Should Nai Develop A Program To Accredit University Curricula? (probably Not Just Yet)

摘要

In the United States, accreditation of academic programs focused on professional preparation is typically conferred by organizations that are closely associated with the field. The NAI represents such a body, as do organizations such as the National Recreation and Parks Association, which accredits parks and recreation curricula, and the Society of American Foresters, which accredits forestry and forest management academic programs. Typically, accreditation is conferred to an undergraduate degree program (BA or BS, for example), but accreditation of minors and options (or "emphasis areas") also occurs. In all cases, accreditation requires an exhaustive review and evaluation of course requirements, number of teaching faculty members, space, facilities, equipment, and financial resources, as well as certain operational factors (such as record keeping, maintenance of confidential records, etc.). Anyone who has conducted or been through an accreditation process knows that a significant effort is required both by the program being accredited and by the accrediting body. And this effort is required not only for the initial accreditation review, but for each renewal or re-application thereafter. Therefore, a decision as to whether NAI and collaborating universities should enter into a new era of accreditation should be made cautiously with full and objective consideration of the likely benefits and costs. Accreditation of academic programs in interpretation is both a good and bad idea, depending on how one weighs the advantages and disadvantages associated with it. The primary considerations are outlined in Table 1 (page 40) and explained more fully in the following discussions.