This article belongs in the dictionary under the term FUD. It's basically designed to scare people away from any option other than the traditional system iby saying only old school institutions possesses the wisdom to determine what is and is not worth teaching.
Two problems here...
1. The whole point of accreditation is to make sure every school teaches the basics that students need to earn a degree.
2. If an institution does a poor job of training students their degree will become devalued. This happened at ITT Tech at one point and it led to them reforming their curriculum and becoming accredited (and honestly there degree still isn't exactly well respected). So we really don't need a council of professors to deliver edicts from on high.
In the end I think this line of thinking is just Higher Education realizing they can't fend the fair market off anymore and doing everything in their power to avoid having to compete.
What we should be doing is measuring the output of colleges. This article argues for measuring the inputs, and says anyone with different inputs is inadequate.
It doesn't matter who is responsible for what, as long as the outputs are adequate.
Two problems here...
1. The whole point of accreditation is to make sure every school teaches the basics that students need to earn a degree.
2. If an institution does a poor job of training students their degree will become devalued. This happened at ITT Tech at one point and it led to them reforming their curriculum and becoming accredited (and honestly there degree still isn't exactly well respected). So we really don't need a council of professors to deliver edicts from on high.
In the end I think this line of thinking is just Higher Education realizing they can't fend the fair market off anymore and doing everything in their power to avoid having to compete.