I'd Love to See Some Colleges or even a Major University Reject the Accreditation ProcessSubmitted by bloatedtoad on Sun, 04/07/2013 - 08:45
I was impressed and excited to see Ron Paul in conjunction with Tom Woods and other key people announce the "Ron Paul Curriculum" for home schooling. As I browsed over the new website's FAQ I noticed that although people were excited to find a curriculum that would liberate their children from the continually degrading public school system there was still a major concern as to whether this program was "accredited". You've got to love the simple direct short answer!
Here's the quote from the FAQ:
"Are your courses accredited?
If you go into the link that answers "Why not?" you'll find these five questions:
1. Accredited by whom?
2. By whose authority?
3. By what standard?
4. Enforced by what sanctions?
5. Gaining what advantage?
I felt that these questions were equally as valid in connection with accreditation for Colleges and Universities.
I went over to the Department of Education's website and found this quote with respect to Institutions of higher learning:
"The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Here you will find lists of regional and national accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit."
So who are these people who determine "acceptable levels of quality" anyway? And what is it that determines quality of education?
I remember the days when I was in the MBA program at BYU (a top accredited Mormon-owned business school). I specifically remember going to a presentation by some high official from Goldman Sachs. This was a very big deal. They were extremely selective as to who they hired. It was not unusual for them to interview and hire no one into their exclusive firm. Everyone "knew" that Goldman Sachs was the absolute best possible employer with starting pay of $500,000 per year (and this was in the 1980's). Back then I had no idea that, as Matt Tabbi so aptly put it, that Goldman Sachs was "...a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
I don't remember much from that presentation. However one thing really stuck out. He stated that Goldman Sachs holds on to their employees by way of "golden handcuffs". That statement struck me as truly odd, and on a different level, disturbing. At the time I blew it off because who would want to quit a half-million dollar a year job when it's all up from there? At that time I was totally naïve as to how corruption and blackmail worked together.
Reflecting back on my experience in the MBA program I can now see that the "acceptable levels of quality" of education referred to by the U.S. Department of Education really is nothing more than being prepared to become a cog in the machine, to "merge with the Borg", if you will.
There was a famous Mormon intellectual at BYU, Hugh Nibley, who had a penchant for raising some hackles. He was asked to give a prayer at a commencement and in that prayer he shocked the people when he ridiculed the ridiculous Cap and Gowns when he stated "We have met here today clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood."
He later explained,
"Why a priesthood? Because these robes originally denoted those who had taken clerical orders, and a college was a "mystery" with all the rites, secrets, oaths, degrees, tests, feasts, and solemnities that go with initiation into higher knowledge.
But why false? Because it is borrowed finery, coming down to us through a long line of unauthorized imitators. It was not until 1893 that "an intercollegiate commission was formed to draft a uniform code for caps, gowns, and hoods" in the United States. Before that there were no rules—you designed your own; and that liberty goes as far back as these fixings can be traced. The late Roman emperors, as we learn from the infallible Du Cange, marked each step in the decline of their power and glory by the addition of some new ornament to the resplendent vestments that proclaimed their sacred office and dominion. Branching off from them, the kings of the tribes who inherited the lands and the claims of the Empire vied with each other in imitating the Roman masters, determined to surpass even them in the theatrical variety and richness of caps and gowns."
Here is an article written by Hugh Nibley in which he explains why the glory days of education was actually during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It's obviously directed at Mormons, however I believe you'll find that the logic here is astounding:
It's not unlike what Ron Paul and Tom Woods intended in creating this home school curriculum. If there was ever a need for educated independent thinkers that time is now. This very well could be the most important thing Ron Paul has ever done!