By William Trombley
The man who ought to know thinks there are two "primary flaws" in the way California colleges and
universities are accredited--there is too much secrecy and the process is too episodic.
Accreditation "is conceived of as a private, and not a public, process," Stephen S. Weiner, the retiring
executive director of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), said in an interview.
"Everything is confidential, so the process doesn't lead to one institution learning from another and it in no
way constitutes a conversation with the public.
"We don't share reports, we don't discuss reports, our stance is, 'trust us,'" Weiner continued. "As a result, I think there is less trust in the process than there ought to be." For eight years Weiner, 55, has directed the activities of WASC, which accredits educational institutions in California and Hawaii, as well as Guam and other Pacific territories. The agency's good opinion is eagerly sought by new and struggling colleges and universities but often is thought to be a necessary evil by the larger and more prestigious schools.
Weiner also believes accreditation should be more of an on-going process, not the "volcanic eruption" that takes place every five to eight years, as a college or university gathers all the information needed to prepare for a WASC accreditation team visit.
"Assessment should build over time," he said. "It takes years for a process to develop that enables an institution to know how it is really going about its business." In 1993, a special WASC committee recommended that the process should be more open and continuous but the proposals were blocked by leaders of some of California's best-known universities, including Caltech, Stanford and the University of Southern California.
"The presidents did not think the process needed to be more open or more ongoing," Weiner said. "For them, the bedrock issue is autonomy--they feel they should be free to do as they please, without interference from others."
Caltech, Stanford and USC also objected to a proposed commission statement in support of ethnic diversity, among students and faculty, as a desirable goal for WASC institutions.
"Some of us think diversity is related to institutional quality," Weiner said. "We believe it is directly related to the ability of colleges and universities to serve society and therefore it is a quality issue that accreditation should take into account."
Several influential university presidents, especially Gerhard Casper of Stanford, disagreed, but the statement was adopted.
"They took the position that they were doing a good job on diversity and did not want to be responsible to an accrediting agency on that issue," Weiner said. "This, too, became a symbol of institutional autonomy."
Despite these occasional clashes with major private universities, Weiner has enjoyed his time at the accrediting agency.
"For eight years it was an extraordinary opportunity to see all of the different worlds of higher education--small and large, public and private, humble and snooty, lively and wilting," he said. And along the way, Weiner believes, some good has been done.
The accreditation process "is like an X-ray machine," he said. "It's very good at detecting certain problems," such as financial trouble, inadequate facilities or incompetent campus leadership, but it "has a much more difficult time trying to determine what's going on at the core of the institution--teaching and learning."
For instance, after a WASC accreditation team reported that the autocratic president of United States International University had used employee pension fund contributions to pay off campus debts, the president departed and the situation was corrected.
Similarly, National University, University of the Pacific and the Otis Art Institute, in Los Angeles, moved quickly to correct financial problems and other deficiencies that were pointed out by WASC teams. But when the problems are related to the quality of instruction, "I don't think we do a very good job," Weiner said. "For one thing, it's not easy to do. There are no national standards and the goals of an individual college or university are so diverse.
"In addition, there are political difficulties," he added. "People worry about what information you're collecting and why you want to know and how it's going to be used."
If accreditation is a problematical procedure now, it is likely to become more so in the high-tech future, Weiner predicted. For example, how will the process accommodate such innovations as the "virtual university" now being discussed by western state governors? (see interview with Gov. Mike Leavitt in this issue.)
With changes in technology, student demographics and methods of paying for college, higher education "will experience very fundamental changes," he said. "Accreditation is going to have to change very substantially in the next ten to 20 years or go out of business entirely."