IACHE Accreditation Council

80-year-old energy expert and economist graduates with PhD
When Rob Jeffrey set out doing analyses of energy sources as a consultant in South Africa, obtaining a PhD at the age of 80 was not what he had planned. But, as he delved into the literature on energy sources and how they interface with the economy, a PhD came as an unbudgeted-for bonus.

On 23 March, Jeffrey graduated with his PhD from the University of Johannesburg (UJ) which described his research as “an independent economic analysis of the electricity generation industry in South Africa and an assessment of the best course of action that the country can take to develop its electricity generation resources”.

His study, over four years, considered the impact of the reliability of power supply – be it fossil fuel or renewable – on the development of a country’s economy. It was done at a time when load-shedding has caused economic destruction in South Africa and Jeffrey hopes his insights can make societal impact.

The doctorate is titled, ‘Assessing the actual costs of alternative electricity-generating technologies in South Africa in line with its economic development requirements’.

Education

Jeffrey was born in October 1942 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Both his parents were teachers. His father was a science teacher and deputy headmaster of St John’s College in the city, a school he also attended.

After school, he studied at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa where he received a BSc degree in 1965 in applied mathematics (with a distinction) and mathematical statistics. He then got a scholarship to pursue a masters in economics at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Upon his return, he completed a teacher’s diploma and, in 1976, a masters in business leadership (MBL) at the University of South Africa (UNISA) with distinction.

After a long career, Jeffrey retired in 2016 as the managing director of Econometrix, an economic consultancy. His work on the economy, energy and business has convinced him that South Africa should have three main objectives: a reduction in poverty, an increase in employment and a reduction in inequality.

Jeffrey believes this can be achieved by improving the economic growth of the country through increasing the amount of electricity for mining, manufacturing and other sectors.

“Having written much on it [economic growth through reliable electricity], I decided if it can be a PhD … so be it. But the PhD, itself, was not the prime motive. I have been involved in business for 50 years starting in finance, moving to work in construction and energy evaluation and work on mergers, acquisitions, and capital projects in a variety of industries.

“When I decided on retirement to write up the knowledge that I had acquired I [followed the advice of] many senior people who encouraged me.”

But the ultimate decision to pursue a PhD was his own, said Jeffrey, who also wanted to work purposefully on a project after losing the use of his legs, which left him wheelchair-bound.

Despite obtaining a PhD, Jeffrey said it is important to realise that South Africa has a great need for technically trained individuals who do not necessarily have to have degrees but are well-trained in technical work.

Lifelong learning

Jeffrey said he chose the University of Johannesburg for his PhD studies because he had heard a lot about how the university supports its students.

“I was lucky enough to work under Professor Andre Nel of the faculty of engineering and the built environment,” said the grandfather of eight.

“One must recognise that one is learning for the rest of one’s life. As you follow your career, you have to learn and remain on top. I happen to have increased my knowledge in business – and finance subjects were vital to carry me forward.”

Early last month, South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, appointed an electricity minister in an eagerly awaited cabinet reshuffle and the newly introduced electricity portfolio that falls under the Presidency.

But what are Jeffrey’s thoughts on ending South Africa’s energy crisis?

“High efficiency and low-emission coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations are the best and most efficient sources of generating electricity for base load because they are more reliable, efficient and have a far lower cost.

“Coal and nuclear are the best sources of energy that can be produced most of the time. At the moment, they are not being produced efficiently, [so] you need to upgrade coal plants.

“Some of the major power economies such as India, China and Indonesia have their attention on coal and nuclear, based on what we call base load power, that is, power required on a permanent basis.

“Renewables are not able to do that. Solar may not be there at night. You need 100% backup, I’m afraid. What is needed are high-efficiency, low-emission coal plants. They are the ones that must be used in the future.”

What is next for Jeffrey?

“One never stops furthering one’s education. I will continue with my interest in energy and economics for the benefit of South Africa and South Africans. I will also pursue my general interest in international and domestic economics. I will also pursue my hobbies and interests in photography, astronomy and bridge.”

Asia helps to redraw the map of international HE – Report
With more than 20,000 English language programmes offered across the region, China, India, Malaysia, Japan and lately Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia are attracting overseas students, particularly from the Asian region itself, according to a new report by Studyportals and the British Council.

The report on emerging student mobility trends in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa noted that Asia is leading both in the number of Transnational Education (TNE) institutions and ranked universities in absolute terms, having risen from 200 a decade ago to nearly 600 world-ranked institutions by 2025.

Asian universities have also doubled their numbers in the top 100-ranked universities during this period.

“A handful of dominant destinations no longer defines international higher education,” noted the report in reference to the traditional English-speaking study destination countries of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada.

“Today, the competition for globally mobile students is being reshaped by regions that were once seen primarily as sources of outbound demand but are now positioning themselves as destinations in their own right.”

Rising appeal of China, Japan

Comparing demand over the last 12 months (July 2024 to June 2025) against the previous 12 months, Japan and China stand out with the highest levels of student demand overall. Japan leads in attracting masters-level students, while China shows the strongest relative growth for undergraduate degrees.

“This suggests the rising appeal of Chinese institutions, particularly at the undergraduate level. Other major hubs such as Malaysia, India and Taiwan have shown modest yet positive growth in demand, especially for masters, reflecting steady competitiveness in their respective subregions,” according to the report.

However, South Korea and Singapore show significant declines at both undergraduate and masters levels, “indicating waning short-term interest despite being traditionally popular destinations”.

Thailand and Hong Kong have also seen mild to moderate declines or stagnation.

Smaller and emerging Asian destinations provide a more mixed picture of Asia as an inbound destination. Notably, Indonesia and Vietnam experienced sharp increases in demand at the undergraduate level.

This suggests “Southeast Asian countries may be gaining visibility and appeal, possibly due to regional mobility agreements, affordability, or improvements in ETP [English-taught programme] provision,” the report noted.

Several destinations experienced substantial declines over the one-year period, including Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, which the report suggested may be due to “lack of marketing reach”. Other experts have said student unrest in some of these countries may also be a factor.

On Asia, the report concludes: “While Northeast and Southeast Asia have anchored the region’s competitiveness as a destination region, the landscape is shifting.

“Demand is consolidating around a few dominant countries, but emerging destinations like Vietnam and Indonesia are gaining traction, particularly at the undergraduate level. Meanwhile, destinations like Singapore, South Korea, and Sri Lanka may need to recalibrate their positioning to address factors contributing to falling demand.”

Established study destinations thrive

Asia’s more established study destinations, such as China, India, Malaysia and South Korea, continue to show they can attract large numbers of students.

“In particular, India stands out with a notable expansion” at both undergraduate and masters levels, which the report said was “a strong signal of the country’s ambition to grow its role as a global education hub and aligns well with the concurrent rise in demand, particularly for masters study”.

Singapore also recorded significant supply growth, “although this comes against the backdrop of declining student demand, suggesting possible oversupply or market saturation”, the report said.

Conversely, institutions in China, Japan and South Korea have either reduced or maintained the number of English-taught programmes.

“Rather than signalling a lack of student interest, this shift may reflect a more strategic recalibration by Chinese institutions, potentially focusing on offers with clearer international appeal or stronger enrolment prospects,” the report noted.

The report highlights that students are increasingly considering value for money, online and blended learning, and clear career pathways in their decision-making. South Asia still dominates outbound flows within Asia, with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh generating the majority of demand.

But their destinations are not predominantly English-speaking countries. The report noted that there is a rising appeal for Chinese institutions.

“In the current times, China is welcoming students from all over the world to live and experience it firsthand for academic collaboration, language exchange, and cultural understanding,” said Fariha, a Pakistani masters degree student at Wuhan University.

“I chose China for my masters study because I think it is a very decisive time in modern history, and it is important to understand China in such times when the world order is changing its course,” said Fariha, who has been studying environmental communication and global development for the past year.

“Growing up with a Western influence and now getting a chance to live in China opens my mind to so many possibilities. Seeing the world through a Chinese lens is just so different and unique.”

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its global development strategy launched in 2013 to connect Asia with Africa and Europe through maritime and land-based networks, is driving the flow of students across the region, with young people eager to tap into the opportunities this is creating as transport, trade and business links expand across Asia.

Writing for McKinsey and Company, global strategy advisor Parag Khanna argued that the BRI is just the beginning of the next phase of Asia’s integration through infrastructure developments, trade agreements, rising volumes of foreign investment and local currency debt, and growing cross-border liquidity.

“We live in a globalised world, and yet we have a great intellectual divergence underway between the slow-growing, inward-looking, xenophobic, pessimistic, anti-trade and globalisation West and the optimistic, forward-looking, ‘the world’s getting better’ thinking, pro-globalisation Asia,” he said.

Outbound from Asia

At the undergraduate level, outbound students from Asia dominate. With Bangladesh accounting for 28.6% of the share of outbound demand from Asia – an 8.3% increase from July 2023 to June 2025 – Pakistan accounting for a 20% share, and India 17.6%.

Collectively, these countries account for over two-thirds of all Asian interest. “This concentration highlights how structural factors are pushing students in these markets to look abroad at scale,” the report noted.

The share of outbound students from India and Sri Lanka at the undergraduate level fell by 3.4 percentage points and 3.2 percentage points, respectively.

“In India’s case, this may reflect tightening visa pathways in the United Kingdom and Australia or a growing diversion of interest to local international campuses and domestic expansion,” the report stated.

At masters level, India remains a dominant source of student demand, accounting for nearly one-third (32.7%) of all regional demand. However, its share has dropped sharply by 8.1 percentage points over the past year.

“This notable drop may hint at the impact that tighter post-study work rights, more stringent visa scrutiny, and possibly the emergence of alternative destinations in Europe may have had in the last two years.”

The report noted that these trends show that “while the large shares of demand from South Asia [offer] institutions scale and stability, [they] also [raise] questions around over-reliance. There is a risk that the outsized presence of a few major markets may drown out the strategic importance of smaller but equally promising countries across East and Southeast Asia.”

A bright spot in India

While the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have been climbing in global rankings and their graduates are finding employment in some of the world’s biggest corporations, the Studyportals and British Council report highlighted a largely unknown township of Udupi as a particularly bright spot in India’s TNE expansion, with its Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) expanding its portfolio to 400 programmes within the last year.

“MAHE has been attracting students for a long time to its programmes in medicine, dentistry, allied health and engineering,” Dr Padma Rani, a professor at the Manipal Institute of Communication at MAHE, told University World News.

“In medicine, students took basic courses here at MAHE for two years and then completed their clinical subjects in Malaysia or Antigua, a Caribbean island where MAHE has established its own university.”

She said they have a large number of students joining courses from neighbouring countries, such as Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, as well as from the Middle East and African countries, such as Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

“The university also has an exchange programme and an observership programme with universities in the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Sweden and Belgium,” she said.

The report acknowledges such developments and says that universities in the Asian region are not simply peripheral to the global education system but are actively shaping it.

“The dominance of Anglophone destinations remains, but it is no longer uncontested, as Asia is establishing itself as the clearest, dominant leader. With the largest portfolio of English-taught programmes, rapid growth in its TNE landscape, and rising institutional visibility in global rankings,” it states.

Hybrid model of accreditation offers a more promising future
When a university receives accreditation from a recognised body, it signals trust, legitimacy and a baseline of quality. Yet, as the global landscape of higher education rapidly evolves – driven by digital transformation, political polarisation and transnational student mobility – accreditation systems themselves face growing scrutiny.

In April, this debate reached a flashpoint in the United States when President Donald Trump issued an executive order radically reforming the country’s longstanding accreditation framework.

The shift immediately ignited urgent questions: What should accreditation authentically measure in a rapidly changing landscape?

Who truly holds the authority to set its standards, and whose interests do those standards serve? And how profoundly do these decisions impact not only domestic higher education but also its global interconnectedness?

This dynamic tension between accountability and autonomy, and the shift from input-based to outcome-based assessment, forms a core driver of this critical debate.

A distinctly American innovation

Accreditation has long been a cornerstone of quality assurance, ensuring that institutions uphold established standards of academic integrity, governance and student outcomes.

While informal mechanisms for evaluating educational quality have existed globally, the modern accreditation model – grounded in peer review and independent oversight – emerged in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In response to the rapid expansion of higher education, American colleges and universities established regional associations to develop shared evaluation criteria. This decentralised, voluntary system became a distinctly American innovation and ultimately influenced international practices.

Over time, accreditation in the US has evolved into a powerful regulatory tool, particularly after it became linked to federal student aid. Despite being technically non-governmental, accrediting agencies gained substantial influence over institutional legitimacy and access to public funding.

The traditional model relies on peer-reviewed, cyclical processes of institutional self-assessment, external evaluation and periodic re-evaluation.

While accrediting agencies operate independently, they must be recognised by the US Department of Education. Common criteria include institutional mission, academic governance, faculty qualifications, student support services and financial sustainability.

While this model has been instrumental in maintaining academic standards and international credibility, it faces growing criticism for being bureaucratic and slow to adapt.

Institutions often encounter multi-year delays in securing approval for new programmes, particularly in emerging fields such as online education and digital credentials. For example, the rise of coding bootcamps and micro-credentials often outpaced traditional accreditation cycles, hindering innovation.

Additionally, its reliance on compliance-driven and input-focused metrics is increasingly seen as insufficiently responsive to modern demands for measurable outcomes.

One of the most contentious aspects has been the incorporation of social standards like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

While critics argue these extend beyond the technical scope of quality assurance and risk politicising academic governance, proponents contend that inclusive environments are integral to comprehensive educational quality and student success.

Global accreditation frameworks

Accreditation practices vary across the world, yet international models often strive for a balance between innovation, transparency and public accountability.

UNESCO plays a key role in advancing quality assurance systems, particularly in the Global South, by promoting context-sensitive frameworks that are both inclusive and globally recognised.

These efforts prioritise equitable access to education and facilitate student mobility across borders. UNESCO’s regional frameworks – the Tokyo, Addis and Buenos Aires conventions – promote cross-border recognition and quality assurance in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, respectively.

In the European Union, the Bologna Process and the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) have helped create a harmonised regional system.

While institutions maintain autonomy, they must adhere to publicly accessible standards, undergo periodic evaluations, and follow stakeholder engagement protocols.

Compared to the US system, the EU model is more centrally coordinated, often operating in alignment with national higher education policies. It prioritises evidence-based practices while fostering institutional diversity and innovation.

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) serves as a reference framework for comparing qualifications across Europe by defining learning outcomes at different levels.

While it does not directly accredit higher education institutions, it provides guidance to accreditation bodies and higher education institutions by aligning programmes with transparent, level-based outcomes that enhance quality assurance and facilitate cross-border recognition.

Despite variations in structure and regulatory intensity, both UNESCO and the EU promote an accreditation model that enhances cross-border comparability and reinforces international trust.

These principles are increasingly at odds with the unilateral, market-orientated shift seen in recent US reforms, implicitly highlighting the distinctiveness and potential divergence of the US approach.

The 2025 Trump administration reform

The 2025 executive order issued by President Donald Trump signalled a significant shift away from the traditional accreditation philosophy of the US.

Framing the existing model as ideologically biased and obstructive to innovation, the reform proposed a broad transition toward market-driven principles and performance-based outcomes.

While framed as a move toward greater accountability and innovation, critics quickly noted that this emphasis on narrow financial metrics could inadvertently reshape the very purpose of higher education, potentially devaluing broader societal contributions.

Key pillars of the reform included:

• Emphasising measurable performance outcomes such as graduation rates, student loan repayment and post-graduation earnings.

• Restricting accrediting agencies from imposing ideological mandates, particularly those related to DEI standards.

• Expanding accreditation competition by recognising new accrediting bodies to challenge the domination of existing ones.

• Prioritising student and taxpayer value over rigid procedural compliance.

In essence, the proposed reform reimagines accreditation as a performance-based contract between institutions and society, shifting the focus from peer consensus and regulatory tradition to market responsiveness and institutional autonomy.

Ideological ‘neutrality’

The traditional accreditation model emphasises institutional mission, peer review and consensus-based evaluation, ensuring compliance with input-orientated criteria, such as curriculum design, faculty qualifications and governance structures.

In contrast, the reformist model shifts the focus towards performance metrics, student outcomes and market-driven competition.

Rather than prioritising institutional inputs, the reformist approach emphasises measurable results, including graduate earnings, employment rates and return on investment, aiming to enhance accountability and responsiveness to market demands.

Governance also differs sharply. The traditional model relies on a small group of well-established regional and national accreditors, whereas the reform encourages a competitive landscape with multiple bodies vying to certify institutions.

This shift from a peer-driven, collegial oversight model to one based on market competition raises questions about the long-term sustainability of quality assurance and the potential for declining standards as new accreditors seek market share.

While traditional accreditation has increasingly incorporated social criteria such as diversity, equity and inclusion, the reform model asserts ideological neutrality as a guiding principle. This shift may streamline oversight, but it also introduces new political tensions under the guise of objectivity.

However, the assertion of “ideological neutrality” itself is a contested concept in education, as it can inadvertently dismiss the inherent values in pedagogical approaches or the historical inequities that DEI initiatives aim to address.

What is framed as neutral often reflects a specific, implicit set of ideological priorities.

The case of Columbia

This month, the US Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), the accreditor of Columbia University, that the university was failing to meet federal accreditation standards due to its alleged “deliberate indifference” toward antisemitic harassment on campus.

This marked one of the most high-profile instances in which civil rights enforcement directly intersected with institutional accreditation.

The move signals a growing federal expectation that accrediting agencies go beyond academic evaluation to also ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination statutes. Traditionally, accreditors focused on academic quality, institutional governance and student outcomes.

However, this case illustrates the evolving mandate for accreditors to uphold broader ethical and legal responsibilities – encompassing student safety, nondiscrimination and inclusive learning environments.

The Columbia case represents a significant moment in US higher education policy as it suggests that accreditation status may now hinge not only on educational performance but also on an institution’s capacity to respond to social and civil rights issues.

This development blurs the boundaries between traditional peer-reviewed quality assurance and direct federal enforcement, raising new questions about the appropriate role of accrediting bodies in overseeing institutional climate and campus governance.

Risks of a market-based approach

While a market-based accreditation model promises efficiency and innovation, it also introduces significant risks:

• Quality control: The proliferation of accreditors without stringent oversight may weaken standards and enable predatory institutions, particularly in the for-profit sector.

Historical precedents of oversight failures in the for-profit higher education sector highlight the dangers of inadequate quality control when market incentives outweigh academic integrity.

• Overreliance on narrow metrics: Prioritising financial outcomes in accreditation can marginalise disciplines such as the humanities, arts and public service, whose contributions are not easily monetised.

This risks skewing institutional priorities toward vocational training, potentially at the expense of developing critical thinking, civic engagement and broader societal contributions that are harder to quantify monetarily.

• Equity concerns: Institutions serving under-represented populations may face penalties due to lower graduate earnings, even when these stem from systemic inequality rather than institutional shortcomings.

This creates a perverse incentive that could disproportionately harm institutions committed to access and social mobility, effectively penalising them for serving students who face greater systemic barriers.

• Fragmentation and confusion: A competitive accreditation landscape could make it more difficult for students, employers and international partners to assess institutional legitimacy.

• Global misalignment: The removal of DEI standards and weakened centralised oversight may cause US accreditation to diverge from global norms, potentially harming degree recognition and international student mobility.

Towards a hybrid model

Rather than oscillating between bureaucratic rigidity and unchecked market forces, a hybrid model offers a more sustainable path forward. This approach would integrate:

• Contextualised performance metrics: Combining employment data and loan repayment rates with qualitative indicators such as civic engagement, research output or student satisfaction.

Achieving this balance would necessitate collaborative frameworks involving policymakers, educators and industry leaders to define and operationalise these diverse metrics effectively.

• Streamlined regulatory processes: Accelerating the approval of innovative programmes while maintaining academic quality.

• Rigorous oversight for new accreditors: Ensuring that newly recognised agencies adhere to clear, transparent standards of integrity and expertise.

• Institutional pluralism without ideological barriers: Promoting diverse perspectives while ensuring academic freedom remains protected, free from restrictive ideological requirements.

• Global compatibility: Maintaining alignment with international frameworks, such as UNESCO’s Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications, to facilitate mobility and mutual recognition.

While promising, the implementation of such a hybrid model would undoubtedly face challenges, particularly in overcoming entrenched bureaucratic practices and bridging the ideological divides that currently characterise the accreditation debate.

This pluralistic, outcomes-informed model would preserve the strengths of traditional peer review while adapting to the demands of a rapidly evolving higher education landscape.

Implications for international education

The proposed reforms could have unintended ripple effects on global education. Many countries – particularly those supported by the World Bank – have modelled their quality assurance systems on US accreditation norms.

A shift toward deregulated, ideologically polarised accreditation may undermine mutual recognition agreements and weaken the global credibility of US degrees.

Additionally, the removal of DEI requirements could weaken the US’ reputation in international higher education, especially among partners who prioritise inclusive, equitable learning environments.

In an era where soft power and educational diplomacy play a crucial role, a fragmented and politically charged accreditation system risks diminishing the United States’ leadership in global higher education, as the lack of clear, consistent quality assurance signals can erode international confidence in US credentials and hinder academic partnerships.

Accreditation in the digital and AI age

The future of accreditation depends on its ability to adapt to the transformations of the digital era. AI-powered instruction, micro-credentials and lifelong learning ecosystems require more flexible and responsive models of quality assurance.

Organisations like UNESCO and the EU are already advancing this agenda, promoting stackable credentials, blockchain-verifiable transcripts and interoperability across platforms.

To remain relevant, accrediting agencies must move beyond static, cyclical evaluations and embrace real-time, data-informed monitoring tools, potentially leveraging AI to analyse vast datasets on student progress and institutional performance.

However, they must also navigate the ethical and pedagogical implications of AI-driven learning, ensuring that new credentialing models are fair, transparent and internationally comparable.

Any viable future system must prioritise fairness, adaptability and international comparability to ensure global recognition and credibility.

Thoughtful reform

Accreditation remains essential to maintaining trust and quality in higher education. While the United States’ traditional model has been historically influential, it now faces significant challenges in adapting to innovation, equity and global coordination.

The proposed reforms offer a sharp critique of bureaucracy and ideological overreach, yet their market-first orientation also introduces substantial risks.

A more promising future lies in a hybrid approach – one that integrates outcome-based assessment with transparent governance, academic integrity and global interoperability.

As higher education enters the digital and AI age, accreditation must evolve not through deregulation alone but through thoughtful reform anchored in public accountability, social purpose and international cooperation.

Future research should explore the practical implementation challenges of a hybrid accreditation model, particularly how to establish universally accepted qualitative metrics for educational quality and how to effectively integrate emerging digital credentials into existing international recognition frameworks without compromising integrity.

Min Bahadur Bista is a former professor of education at Tribhuvan University and a former education specialist with UNESCO, having served in various countries across the Asia-Pacific region. He currently works as an independent education consultant, focusing on education policy, governance and reform in developing and transitional contexts.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.