Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did university accreditation and licensing reforms affect degree classifications?
Executive summary
Accreditation and licensing reforms in 2025 pushed U.S. higher education toward outcome-based oversight, easier creation and switching of accreditors, and limits on using diversity metrics — moves the White House framed as boosting accountability and lowering costs [1] [2]. Early effects include institutions reorganizing accreditation relationships, new accreditor applications being unpaused, and a politicized debate about mission and classification — but detailed, system-wide evidence on degree classification changes is sparse in current reporting [3] [4].
1. Policy overhaul: outcome-focused accreditation and DEI limits
The April 23, 2025 executive order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education” directs the Education Secretary to refocus accreditation on student outcomes, require program-level outcome data without reference to race/ethnicity/sex, and hold accreditors accountable for unlawful practices tied to DEI expectations [1] [2]. Legal and policy analysts note the order explicitly targets what the administration calls “unlawful discrimination” framed as DEI mandates [2]. Proponents say this centers accountability on completion and earnings; critics warn it politicizes quality measures [1] [2].
2. Administrative steps: unpausing new accreditors and easing transfers
Following the EO, the Department of Education lifted a moratorium on reviewing new accreditor applications and issued guidance to make it easier for institutions to change accreditors — moves intended to create competition among accreditors and “streamline” recognition processes [3] [5]. The Department and FIPSE priorities also signaled grant-level encouragement for projects that remove barriers to switching accreditors and establishing new ones [6] [3].
3. Institutional reactions: re-grouping and strategic accreditors
Universities and systems are responding by re-evaluating which accreditor best fits their governance and mission. Observers report that some public university systems have formed new regional accrediting arrangements, and institutions are factoring governance, oversight and perceived ideological fit into choices that historically were geographic [4]. That suggests accreditation relationships are becoming strategic rather than strictly territorial [4] [7].
4. Impact on degree design and “credential inflation” debates
The EO and allied policy materials explicitly urge accreditors to discourage credential inflation and to advance degree completion and shorter credentials, and some accreditors were already exploring reduced-credit bachelor’s options prior to 2025 [2] [8]. Advocates for reform argue this could produce more focused programs and shorter degree paths; available sources note the policy intent but do not supply comprehensive empirical evidence that degree lengths or degree-classification formulas have shifted system-wide as of current reporting [2] [8].
5. Classification systems evolving in parallel (Carnegie)
Separately, the Carnegie Classifications revised their Institutional Classification in 2025 to a multidimensional model (Award Level Focus, Academic Program Mix, Size), a redesign that changes how institutions are grouped and may indirectly influence how degrees are portrayed and compared in rankings and peer groups [9] [10]. U.S. News has mapped ranking categories to the new Carnegie framework, which will affect external comparisons though not accreditation rules per se [11].
6. Political polarization and unintended consequences
Coverage highlights that accreditation — once technical — is now highly political: the reforms, and state laws (e.g., Florida) that encourage rotating accreditors, are championed by free-speech and fiscal conservatives as breaking a perceived “accreditation cartel,” while opponents warn about politicizing quality and undermining protections for historically marginalized students [7] [8] [4]. Stateline and legal analyses document a more contested environment for accreditors and universities [4] [2].
7. What the reporting does not show (limitations)
Current sources document policy changes, guidance, and reactions but do not provide comprehensive data demonstrating systematic changes to degree classification formulas (honours/class classifications), widespread shortening of degree credit requirements, or measurable shifts in employer recognition of degree classes nationwide (available sources do not mention specific, system-wide changes to degree classification calculations) [1] [3] [9]. Where accreditors or institutions are piloting alternative credit models, the reporting is descriptive rather than outcome-evaluative [2] [8].
8. What to watch next
Track: [12] Department of Education rulemaking and FIPSE-funded pilots for flexible quality-assurance pathways [6] [2]; [13] accreditors’ new recognition decisions and institutional transfers after the moratorium lift [3]; and [14] empirical studies or GAO reviews tying accreditation changes to concrete shifts in degree length, classification formulas, completion rates, or earnings — those will provide the evidence missing in current reporting [15] [2].