to
include the accreditation of postsecondary, non-degree granting institutions that offer all or part
of their educational programs via distance education modalities..
Title IV Note:Only those vocational/technical schools accredited by this agency that offer non-
degree, postsecondary education may use that accreditation to establish eligibility to participate
in Title IV programs.
Henry Cram, President
3624 Market Street, 2 West
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-2680
Tel. (267) 284-5000, Fax (215) 662-0957
E-mail address: jpruitt@msa-cess.org
Web address: www.msa-cess.org
New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher
Education
1952/2015/F2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and pre-accreditation ("Candidacy status") of institutions
of higher education in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont that award bachelor’s, master’s, and/or doctoral degrees and associate degree-granting
institutions in those states that include degrees in liberal arts or general studies among their
offerings, including the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these
institutions..
Barbara E. Brittingham, President
3 Burlington Woods Drive, Suite 100
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-4514
Tel. (781) 425-7700, Fax (781) 425-1001
E-mail address:bbrittingham@neasc.org
Web address: https://cihe.neasc.org
New York State Board of Regents, and the Commissioner of Education
1952/2012/F2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation of those degree-granting institutions of higher education
in New York, including distance education offered by those institutions, that designate the
agency as their sole or primary nationally recognized accrediting agency for purposes of
establishing eligibility to participate in HEA programs.
Elizabeth Berlin, Acting Commissioner of Education
State Education Department
The University of the State of New York
89 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12234
Tel. (518) 474-5844 Fax (518) 473-4909
E-Mail address: beth.berlin@nysed.gov
Web address: www.nysed.gov
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 209
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission
1952/2015/F2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of
degree-granting institutions of higher education in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, including the tribal
institutions and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education and correspondence
education within these institutions. This recognition extends to the Institutional Actions Council
jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Commission for decisions on cases for continued
accreditation or reaffirmation, and continued candidacy, and to the Appeals Body jointly with the
Board of Trustees of the Commission for decisions related to initial candidacy or accreditation or
reaffirmation of accreditation.
Barbara Gellman-Danley, President
230 South LaSalle Street, Suite 7-500
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1413
Tel. (312) 263-0456, (800) 621-7440, Fax (312) 263-7462
E-mail address: bgdanley@hlcommission.org
Web address: www.hlcommission.org
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
1952/2013/F2015-C
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidacy status”) of
postsecondary degree-granting educational institutions in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education
within these institutions.
Sandra E. Elman, President
8060 165th Avenue, NE, Suite 100
Redmond, Washington 98052
Tel. (425) 558-4224, Fax (425) 376-0596
E-mail address: selman@nwccu.org
Web address: www.nwccu.org
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges
1952/2014/S2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of
degree-granting institutions of higher education in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia,
including the accreditation of programs offered via distance and correspondence education
within these institutions. This recognition extends to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees and the
Appeals Committee of the College Delegate Assembly on cases of initial candidacy or initial
accreditation and for continued accreditation or candidacy.
Belle S. Wheelan, President
1866 Southern Lane
Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097
Tel. (404) 679-4512, Fax (404) 994-6592
E-mail address: bwheelan@sacscoc.org
Web address: www.sacscoc.org
COHORT DEFAULT RATES 210
Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission
1991/2013/S2016
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” status) of Christian
postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate,
baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.
T. Paul Boatner, President
15935 Forest Road
Forest, Virginia 24551
Tel. (434) 525-9539, Fax (434) 525-9538
E-mail address: info@tracs.org
Web address: www.tracs.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges
1952/2013/F2015-C
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of
community and other colleges with a primarily pre-baccalaureate mission located in California,
Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, which offer certificates, associate degrees, and the first
baccalaureate degree by means of a substantive change review offered by institutions that are
already accredited by the agency, and such programs offered via distance education and
correspondence education at these colleges. This recognition also extends to the Committee on
Substantive Change of the Commission, for decisions on substantive changes, and the Appeals
Panel.
Barbara A. Beno, President
10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204
Novato, California 94949
Tel. (415) 506-0234, Fax (415) 506-0238
E-mail address: accjc@accjc.org
Web address: www.accjc.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior Colleges and University Commission
1952/2012/F2017
Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of
senior colleges and universities in California, Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and
American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, including distance
education programs offered at those institutions.
Mary Ellen Petrisko
President
985 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 100
Alameda, California 94501
Tel. (510) 748-9001, Fax (510) 748-9797
E-mail address: wasc@wascsenior.org
Web address: www.wascsenior.org

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This quantitative study focused on Institutional Accreditation, particularly Institutional Accreditation from Regional Accrediting Agency of Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WASC-SCUC), as it relates to student outcomes by focusing on federal student loan default rates. All 149 institutions in this study with Accreditation Status (i.e. Accredited, Accredited on Warning, Accredited with Notice of Concern, or Candidate) from WASC-SCUC participated in the Federal Student Loan Program. Whereby, all 149 institutions in this study had recorded Institutional Cohort Default Rates for FY 2012, 2011, and 2010 Official Three-year Cohort Default Rates by Institution Type (i.e. Public, Private, or Proprietary). This quantitative study first looked to investigate the difference between institution type and institution cohort default rates: The difference between the private institutions and proprietary institutions was statistically significant at the p < .05: Sig. = .026 or (p = .026). Second, this quantitative study looked to investigate the difference in institutional cohort default rates among public, private, or proprietary institution type, while considering accreditation status of all institutions in this study. The independent one-way between-groups ANOVA yielded no statistically significant effect at the p < .05, F(3, 145) = 1.299, p = .277, concluding there is no significant difference in overall cohort default rates based on WASC-SCUC accreditation status. Lastly, this quantitative study measured the relationship between institution type and accreditation status, given institutional cohort default rates of all institutions in this study: Multivariate Tests revealed that there is no significant interaction on overall cohort default rate between Institutions Type and Accreditation Status from the actual results of the one-way MANOVA. The data indicated no relationship between institution type with accreditation status, given their overall cohort default rates.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Investigating the association of student choices of major on college student loan default: a propensity-scored hierarchical linear model

Asset Metadata

Creator Payroda, Dinesh Chand (author)

Core Title Institutional student loan cohort default rates by institution type

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/05/2016

Defense Date 06/02/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accreditation,accreditation status,accrediting agencies,accrediting agency,agency type,cohort default rate,cohort default rates,college,colleges,default rate,direct loans,federal family education loans,federal fund,federal funding,federal funds,federal loan program,federal student loan program,FFEL,grants,Higher education,institution,institution type,Institutional,institutional accreditation,institutional accrediting agency type,loans,national accreditation,national accrediting agencies,national accreditor,national accreditors,national institutions,OAI-PMH Harvest,private,proprietary,public,regional accreditation,regional accrediting agencies,regional accreditor,regional accreditors,regional institutions,sanctions,self-regulation,self-study,site visit,specialized accreditation,standards,standards of accreditation,status,student learning,student learning and success,student learning outcome,student loan,student success,Title IV,universities,University,WASC,WASC-SCUC,Western Association of Schools and Colleges

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email dineshpayroda@gmail.com,payroda@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-260938

Unique identifier UC11281191

Identifier etd-PayrodaDin-4502.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-260938 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PayrodaDin-4502.pdf

Dmrecord 260938

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Payroda, Dinesh Chand

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA