[A]t the very core of the quality assurance process is the necessity for colleges and universities to clearly and unambiguously demonstrate student mastery of both discipline-specific and general education competencies in a fashion that is transparent to those both inside and outside of the academy.

• “The Future of Accreditation” by Judith S. Eaton
• “Accreditation and the Public Interest: Can Accreditors Continue to Play a Central Role in Public Policy?” by Terry W. Hartle
• “What’s an Accrediting Agency Supposed to Do? Institutional Quality and Improvement vs. Regulatory Compliance” by Elizabeth H. Sibolski
• “AQIP and Accreditation: Improving Quality and Performance” by Stephen D. Spangehl
• “Show Me the Learning: Value, Accreditation, and the Quality of the Degree” by Terrel L. Rhodes

SCUP members can visit their journal and download the entire issue, or selected articles as PDFs, MOBI (Kindle), and EPUB (iPad/iPhone and many Androids). About the contents, Middaugh writes:

The implications for planners of the issues raised in these five articles are both immediate and profound. How does higher education preserve and protect the integrity

of the peer evaluation process in quality assurance and,at the same time, responsibly address calls for greater transparency and accountability from the government and other entities? How do colleges and universities best work with their regional accrediting bodies to ensure the integrity of educational services provided under Title IV financial aid without having those accrediting bodies morph into the “accreditation police”? And at the very core of the quality assurance process is the necessity for colleges and universities to clearly and unambiguously demonstrate student mastery of both discipline-specific and general education competencies in a fashion that is transparent to those both inside and outside of the academy. The editorial staff of Planning for Higher Education is deeply grateful to the five authors who have so generously contributed to this issue of the journal. Their insights are quite provocative and provide substantial material for those of us whose planning activity is immersed in improving the quality of our institutions. (emphasis added)

Oh, no! You won't be getting a printed SCUP–45 Preliminary Program in the mail this year. Instead, SCUP is going green and regularly updating this digital version (PDF), which you can download at any time.

Check it out! You don't want to miss higher education's premier planning conference, and your one chance this year to assemble with nearly 1,500 of your peers and colleagues: July 10–14, Minneapolis.

---

---

When the new CDR formula is implemented, campuses may face a no-win situation. Even if federal sanctions are avoided, the campus may be pummeled by public opinion. Cohort default rates are published in the media nationwide. The public lacks a precise understanding of CDRs, and they may make snap judgments about institutional quality from default rates. Missing from the factual picture may be the number of students who actually borrow, the dollar amount of loans in default, or how one campus compares to a similar institution serving similar students . . .

Schools must also tread carefully on the origination side of student loans as they help borrowers obtain federal and private student loans. New regulations go into effect on July 1st, and many schools are questioning how much – if any – assistance they should provide to students trying to choose a student loan that works best for them. Investigations by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo led to new federal and state laws that increase disclosures to students and place strict restrictions on how schools help borrowers find and choose lenders . . .

The burden of compliance completes a trifecta of institutional liability. Schools that try to save money by shortchanging compliance could be leaving themselves and their students open to major disruptions in financial aid. Using financial aid as the carrot, the government regulates everything from student housing to campus safety. The safety regulations even define the term “fire.” (Any instance of open flame or other burning not intended to contain the burning or in an uncontrolled manner.”)

---

---

SCUP's Planning Institute: Enjoy the F2F company of your colleagues and peers while you engage in one of the three SCUP Planning Institute Steps. In addition to being offered on demand, on campuses to teams of campus leaders, the institute steps are also offered to all professionals at varying times and venues. Currently scheduled are:

• May 22–23, Ann Arbor, MI - Step I
• July 10, Minneapolis, MN - Step I (in conjunction with SCUP–45)
• October 2, Ann Arbor, MI - Step I
• January 21–22, Tuscon, AZ - Step II and Step III