It seems there is a general belief that when a university fails to meet some accreditation body's standards then the university is somehow less than genuine.
Is there any objective proof that accreditation produces excellence in higher education ?
I ask this because I see my university always trying to game the system. Little effort is placed towards the real goal of being a better university. Rather, we merely try to jump through whatever hoop has been placed by the accrediting body. Rather than trusting faculty to have the best idea of how to structure the university (in which we build our careers, so, you'd think you might trust us) we instead restructure things merely on the whim of an external body which does not know nearly as much about what is best for the university!
It seems to me, at many universities the assessment process is largely financial with no real attention to excellence in education. Faculty pretend to engage in the assessment process, but, we don't really care or respect the process because it:
reduces the autonomy of professors
it has half-informed "experts" trumping the opinion professors who are actually already performing real assessment all the time.
It is by now obvious to me that assessment at my university is actually damaging to academics! Is this a quirk of my institution (which values the input of faculty at a tragically sad rate) or is this common?
My larger question, is there a publication in which a critical review of accreditation bodies and how they fail in their supposed mission ?