January 27, 2022

In one of those purely cosmic moments, Matt Read, regular contributor to Inside Higher Ed, posted a blog today that triggered any number of timely and applicable concerns for fellow community college administrators across the country right now. His piece, "The In-Person Double Standard," is succinctly spot on regarding the hypocrisy that can belie transfer policies in higher education. Click on the link and read the damn blog; it's worth it. Then, come back here and note how any of his main points are regular frustrations for this Chief Academic Officer:

The "D" grade is meaningless for transfer, yet potentially meaningful internally.

Math testing done online is o.k. when done at the 4-year, not when done at the transferring institution.

On-site classes at high schools are not equivalent to AP credit nor the same class taught at a college campus.

Online classes are not equivalent to in-seat courses (not at the high school, of course; my goodness, that would be a double whammy).

However, it is his last point, almost a throw-away point, that struck me most today.  As Read says, "I'm at a loss to explain why regional accreditors allow shenanigans such as these."  

As a peer reviewer, let me say that I am not at a loss to explain it.  The beauty of peer review for accreditation is that is peer-driven; the ugliness of peer review for accreditation is that it is peer-driven. When a team is selected to review, for purely hypothetical example, the University of Michigan's Reaffirmation of Accreditation, the team will be made up of representatives from other research and graduate-degree-awarding universities (what is commonly referred to as an R1 Institution, per Carnegie Classification). When a rural community college like Southwestern Michigan College has a review, its team is made up primarily of other rural community college faculty and administrators. The philosophy is true to the idea of "peer" review: I know what a community college in rural Montana probably has to deal with. I wouldn't have a clue what U of M has to deal with.  Honestly, I have nightmares thinking about how complicated the Reaffirmation review process must be for some of these monolithic state institutions.

However, here is why the shenanigans happen. If I work for University of Florida, for example, and I look at the University of Michigan's transfer policies, I am probably going to see something very similar to mine (which might also put limitations on dual enrolled credit) and never think to question it.  Or, if someone were to question it, I would defend it, understanding the underlying logic (misguided as it may be).  If the review team included some non-peers like the poor, stupid bastard who is Provost at some small community college, their questioning of such policies would almost certainly be treated with patronizing responses ("you just don't understand what it is like at a major research institution, Dr. Fleming.")

Peer Review can be understood as the epitome of "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" (when I come back in 5 years to review you). Whoever is doing the scratching already has a pre-conceived notion of the archetypical back (don't worry, I intend to keep this blog SFW). In the world of Carnegie Classifications and a one-size-does-not-at-all-fit model of higher education, the elite R1 institutions are body-builders, exaggerated versions of the ideal model. Body-builders are the only people scratching other body-builders' backs (if they are as oily as they often are, much like the current situation, that is fine with me). 

Special Focus Institutions, where perhaps the private business college dwells, would be personified by the hairy-backed model, scratched only by their hairy-backed peers (I am looking at you, my in-laws, and my son), happy not to be scrutinized by the snobbish elites or the grubby peons.

Associate-granting institutions like mine would probably be characterized by scrawny video-game-playing nerds, scratched on our pimply backs by only other video-game-playing nerds' backs. 

I should probably stop here. Any further analogy will probably be NSFW, especially in a politically correct workplace.

In the end, real back-scratching peer review succumbs to the same blindness. One may focus on the Deltoid, someone else may focus on the External Oblique, a different party may assess the Lumbar Vertebrae. No one is really seeing how it is all connected.  What is clearly Osteoporosis to the 70 year old might be rheumatoid arthritis to the 40 year old. Neither would  be wrong but it sure would be nice for the 40 year old to see that potential continuation. Wouldn't it be nice if the back-scratching was done by generalists or a team made up of different specialists?

Hmm?  As is often the case, I end up back at a state of despair. All I have managed to do in this blog is compare higher education yet again to the health care system (see "Both Could Use A Better Circulatory System" and "The Doctor Will See You . . . Next Semester").  Of course I am familiar with accrediting practices in the North. I really can't speak to what happens when the scratching heads down south.