In all of the discussions of this topic I haven't seen anyone raise the
question, WHY? What is the point of accreditation?
In some fields accreditation is an essential qualification. We don't let
someone build a bridge just because he has a degree in engineering, we
require that he have proper accreditation as a qualified civil engimeer.
Often the accrediting agency is external to the university, as in the case
of medicine and law, but sometimes the university departments have their
programs accredited.
When a university department is accredited it usually means that there is a
fundamental core of knowledge that all practioners must have. This is
obviously the case in a field like pharmacy. It is assumed to be the case in
medicine, although occasionally the question arises whether it is really
essential for a psychiatrist to know how to take out an appendix. Is this
true in biology? I know quite a few people who have contributed to
biological research without a comprehensive biological background (including
a few Nobel laureates in physics who moved on to biology and other fields).
Maybe once we decide what the value of accreditation is we can move on to
discuss the details. But first things first.
Bill Silvert
