Accreditation of Universities in the United States

For an institution of higher education to actually give real degrees (not the fake one’s that are supposedly available for sale on the Internet), in the United States, it must be accredited. Accreditation is a long complex process whereby regional organizations sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Education review and site visit the university and eventually make a decision whether to re-accredit…or not. Our accrediting organization is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

Accreditation is very process-driven. From learning goals, to rubrics, all the way to evaluation of the terminal degrees for teaching faculty the institution must provide evidence that higher education is actually being provided to students according to well-defined standards. This evidence-based approach, is critical to maintaining the quality of a U.S. college diploma both in terms of international standards, but also in the context of how a degree adds value over the course of a career to an individual graduate.
But there are concerns. One is that the process is regional. The standards in one part of the U.S. may vary significantly from those in another region. Another is that, over time, the process of accreditation can assume an ever increasing portion of an institution’s collective efforts, displacing energies that perhaps ought to have been expended on education itself. These latter concerns have produced a lively debate (for an example look here).
In any case, George Mason, is now deeply into the accreditation process. It’s a good time to, both look hard at the University, but also to think about what accreditation actually means.
Jim

Blogging sabbatical

Well, I’ve had a very enjoyable sabbatical from blogging at Advanced Studies after five years of more or less constant posting. During the break, we had two amazing blizzards here in Washington and there’s still a whole lot more snow on the ground than we ever get during a “normal” winter–that even though it’s nearly 50 degrees outside and this would be the typical time we’d be seeing daffodils. Also, I’ve been teaching a very enjoyable course on the function of the hippocampus–cross listed to both advanced undergraduates and doctoral students here at Mason. I forget sometimes how satisfying teaching can be.

We saw a pretty entertaining movie the other night, Tenure, which made me laugh, but also reminded me of the very frightening events from Alabama over the past week.

In any case, we’re rested, relaxed and ready to blog.

TTYS

Open Access? Yes, but with flexibility

Here’s the latest from ScienceInsider.

Money quote:

Despite such objections, the White House seems determined to move ahead. For the past month, OSTP has been holding an online forum on whether and how to extend NIH’s model to more agencies. According to OSTP life sciences assistant director Diane DiEuliis, one option being considered is an executive order or memo that would set out “minimum standards” but “give agencies flexibility to create custom plans.”

High performing scientific organizations: the role of foment

One of the characteristics of excellence for a scientific organization is a steady increase over the years in the typical metrics for success (e.g. publications in high impact journals, sponsored research). Another as important characteristic is that excellent scientific organizations build and retain a culture of intense scientific interaction among and between P.I.’s, their trainees and students that at one level manifests as a collegial environment, but more importantly as a place of intense scientific foment. Scientific foment of the type, I’m describing, is to discovery as yeast is to sourdough bread.
So, how to create and sustain that scientific foment?
By experience, it’s become clear to me that first and foremost, there’s the necessary but not sufficient condition: a light-touch management style. Foment is a bottom-up process, and no amount of strategic planning can force it to happen. Deeply entrenched in the scientific DNA is a tendency to question authority along with a healthy skepticism of pronouncements from on high. Hence, simply telling investigators to go forth and foment hasn’t worked (to my knowledge) and is unlikely to be a successful approach.
Secondly, foment doesn’t arise in an environment that is overly burdened with bureaucratic concerns. Take the environment of a driver’s license exam office and you’ll likely not find the seeds of the next advance in cell biology. So an approach by management to actively decrease what is now arcanely termed “paperwork”, is likely to begin to set the initial conditions for success.
Thirdly, there must be a meritocratic culture. Rewards (of all kinds) ought to be meted out by management both for scientific success, but also for the taking of scientific risk–because the greatest scientific successes, always entail some significant amount of scientific risk. In other words, we are against rewarding the minimal publishable unit ramped-up, rather we reward distinct, identifiable discovery that’s made on the basis of experimental (in vivo, in vitro or in silico) research success.
Fourthly, scientific jargon, should be frowned upon–in general. I have lately become of the opinion that such jargon operates in some ways as the secret rituals of fraternities, to exclude those who haven’t been initiated. There are great opportunities for foment at the fracture zones between disciplines, where the important questions often haven’t been posed, much less tested experimentally. To have foment across the disciplinary fracture zones implies checking one’s jargon “heat” at the door.
Finally, none of this can happen if management lacks scientific credibility. Management, need not conduct the experiments, but management certainly needs to be part of the foment, at every step of the way. For an institute like ours, one with frontiers of exploration in domains ranging from molecular to human social behavior, there then must be a scholarly curiosity about many fields (not just one) from the leadership.