RA vs. NA - What are the Real Differences?

I've always been of the opinion that NA serves a purpose, especially in the world of DL. Before completely online programs became available at almost every college and university in the country, the DETC and ACICS were willing (eager?) to accredit schools with totally non-residential degree programs, giving those with no residential options the opportunities to pursue an accredited degree in fields other than business, at a usually lower cost.

I still feel the now-DEAC serves a purpose in acting as a "springboard" for start-up schools without government (unlimited) funding or otherwise huge financial backing to achieve recognized accreditation. The amount of DEAC schools going on to RA seems to grow every year.

I've taught/am teaching at several RA schools (in-person and online), both private and state, many years ago I taught online for an ACICS school, and I now teach online for a DEAC school, so I think have a decent frame of comparison. The class I'm teaching for the DEAC school (Introduction to Psychology), I've taught both in-person and online numerous times at RA schools, I can practically do it in my sleep.

The academic rigor at the DEAC school is absolutely comparable, I would say even a bit tougher, than the RA schools, they even use the same open-source textbook I used to teach at a state university. The major issue at the ACICS school where I taught was they didn't screen their students nearly as well as their faculty, some of them couldn't even write at a junior high level, this hasn't been an issue at all with the DEAC school.

Teacher training/preparation was actually superior at the ACICS/DEAC schools, compared to most of the RA schools where I've taught (the notable exception being University of Phoenix, their teacher training was outstanding). Not that I really need it at this stage, just a point of observation.

So, what are the true differences of RA vs. NA? Many people seem to consider a NA degree as inferior, but I'm not sure why. As I mentioned, the academic rigor certainly doesn't seem to be lacking (admittedly I don't have a huge sample size).

Is it financial? Political? A combination? Something else? I'm very curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

 

I love your very informative thoughtful post Bruce. Thank you!

I agree that RA seems to be considered more prestigious than NA. I have to assume that the source of the greater prestige is based on historical factors, like what people are historically used to. Such things seem extremely common to me for academic institutions. For example, I doubt if Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are really any better than the top 50% of higher education institutions. Yet they are much more prestigious. My personal experience is getting an Associates Degree at a California Community College and getting my Bachelors at Berkeley. I thought that the classes taught at the community college in general were a little better than at Berkeley. The reason was primarily that Berkeley seemed much more focused on graduate studies. At the community college the teachers were generally working or had worked in the field in a non-academic environment. They had a lot of deep experience and many years teaching. Whereas at Berkeley much of the teacher student face time was with graduate students playing the teacher role.

 

I don’t think that non-RA U.S. institutionally accredited schools are inferior if we focus solely on the quality aspect. As a student, I have not experienced lower quality in terms of educational material access or faculty support. But as an international online student (Pole and Canadian), I do see signs of inferiority in degree reception outside the United States. Non-RA degrees have worse (hit-and-miss) acceptance rates among credential evaluators outside the States. That’s a big deal for non-RA online university students from other countries. In Poland, there isn’t an issue. My RA and NA degrees were treated the same and given equivalency. But in Canada, the situation is completely different. RA degrees are universally accepted, while non-RA U.S. degrees are uniformly rejected by all the English Canada-based members of the Alliance of Credential Evaluation Services of Canada. I have not looked up Quebec’s evaluator to confirm whether it follows the cross-Canadian pattern. I wonder whether any concrete steps could be taken to change this situation and whether non-RA U.S. accrediting agencies have a role to play in the potential resolution/negotiation. It might be easier to negotitate with government-based credential evauluators outside the U.S. I am not sure what could be done in Canada. Lawsuits?

But here’s a typical response from the Comparative Education Service of the University of Toronto:

“Hi,

Unfortunately, we do not evaluate credentials awarded by institutions accredited by DEAC and outside of the seven bodies listed on our website (please select "USA" in the drop down menu of country-specific academic document tool). If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask.”

 

Instructor training varies by the institution rather than accreditation. From my experience, the more cookie cutter the courses are, and the more micromanaging there is, the more training you'll receive to make sure that you adhere to inflexible rules. In those cases, you're more of a glorified paper grader than an instructor. Schools that primarily serve nontraditional students in an online environment tend to have this culture.

New full-time professors at traditional institutions are often assigned mentors, but the assumption is that you learned how to teach in your PhD program. So, they're not going to put you through a pedagogy or andragogy course before assigning classes to you.

I've taught at four RA institutions - two traditional and two nontraditional. The traditional institutions just throw you out there. The two nontraditional universities have very structured instructor training. At first, the training seems valuable until you realize that you're getting paid less to do more administrative tasks and that you're more of a facilitator with little latitude.

At the one NA school I taught at in-person, we shadowed an instructor for a day, and that was the extent of our "training."

 

Even now that the labels are gone, the long shadow of that hierarchy continues in faculty hiring norms and graduate admissions, which is why debates about RA vs. NA are inherently political, not just bureaucratic.

The RA/NA divide was never purely technical; it structured who could realistically join the professoriate at mainstream U.S. universities and who was locked into marginal or vocational tracks.

 

According to the Department of Education, there is no difference.

 

The formal labels may be gone, but maybe we’re in a transitional phase between the old prestige economy and something not quite as binary.
I think the old hierarchies might not determine career outcomes as starkly as before, but they still shape legitimacy and opportunity in quieter, structural ways.
Even if the labels themselves have faded, If i'm not mistaken, the pipeline to tenure-track jobs still overwhelmingly favors graduates from the same compact network of research universities.

 

There has always been different prestige rankings for different colleges. There will always be different ranks of prestige for different colleges. RA versus NA is not nearly as important as it used to be for these personal rankings. As time passes, I'll guess this will become more true.

 

Practical bottom line (2026 reality)
In theory (U.S. law):
RA and NA are now the same category.
In practice (international recognition):
Historically RA degrees still receive:
easier recognition
more automatic equivalency.
NA degrees:
depend heavily on evaluator and purpose.
may or may not be treated as equivalent.
8. For someone planning international use
If the goal is:
Goal
Safer choice
Immigration (Canada, UK, EU)
Historically RA school
Graduate school abroad
Historically RA school
U.S. employment only
Either RA or NA (depends on employer)
Online, low-cost U.S. degree
NA may be acceptable but much riskier internationally, most likely unrecognized.