3 ms·

Visas are issued by the government. All my criticisms still apply, even if the government delegates the decision to the investors. And no, it works terribly f

Visas are issued by the government. All my criticisms still apply, even if the government delegates the decision to the investors. And no, it works terribly for universities ( or rather, it works great for the universities, terribly for the public). For example, the number of medical schools in the country has actual gone from 162 in 1906, to 129 today, despite a three-fold increase in population. The artificial barrier to entry created by accreditation constricts the supply of medical schools, resulting in higher tuition and higher medical costs. Or consider law schools. The cheapest law school in Massachusetts costs 38K per year for tuition. If you wanted to create new a law school as a startup, think you could create one just as good for much cheaper? I bet you could. It's not like law schools need expensive equipment. But you're not allowed to, thanks to accreditation laws. Accreditation started off innocently enough - it was just a good housekeeping seal of approval. But then the professional organizations managed to make it illegal to practice at all without a degree from the accredited institution. The bar associations lobbied for laws that made it impossible to practice law if you simply studied on your own and passed the bar, or if you went through a correspondence course. In 2008, Abe Lincoln is out of luck. Now he has to take on 150K of debt in order to practice law. History shows the slow is indeed slippery. What if your startup accreditation body follows the path the law schools, and in 30 years ends up lobbying Congress to ban all non-accredited startups?

pg 18y ago
The corruptness of the university accreditation system only makes the threshold unnecessarily high. If that happened with startup investors, it would still be a great improvement over the current situation. Currently, there are zero investors whose money gets you you a visa. Expanding from zero to an unnecessarily small group would still be an improvement, even it if wasn't optimal.
- bokonist 18y ago
  I agree that the immediate effects of the policy would be beneficial. But you have also created a government sponsored body that is now deciding what is a startup and what is not. That is very, very, very dangerous. This organization over time may lobby Congress to actively ban all non-accredited startups. This is exactly the path followed by the law schools, medical schools, architect schools, dentistry schools, interior design schools, etc. The track record is not good.
  - pg 18y ago
    Can you offer any evidence that university accreditation is a net lose? It may prevent "startup" schools, but it also prevents scams. You haven't made any effort to weigh the costs and benefits. And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right. Whenever you try to build any kind of filter, people will try to game it, but that doesn't make filters pointless.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      Gatekeeper laws cost Americans hundreds of billions a year in tuition and lost wages. It's also condemnable from a personal liberty perspective. The burden of proof is entirely on the schools to show that the costs in money and liberty are worth it. They have not done so. Heck, there is no proof that even primary education is worth it. Despite massive increases in enrollment, length of schooling, and school spending, overall rates of numeracy and vocabulary have been flat over the course of the 20th century. Recently I was talking to friend who had just left law school. He described the process as: "We spend all semester in class where we listen to boring professors who just like to hear themselves talk. Then we do internships where we get paid to learn." I have close friends in architecture school who say the same thing. Almost all the practical stuff about code and structures students learn on the job. The school teaches stuff like "aura" and deconstructionist design. Compare the current Boston City Hall the Old Boston City Hall and you see the results of this wonderful, accredited training. There is simply no evidence that law school or architecture school is a net positive, much less that is worth the cost. (Medical school is a tougher case as care has improved. But this seems to be the result of improvements in science and technology, not schooling). I hear the same exact stories from people graduating other schools - education schools, meteorology programs, business school, etc. It's pretty clear that the primary result of establishing an accreditation body as legal gatekeeper to a field, is to create jobs for professors and increase wages for professionals. ( note - computer science classes tend to be more sound, perhaps precisely because there is no legal credentialing requirement to enter software programming, and thus the departments must prove their worth the old fashioned way) If the purpose of credentialing laws was merely to protect consumers, the laws would only care about the results of the schools teaching ( whether graduates could past the Boards or the Bar ) rather than the process ( whether the school was accredited). The law would also allow people to get around the defaults. For instance, your web browser warns you when you access a potentially malicious site, but it still allows you to access it if you really want to. But you cannot do the same with lawyers; you a non-accredited lawyer cannot represent you in court. And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right. In the context of the American political system of 2008, it is impossible. Washington does not work. You can expect to make a reasonable policy suggestion, and have the actual result come be close to what you wanted. The only thing we can do is keep the poison from spreading through Silicon Valley as long as we can.
tlb 18y ago
Bar associations are very different from college accreditation boards. Bar associations are a guild whose main goal is to restrict supply by making it hard to become a lawyer. (Even still, the US has far more lawyers than it needs.) They exist pretty explicitly to keep legal salaries high. Accreditation for colleges is much more, well, collegial. There's no big motivation to restrict supply. It's hard to think of any really good educational institutions that can't seem to get accredited for political reasons. The list of over 1000 accredited colleges in CA starts off: * A-Technical College (LA) * ABC Adult School (Cerritos) * Abram Friedman Occupational Center (LA) * Absolute Safety Training Paramedic Program (Oroville) * Academy Education Services (Oxnard) so it's not just the Stanfords that can manage accreditation.
- rdouble 18y ago
  Rather than petitioning congress for a new visa, perhaps it's easier to start a school and have founders come over on an F-1.
  - staunch 18y ago
    Operator of English language schools charged in massive [visa fraud] http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/080409losangeles.htm http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/080409losan...
- bokonist 18y ago
  Accreditation for less established and less lucrative professions is much easier. The grip tightens over time, within a profession. It's hard to think of any really good educational institutions that can't seem to get accredited for political reasons. Three years of on the job training is better education than three years of schooling in practically every field. Plus you get paid rather than have to pay. Yet on the job training does not count as education that allows you to legally be a lawyer, doctor, teacher, parole officer, military officer, etc. The problem with government sanctioned accreditation is not that the specific decisions about which schools meet the requirements get politicized. The problem is that accreditation allows the intuitions who reap the tuition money to define what education itself means.

pg 18y ago

The corruptness of the university accreditation system only makes the threshold unnecessarily high. If that happened with startup investors, it would still be a great improvement over the current situation. Currently, there are zero investors whose money gets you you a visa. Expanding from zero to an unnecessarily small group would still be an improvement, even it if wasn't optimal.

bokonist 18y ago
I agree that the immediate effects of the policy would be beneficial. But you have also created a government sponsored body that is now deciding what is a startup and what is not. That is very, very, very dangerous. This organization over time may lobby Congress to actively ban all non-accredited startups. This is exactly the path followed by the law schools, medical schools, architect schools, dentistry schools, interior design schools, etc. The track record is not good.
- pg 18y ago
  Can you offer any evidence that university accreditation is a net lose? It may prevent "startup" schools, but it also prevents scams. You haven't made any effort to weigh the costs and benefits. And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right. Whenever you try to build any kind of filter, people will try to game it, but that doesn't make filters pointless.
  - bokonist 18y ago
    Gatekeeper laws cost Americans hundreds of billions a year in tuition and lost wages. It's also condemnable from a personal liberty perspective. The burden of proof is entirely on the schools to show that the costs in money and liberty are worth it. They have not done so. Heck, there is no proof that even primary education is worth it. Despite massive increases in enrollment, length of schooling, and school spending, overall rates of numeracy and vocabulary have been flat over the course of the 20th century. Recently I was talking to friend who had just left law school. He described the process as: "We spend all semester in class where we listen to boring professors who just like to hear themselves talk. Then we do internships where we get paid to learn." I have close friends in architecture school who say the same thing. Almost all the practical stuff about code and structures students learn on the job. The school teaches stuff like "aura" and deconstructionist design. Compare the current Boston City Hall the Old Boston City Hall and you see the results of this wonderful, accredited training. There is simply no evidence that law school or architecture school is a net positive, much less that is worth the cost. (Medical school is a tougher case as care has improved. But this seems to be the result of improvements in science and technology, not schooling). I hear the same exact stories from people graduating other schools - education schools, meteorology programs, business school, etc. It's pretty clear that the primary result of establishing an accreditation body as legal gatekeeper to a field, is to create jobs for professors and increase wages for professionals. ( note - computer science classes tend to be more sound, perhaps precisely because there is no legal credentialing requirement to enter software programming, and thus the departments must prove their worth the old fashioned way) If the purpose of credentialing laws was merely to protect consumers, the laws would only care about the results of the schools teaching ( whether graduates could past the Boards or the Bar ) rather than the process ( whether the school was accredited). The law would also allow people to get around the defaults. For instance, your web browser warns you when you access a potentially malicious site, but it still allows you to access it if you really want to. But you cannot do the same with lawyers; you a non-accredited lawyer cannot represent you in court. And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right. In the context of the American political system of 2008, it is impossible. Washington does not work. You can expect to make a reasonable policy suggestion, and have the actual result come be close to what you wanted. The only thing we can do is keep the poison from spreading through Silicon Valley as long as we can.

tlb 18y ago

Bar associations are very different from college accreditation boards. Bar associations are a guild whose main goal is to restrict supply by making it hard to become a lawyer. (Even still, the US has far more lawyers than it needs.) They exist pretty explicitly to keep legal salaries high. Accreditation for colleges is much more, well, collegial. There's no big motivation to restrict supply. It's hard to think of any really good educational institutions that can't seem to get accredited for political reasons. The list of over 1000 accredited colleges in CA starts off: * A-Technical College (LA) * ABC Adult School (Cerritos) * Abram Friedman Occupational Center (LA) * Absolute Safety Training Paramedic Program (Oroville) * Academy Education Services (Oxnard) so it's not just the Stanfords that can manage accreditation.

rdouble 18y ago
Rather than petitioning congress for a new visa, perhaps it's easier to start a school and have founders come over on an F-1.
- staunch 18y ago
  Operator of English language schools charged in massive [visa fraud] http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/080409losangeles.htm http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/080409losan...
bokonist 18y ago
Accreditation for less established and less lucrative professions is much easier. The grip tightens over time, within a profession. It's hard to think of any really good educational institutions that can't seem to get accredited for political reasons. Three years of on the job training is better education than three years of schooling in practically every field. Plus you get paid rather than have to pay. Yet on the job training does not count as education that allows you to legally be a lawyer, doctor, teacher, parole officer, military officer, etc. The problem with government sanctioned accreditation is not that the specific decisions about which schools meet the requirements get politicized. The problem is that accreditation allows the intuitions who reap the tuition money to define what education itself means.