The self-help genre gets a bad rap. Check here for some thoughts from the author of SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless, Steve Salerno. Basically, self-help is often criticized as an amalgamation of psychiatric and folk-lore notions that are specifically designed to target vulnerable individuals looking for something to believe in. I'm going to give self-help practitioners the benefit of the doubt though. For the sake of argument, let's assume that so-called "self-help" literature is written by sincere individuals who are simply writing down advice about how to live and how to navigate the complexities of today's world.
Under this assumption, self-help literature or any book or paper giving individuals specific advice, is extremely significant to economics. The economy dictates and is dictated by the sum total of the global infrastructure. Economics is essentially a discipline of observers and theoreticians influencing one another - and helping to map the reality of our economic infrastructure. An economist sees this infrastructure from the top-down, as though he was flying over a corn maze, or huge open air labyrinth.
What if you cannot "afford" a plane ticket? That is, what if you can't be an economist, and understand in great depth the full scope of our economic system?
Let's take the labyrinth analogy and extend it to the common man. Let's say the labyrinth is magical, and moves around dynamically, unpredictably, even while you're attempting to make your way through it. Now let's say you are standing at the entrance to such a labyrinth, wishing for some help on successfully making it through to the other side. What kind of directions would you want? What help would you need? A few people try to help the hapless traveler before he sets out on his journey:
- The economist lands on the ground after flying over the labyrinth in a small plane. He walks over to the traveler with a rough sketch of the entire labyrinth from above. He took a photo as well, but it's blurry, and everyone knows the labyrinth is constantly changing - magically and unpredictably. The economist tells the traveler in exceedingly technical terms how he believes the magic changes are occurring, and why they may occur, and what could cause them to occur at any given time. He then tells him that he has a fairly high level of uncertainty about any particular labyrinthine prediction, but in general, he's right about the labyrinth's behavior.
- The traveler is then approached by another traveler who has already been through the labyrinth, and has also read the stories of the many people who passed through the labyrinth and lived to tell about it. He explains to the would-be traveler that the labyrinth is a dangerous place. He tells him that he'll have to keep his wits about him, and always try to change his situation for his own betterment. He explains how it feels to be alone and scared in the labyrinth, and how to get past those tough times. He explains why it is worth fighting on, and finding a way through to the end.
At its very best, this is how self-help, or religion, or any personal advice plays into the tapestry of economic thinking. We need to be able to find meaning in the economic infrastructure we work and play in. We need to be able to have human compassion for one another as we fight through to the end. The best economist can do both things - explain what the system is all about, and how we can help ourselves to find meaning within it and make a valuable contribution to it. We are all "economic agents" to economists, but we are each very real as well, and we need to be taken seriously as people, talked to as people, and have economic ideas justified in a way that matters to us.
To the extent that self-help authors do this in a way that is not fundamentally deceptive, they deserve the success they've enjoyed.
3/7/08
Is it Better to be Well-Liked or to Like Yourself? How the popular “self-help” genre approaches reputation capital
The best way to approach research into popular culture is usually to just turn on the TV – it’s important to tap into media channels that are known to have high viewership. I’ll admit I didn’t do this intentionally either, I was actually watching TV for fun with my girlfriend, and the popular talk show Ellen came on, hosted by Ellen De Generes. After her usually goofy dancing through the audience and light-hearted humor with her initial guests, she brought on Dr. Wayne Dyer. In his most recent book, Dyer’s biographical summary states that he is, “an internationally renowned author and speaker in the field of self-development.” (Back Flap). While Dyer spoke, it became clear that his latest lessons for readers, which he presents in the book Change Your Thoughts – Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao , dealt with concerns about one’s reputation and place in the world. He told Ellen that it’s important to be able to detach yourself from your worldly reputation, and find inner peace based in the fact that we’re all spiritual beings having a human experience. Though this statement seems wholly unrelated to the economic issue of educational accreditation, there is certainly a relationship which I’ve suggested in the title above: educational accreditation is a potent form of reputation capital. Dyer’s message is to lower the importance of both material wealth and reputation capital in your life in order to find peace. Later in the paper, we’ll see that a book by Hardball host Chris Matthews shares quite different self-help wisdom on the topic.
Reputation capital is familiar to us in so many ways. We can’t get a low interest home loan without a good credit score, which is said to suggest to lenders our credit worthiness. Many people have no idea that their score is generated by a computational neural network and then reevaluated by 3 monolithic credit bureaus before it’s passed to every financial institution in the nation. Most people do understand that they don’t want it to be too low.
Educational accreditation is at the highest level of reputation capital, because accrediting organizations are the gatekeepers for thousands of universities and institutions of higher education – without the accreditors seal of approval, legitimate degrees cannot be issued to students for use in the larger economy. Institutions seeking accreditation have to care about their own reputation capital, because they want to be able to issue similar reputation-bearing currencies to their members and students. This is a highly organized apparatus for bestowing institutionally-guaranteed reputation capital on an individual, and it’s an extremely powerful system. But is a high level of focus on this system and its rewards good for us as individuals? In the case of Ellen, should she obsess about what the critics say about her show? Dyer says no, emphatically, and I’m inclined to agree at least that overemphasis on reputation could easily become stressful and toxic.
Dyer is questioning the importance of this system and asking us to detach ourselves from it in order to be a bit more in tune with ourselves. Since I did bother to purchase Dyer’s book, let’s take a look at a typical quote from him: “This far-reaching verse of the Tao Te Ching asks you to let go of seeking results in money, accomplishments, acquisitions, fame, and so on. Instead, shift your attention to the energy in the beginning of all things – the elusive and intangible Tao.” (102) This is not particularly useful advice for getting a job or home loan, but it may certainly help some people diminish their obsession with personal accumulation of wealth or fame. From the popularity of Dyer’s books (of which he’s written over 30 in the “self-development” genre), it seems that this sort of advice appeals to a good number of people.
As mentioned earlier, Hardball host Chris Matthews has quite a different take on the importance of reputation. In his latest book, Life’s a Campaign: What Politics has Taught me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success, Chris Matthews introduces concrete tools for marketing yourself, interacting productively with others, and cultivating your reputation. This is essentially a book about finding opportunities for building one’s reputation capital and exploiting them very intentionally. Again, this book was profiled on TV, on Jon Stewart’s popular talk show, and the interview has become popular on YouTube. Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sddRviP8-do
The video shows Chris Matthews being slammed by Jon Stewart for essentially writing a self-help book with no soul. Perhaps the best indication of the book’s life lessons is provided in the front and back flaps:
“The big payoff in Life’s a Campaign is what you’ll learn about human nature:
- People would rather be listened to than listen
- People don’t mind being used; what they mind is being discarded.
- People are more loyal to the people they’ve helped; than the people they’ve helped are loyal to them.
- Not everyone’s going to like you
- No matter what anybody says, nobody wants a level playing field”
As Jon Stewart points out, this looks like a “recipe for sadness”, largely because it seems so cynical. Some of the luminaries reviewing Matthews book on the back cover however, disagree, particular chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt: “…People think that leaders ‘tell people what to do.’ More frequently, leadership in business is about selling teams on a vision, and leveraging friendship and trust to get things done. Chris does a great job of bridging his experience in politics with commonsense rules.” (Back Cover)
Immelt may be on to something here – Matthews is simply digging into the mechanisms by which people with significant reputation capital go about using that capital to get things done. When one reaches the stratosphere of political achievement, a lot of the reputation dynamics have to be driven by the players themselves. They are ‘churning’ their reputation capital (i.e. – accumulating it and spending it) at a very high rate. For the average person however, the sort of posturing and strategy Matthews has observed may not be quite so necessary, since in its place, we have many institutions that are ready to grant us credit for our accomplishments and vouch for our ability to perform certain tasks.
The books selected for analysis here were intentionally pulled out of the self-help literature because they present such a profoundly opposing view of how to achieve success – largely because they define success differently. If there are to be criticisms lodged against these two authors, it would be that Dyer is a hypocrite, and Matthews is a cynic. Wayne Dyer does not seem to shy away from tooting his own horn in order to convince us of his credibility – stating that he is a “Dr.” and has written over 30 books. While I don’t question his truthfulness or begrudge him his right to include this information, his book seems to suggest so fervently that reputation is unimportant for well-being that the prominent use of his reputation to market the book does seem like a hypocrisy. Chris Matthews seems to believe that the key to success is in almost fooling others into trust by putting up a façade of likability. The people who I think we generally have the deepest connections with are those who we still like when we see them at their most vulnerable. Deep friendships ought not be based on mutual likability alone, and certainly not on mutual envy of another’s reputation capital stock. This is likely what Jon Stewart was getting at, and he was justified in pointing out Matthews’ cynicism.
In order to bring this issue back to educational accreditation, and the general popular view of accreditation, let’s consider that both these books were popular, and sold well on Amazon. As of March 7, 2008, Chris Matthews’ book ranking on Amazon was #11,251 and Wayne Dyer’s book ranking was #81 – while this may seem like a large difference, Amazon ranks millions of books, so these two are both likely in the top 1% of Amazon sellers. Therefore, people likely have a fairly balanced understanding that outward reputation and inward peace or reflection are both crucial for whole living. Any good educational accreditation program will likely seek to map very carefully onto the natural lives we live – capturing who we are, without interfering with our desire for authenticity.
If you are defined by your diploma, it is fair to say you’d be missing out on life, and may have difficulty discovering what you’re truly passionate about – since the diploma is essentially a contrived label bestowed by others. If you are so self-reflective however, that it serves as a shield or barrier from the interests and concerns of others, then people will simply not know you or trust you to do the work you may be capable of. Somewhere in the middle, popular culture will move to embrace methods of accrediting education and success that aptly recognizes learning and accomplishment, without seeking to exert restrictive influence over its creation.
Works Cited:
Dyer, Wayne. Change Your Thoughts – Change Your Life. Hay House Inc. 2007
Matthews, Chris. Life’s a Campaign. Random House, New York. 2007.
Reputation capital is familiar to us in so many ways. We can’t get a low interest home loan without a good credit score, which is said to suggest to lenders our credit worthiness. Many people have no idea that their score is generated by a computational neural network and then reevaluated by 3 monolithic credit bureaus before it’s passed to every financial institution in the nation. Most people do understand that they don’t want it to be too low.
Educational accreditation is at the highest level of reputation capital, because accrediting organizations are the gatekeepers for thousands of universities and institutions of higher education – without the accreditors seal of approval, legitimate degrees cannot be issued to students for use in the larger economy. Institutions seeking accreditation have to care about their own reputation capital, because they want to be able to issue similar reputation-bearing currencies to their members and students. This is a highly organized apparatus for bestowing institutionally-guaranteed reputation capital on an individual, and it’s an extremely powerful system. But is a high level of focus on this system and its rewards good for us as individuals? In the case of Ellen, should she obsess about what the critics say about her show? Dyer says no, emphatically, and I’m inclined to agree at least that overemphasis on reputation could easily become stressful and toxic.
Dyer is questioning the importance of this system and asking us to detach ourselves from it in order to be a bit more in tune with ourselves. Since I did bother to purchase Dyer’s book, let’s take a look at a typical quote from him: “This far-reaching verse of the Tao Te Ching asks you to let go of seeking results in money, accomplishments, acquisitions, fame, and so on. Instead, shift your attention to the energy in the beginning of all things – the elusive and intangible Tao.” (102) This is not particularly useful advice for getting a job or home loan, but it may certainly help some people diminish their obsession with personal accumulation of wealth or fame. From the popularity of Dyer’s books (of which he’s written over 30 in the “self-development” genre), it seems that this sort of advice appeals to a good number of people.
As mentioned earlier, Hardball host Chris Matthews has quite a different take on the importance of reputation. In his latest book, Life’s a Campaign: What Politics has Taught me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success, Chris Matthews introduces concrete tools for marketing yourself, interacting productively with others, and cultivating your reputation. This is essentially a book about finding opportunities for building one’s reputation capital and exploiting them very intentionally. Again, this book was profiled on TV, on Jon Stewart’s popular talk show, and the interview has become popular on YouTube. Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sddRviP8-do
The video shows Chris Matthews being slammed by Jon Stewart for essentially writing a self-help book with no soul. Perhaps the best indication of the book’s life lessons is provided in the front and back flaps:
“The big payoff in Life’s a Campaign is what you’ll learn about human nature:
- People would rather be listened to than listen
- People don’t mind being used; what they mind is being discarded.
- People are more loyal to the people they’ve helped; than the people they’ve helped are loyal to them.
- Not everyone’s going to like you
- No matter what anybody says, nobody wants a level playing field”
As Jon Stewart points out, this looks like a “recipe for sadness”, largely because it seems so cynical. Some of the luminaries reviewing Matthews book on the back cover however, disagree, particular chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt: “…People think that leaders ‘tell people what to do.’ More frequently, leadership in business is about selling teams on a vision, and leveraging friendship and trust to get things done. Chris does a great job of bridging his experience in politics with commonsense rules.” (Back Cover)
Immelt may be on to something here – Matthews is simply digging into the mechanisms by which people with significant reputation capital go about using that capital to get things done. When one reaches the stratosphere of political achievement, a lot of the reputation dynamics have to be driven by the players themselves. They are ‘churning’ their reputation capital (i.e. – accumulating it and spending it) at a very high rate. For the average person however, the sort of posturing and strategy Matthews has observed may not be quite so necessary, since in its place, we have many institutions that are ready to grant us credit for our accomplishments and vouch for our ability to perform certain tasks.
The books selected for analysis here were intentionally pulled out of the self-help literature because they present such a profoundly opposing view of how to achieve success – largely because they define success differently. If there are to be criticisms lodged against these two authors, it would be that Dyer is a hypocrite, and Matthews is a cynic. Wayne Dyer does not seem to shy away from tooting his own horn in order to convince us of his credibility – stating that he is a “Dr.” and has written over 30 books. While I don’t question his truthfulness or begrudge him his right to include this information, his book seems to suggest so fervently that reputation is unimportant for well-being that the prominent use of his reputation to market the book does seem like a hypocrisy. Chris Matthews seems to believe that the key to success is in almost fooling others into trust by putting up a façade of likability. The people who I think we generally have the deepest connections with are those who we still like when we see them at their most vulnerable. Deep friendships ought not be based on mutual likability alone, and certainly not on mutual envy of another’s reputation capital stock. This is likely what Jon Stewart was getting at, and he was justified in pointing out Matthews’ cynicism.
In order to bring this issue back to educational accreditation, and the general popular view of accreditation, let’s consider that both these books were popular, and sold well on Amazon. As of March 7, 2008, Chris Matthews’ book ranking on Amazon was #11,251 and Wayne Dyer’s book ranking was #81 – while this may seem like a large difference, Amazon ranks millions of books, so these two are both likely in the top 1% of Amazon sellers. Therefore, people likely have a fairly balanced understanding that outward reputation and inward peace or reflection are both crucial for whole living. Any good educational accreditation program will likely seek to map very carefully onto the natural lives we live – capturing who we are, without interfering with our desire for authenticity.
If you are defined by your diploma, it is fair to say you’d be missing out on life, and may have difficulty discovering what you’re truly passionate about – since the diploma is essentially a contrived label bestowed by others. If you are so self-reflective however, that it serves as a shield or barrier from the interests and concerns of others, then people will simply not know you or trust you to do the work you may be capable of. Somewhere in the middle, popular culture will move to embrace methods of accrediting education and success that aptly recognizes learning and accomplishment, without seeking to exert restrictive influence over its creation.
Works Cited:
Dyer, Wayne. Change Your Thoughts – Change Your Life. Hay House Inc. 2007
Matthews, Chris. Life’s a Campaign. Random House, New York. 2007.
3/2/08
Government Educational Licensing: Educational Accreditation as an Escalating Institutional Project
Before even considering the government documents that address the topic of educational accreditation, let’s first consider why educational accreditation is an economic behavior that is seen as an appropriate task for governments and non-profit institutions to undertake. Among those with an institutionalist or managerial style of economic thinking in government, this is not a debate, accreditation is absolutely necessary to prevent the fraudulent distribution of worthless degrees by so-called “diploma mills”. While the neoclassical interest in competitive markets has, as we’ll see, its own rare advocates in government, the dominant theme, at least in statements from the government, is that signal educational quality ought to be the job of a institutions. The actual form this institution takes is not monolithic though. A complex array of private institutional accreditors, each recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the Department of Education, is allowed to individually grant accredited status to educational institutions either by geographic region or by professional disciplinary area. This system, while decentralized and therefore fairly flexible, presents problems that institutionalists seek to address with greater standardization across the disparate accrediting boards. While this doesn’t necessarily mean consolidation, it has meant cooperation, particularly via the relatively new mechanism of the CHEA, which was only created in 1996 in order to coordinate the operations of the regional accreditors and act as a single national voice for educational quality assurance.
In order to get a robust sense of the conversation that is occurring among government officials with regards to the challenge of educational accreditation, we’ll take a look at three documents: H.R. 773 of the 110th Congress, H.R. 838 of the 108th Congress, and a 2006 Issue Paper from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education entitled, “Assuring Quality in Higher Education”. The first two pieces are contrasting bills presented in the US Congress arguing that very different sorts of action ought to be taken in order to modify the educational accreditation apparatus of the country. The final paper provides a deeper analysis of the issues facing the accreditation process, but frames the entire problem in an institutionalist context, thereby laying out the foundation for an escalating institutional role in accreditation.
H.R. 773 of the 110th Congress is cited as the, “Diploma Integrity Protection Act of 2007” and is of particular interest because it is a very recent piece of legislation that may come in for more public scrutiny as it moves through the House and Senate. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order, “To reduce and prevent the sale of use of fraudulent degrees in order to protect the integrity of valid higher education degrees that are used for Federal purposes.” The bill’s approach to the issue of educational accreditation is institutionalist, stating, for example, that the “preeminence of American universities” is threatened by the trafficking of fraudulent degrees. Its main solution to the problem of the potentially “$500,000,000” industry in diploma fraud is the creation of a temporary governmental “task force” comprised of 19 representatives from across the political and private spectrum. The bill repeatedly highlights the fact that fraudulent diplomas could be used to illegitimately obtain Federal jobs, and notes that one study that discovered numerous working government employees had obtained their post by presenting fake or shoddy credentials during application. Among other things, it’s stated that this practice “imperils the national security of the Unites States.” (5)
The harsh terms presented in this bill to describe the severity of the fraudulent credential problem, and the ways in which it would be swiftly brought under control, also evoked the managerial style of economic thinking. Essentially, the bill is seeking to immediately expand the Federal role in managing/influencing the accrediting apparatus of the country, with the justification that fake credentials can be used to obtain Federal jobs. A neoclassical economist may look at such a bill and ask whether or not this difficulty can be handled at the level of the Federal employees in charge of recruiting and screening applicants, a managerial economist may see this as a problem to be addressed immediately using the machinery of state. On pages 21-22 of the bill, the “Conduct Prohibited” is laid out, and suggested as a modification to FTC rules, and among other things, it specifies that an institution cannot distribute academic degrees without recognition from the Secretary of Education and accreditation by one of the recognized accrediting bodies. This essentially permits the Federal government to shut down almost any for-profit educational establishment that hasn’t met accrediting criteria, raising the activities of the accreditors to an even higher level of importance under the law. Rather than being the gatekeepers for billions of dollars in Federal student loans, this bill, if it became law, would convert accrediting agencies into the first and strongest line of defense against educational “counterfeiting”, however that comes to be defined.
For the record, another potential style that could be attributed to H.R. 773 is the moral/critical style, partially due to the bill’s multiple claims that consumers are often the unwitting victims of “diploma mills”. The assertion that consumers often have a genuine belief that their credentials are going to be valid, and are the unwitting victims of unscrupulous for-profit educators, certainly suggests a moral imperative to protect the public from being morally wronged in this way.
In stark contrast, two members of the 108th congress brought legislation that also addressed the issue of educational accreditation, but with the aim of significantly diminishing its power and influence. In February 2003, congressman Tom Petri brought H.R. 838 in front of the House of Representatives, before it was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, where it eventually died when the 108th congress and the books were cleared. H.R. 838, which was cited as the “Higher Education Accrediting Responsibility Act of 2003”, is the work of neoclassical economic thinkers. Petri, and the bill’s co-sponsor, William Lipinski, seek to, among other things, “…end the virtual monopoly that today’s accrediting agencies enjoy, and require them to operate in a competitive environment like any other industry.” (3) Their primary complaint is the role of accrediting agencies as “gatekeepers” for the Federal student aid program. The fact that an institution’s accreditation determines whether its students will be eligible for Federal student loans makes these agencies power on par with the Department of Education. Another neoclassical theme is the idea that additional bureaucratic costs are passed on to the consumer, which is brought to bear here as well: “The time and effort required of institutions of higher education to comply with the accreditation process imposes costs which must ultimately be borne by students and parents.” (3) While it is not clear how much of a battle was fought over this bill, which effectively would have repealed the accrediting agency’s authority to approve Federal student aid, it is (along with HR 773) certainly evidence that this is recognized as a real issue on Capitol Hill, and the solutions to the problem are not monolithic.
Lastly, a document from within the Department of Education addresses many of the most current issues seen with the present accreditation system. It will be useful to note how these issues are presented though, since it ultimately reflects an interest and preference for institutionalist solutions (which shouldn’t really be surprising, since the Department of Education is an institution). The paper is an “Issue Paper” from the larger project, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, and is entitled, “Assuring Quality in Higher Education”. The entire first half of the paper describes the present structure of the accreditation, which is interesting background reading, but not as relevant to a discussion of the document’s economic style. The second section of the paper, which frames the “key issues” for discussion, provides much more of an indication regarding the document’s tone. The first such issue, called “Assuring Performance”, contains statements that seem to highlight the role of government in accreditors’ accountability: “States have taken a major leadership role in establishing performance accountability systems to drive improvement in higher education.” (6). The concluding paragraph here notes that the federal government and accreditation organizations have done a lot toward improving the performance-based accountability of the schools and institutions they accredit, but it points out that implementation has been somewhat inconsistent across the accreditation community. This points to an interest in standardization of accountability mechanisms across accrediting organizations and the federal government. If this is the main concern taken from a discussion of accreditation, then it certainly sets out accreditation as a largely institutionalist project that will require enormous effort and focus by the government in order to improve and standardize.
The other two issues presented are, “Open Standards and Processes” and “Consistency and Transparency”. On this issue of open standards, the desire to address new and emerging forms of education and instruction, such as distance-learning and for-profit universities, is discussed. The conclusion drawn however is again institutionalist in nature: “Some accreditation agencies have reviewed leading quality standards…[but] significant concerns still remain as to whether accreditation organizations are going far enough.” (7) And lastly, on the issue of consistency and transparency, it is mentioned that accreditation agencies, under the centralizing influence of the CHEA, have begun developing a single set of guidelines for educational quality. The section also notes the role CHEA has played in promoting credit transfer between institutions that have been accredited by disparate accrediting bodies. (8)
In a sense it is very desirable to have these issues addressed, so the ability for the public to understand accreditation and benefit from its ability to promote credit transfer and equivalence across institutions is ensured. The question here is whether or not the establishment government bureaucracy is self-reflective enough to consider both sides to this issue as the Congress has clearly done. While this is certainly not a raging debate on the Senate floor (let’s hope that have better things to do), it remains an issue: how much government- or institutionally-administered licensing could be taken over by parties in the private sector? Or at the very least, should accrediting agencies led by the CHEA really be the gatekeepers of the Federal student aid program? Despite the legitimacy of these questions and their discussion in Congress, it does not appear to be of interest to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education; not hugely surprising, since they’d be more naturally concerned with how best to do the job themselves, rather than how others could do it better.
In order to get a robust sense of the conversation that is occurring among government officials with regards to the challenge of educational accreditation, we’ll take a look at three documents: H.R. 773 of the 110th Congress, H.R. 838 of the 108th Congress, and a 2006 Issue Paper from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education entitled, “Assuring Quality in Higher Education”. The first two pieces are contrasting bills presented in the US Congress arguing that very different sorts of action ought to be taken in order to modify the educational accreditation apparatus of the country. The final paper provides a deeper analysis of the issues facing the accreditation process, but frames the entire problem in an institutionalist context, thereby laying out the foundation for an escalating institutional role in accreditation.
H.R. 773 of the 110th Congress is cited as the, “Diploma Integrity Protection Act of 2007” and is of particular interest because it is a very recent piece of legislation that may come in for more public scrutiny as it moves through the House and Senate. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in order, “To reduce and prevent the sale of use of fraudulent degrees in order to protect the integrity of valid higher education degrees that are used for Federal purposes.” The bill’s approach to the issue of educational accreditation is institutionalist, stating, for example, that the “preeminence of American universities” is threatened by the trafficking of fraudulent degrees. Its main solution to the problem of the potentially “$500,000,000” industry in diploma fraud is the creation of a temporary governmental “task force” comprised of 19 representatives from across the political and private spectrum. The bill repeatedly highlights the fact that fraudulent diplomas could be used to illegitimately obtain Federal jobs, and notes that one study that discovered numerous working government employees had obtained their post by presenting fake or shoddy credentials during application. Among other things, it’s stated that this practice “imperils the national security of the Unites States.” (5)
The harsh terms presented in this bill to describe the severity of the fraudulent credential problem, and the ways in which it would be swiftly brought under control, also evoked the managerial style of economic thinking. Essentially, the bill is seeking to immediately expand the Federal role in managing/influencing the accrediting apparatus of the country, with the justification that fake credentials can be used to obtain Federal jobs. A neoclassical economist may look at such a bill and ask whether or not this difficulty can be handled at the level of the Federal employees in charge of recruiting and screening applicants, a managerial economist may see this as a problem to be addressed immediately using the machinery of state. On pages 21-22 of the bill, the “Conduct Prohibited” is laid out, and suggested as a modification to FTC rules, and among other things, it specifies that an institution cannot distribute academic degrees without recognition from the Secretary of Education and accreditation by one of the recognized accrediting bodies. This essentially permits the Federal government to shut down almost any for-profit educational establishment that hasn’t met accrediting criteria, raising the activities of the accreditors to an even higher level of importance under the law. Rather than being the gatekeepers for billions of dollars in Federal student loans, this bill, if it became law, would convert accrediting agencies into the first and strongest line of defense against educational “counterfeiting”, however that comes to be defined.
For the record, another potential style that could be attributed to H.R. 773 is the moral/critical style, partially due to the bill’s multiple claims that consumers are often the unwitting victims of “diploma mills”. The assertion that consumers often have a genuine belief that their credentials are going to be valid, and are the unwitting victims of unscrupulous for-profit educators, certainly suggests a moral imperative to protect the public from being morally wronged in this way.
In stark contrast, two members of the 108th congress brought legislation that also addressed the issue of educational accreditation, but with the aim of significantly diminishing its power and influence. In February 2003, congressman Tom Petri brought H.R. 838 in front of the House of Representatives, before it was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, where it eventually died when the 108th congress and the books were cleared. H.R. 838, which was cited as the “Higher Education Accrediting Responsibility Act of 2003”, is the work of neoclassical economic thinkers. Petri, and the bill’s co-sponsor, William Lipinski, seek to, among other things, “…end the virtual monopoly that today’s accrediting agencies enjoy, and require them to operate in a competitive environment like any other industry.” (3) Their primary complaint is the role of accrediting agencies as “gatekeepers” for the Federal student aid program. The fact that an institution’s accreditation determines whether its students will be eligible for Federal student loans makes these agencies power on par with the Department of Education. Another neoclassical theme is the idea that additional bureaucratic costs are passed on to the consumer, which is brought to bear here as well: “The time and effort required of institutions of higher education to comply with the accreditation process imposes costs which must ultimately be borne by students and parents.” (3) While it is not clear how much of a battle was fought over this bill, which effectively would have repealed the accrediting agency’s authority to approve Federal student aid, it is (along with HR 773) certainly evidence that this is recognized as a real issue on Capitol Hill, and the solutions to the problem are not monolithic.
Lastly, a document from within the Department of Education addresses many of the most current issues seen with the present accreditation system. It will be useful to note how these issues are presented though, since it ultimately reflects an interest and preference for institutionalist solutions (which shouldn’t really be surprising, since the Department of Education is an institution). The paper is an “Issue Paper” from the larger project, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, and is entitled, “Assuring Quality in Higher Education”. The entire first half of the paper describes the present structure of the accreditation, which is interesting background reading, but not as relevant to a discussion of the document’s economic style. The second section of the paper, which frames the “key issues” for discussion, provides much more of an indication regarding the document’s tone. The first such issue, called “Assuring Performance”, contains statements that seem to highlight the role of government in accreditors’ accountability: “States have taken a major leadership role in establishing performance accountability systems to drive improvement in higher education.” (6). The concluding paragraph here notes that the federal government and accreditation organizations have done a lot toward improving the performance-based accountability of the schools and institutions they accredit, but it points out that implementation has been somewhat inconsistent across the accreditation community. This points to an interest in standardization of accountability mechanisms across accrediting organizations and the federal government. If this is the main concern taken from a discussion of accreditation, then it certainly sets out accreditation as a largely institutionalist project that will require enormous effort and focus by the government in order to improve and standardize.
The other two issues presented are, “Open Standards and Processes” and “Consistency and Transparency”. On this issue of open standards, the desire to address new and emerging forms of education and instruction, such as distance-learning and for-profit universities, is discussed. The conclusion drawn however is again institutionalist in nature: “Some accreditation agencies have reviewed leading quality standards…[but] significant concerns still remain as to whether accreditation organizations are going far enough.” (7) And lastly, on the issue of consistency and transparency, it is mentioned that accreditation agencies, under the centralizing influence of the CHEA, have begun developing a single set of guidelines for educational quality. The section also notes the role CHEA has played in promoting credit transfer between institutions that have been accredited by disparate accrediting bodies. (8)
In a sense it is very desirable to have these issues addressed, so the ability for the public to understand accreditation and benefit from its ability to promote credit transfer and equivalence across institutions is ensured. The question here is whether or not the establishment government bureaucracy is self-reflective enough to consider both sides to this issue as the Congress has clearly done. While this is certainly not a raging debate on the Senate floor (let’s hope that have better things to do), it remains an issue: how much government- or institutionally-administered licensing could be taken over by parties in the private sector? Or at the very least, should accrediting agencies led by the CHEA really be the gatekeepers of the Federal student aid program? Despite the legitimacy of these questions and their discussion in Congress, it does not appear to be of interest to the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education; not hugely surprising, since they’d be more naturally concerned with how best to do the job themselves, rather than how others could do it better.
Works Cited:
HR 773. “To reduce and prevent the sale and use of fraudulent degrees in order to protect the integrity of valid higher education degrees that are used for Federal purposes.” 110th US Congress. January 31, 2007.
HR 838. “To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide greater academic freedom for institutions of higher education, and for other purposes.” 108th US Congress. February 13, 2003.
Schray, Vickie. “ISSUE PAPER: Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Key Issues and Questions for Changing Accreditation in the United States.” A NATIONAL DIALOGUE: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)