FAQ-Kategorie: 02 System accreditation

According to Clause 6.2 of the “Rules for the Accreditation of Study Programmes and for System Accreditation” (Resolution of the Accreditation Council in the version dated 20.02.2013), compliance with the applicable Law is mandatory. This means that the higher education institution, by means of its internal quality management systems, must in principle only observe the formal and academic criteria for study programmes contained in the MRVO.

It is obvious that any changes require a certain amount of time; every system-accredited higher education institution should check the effects on the internal QM system immediately after new rules have been issued and, if changes are required, initiate implementation with a timetable. In the subsequent system accreditation, it should be discussed whether the QM system has proven to be sufficiently adaptable to new framework conditions.

The criteria for internal quality management systems standardized in § 17 and § 18 MRVO, on the other hand, are only to be observed with the next system reaccreditation.

See also FAQ 6.2 on this question.

The MRVO states in the explanatory memorandum to Section 24 (5):

“With regard to the random samples that are mandatory in system accreditation to review the relevant features of the study programme design, the implementation of the study programmes and quality assurance and, if applicable, the consideration of the criteria for the accreditation of regulated study programmes, two appointments are usually necessary in system accreditation procedures.”

This means that, in principle, two inspections must take place in the system accreditation procedure, unless the Agencies commissioned with the accreditation procedures submit a valid and comprehensible justification for a deviation from this regulation. A deviation exists if either only one or more than two inspections are carried out. The deviating procedure must be explained and briefly justified in Chapter 3.1 of the accreditation report (General information on the peer-review procedure). In this way, the necessary degree of procedural transparency is created. It also enables the Accreditation Council to review the justification and ensure consistent handling of the rule beyond the individual accreditation procedures.

During the coronavirus pandemic, on-site inspections have taken place virtually in whole or in part. In March 2023, the Accreditation Council decided that, following the abolition of conflicting Law provisions, the requirements for the on-site visit in accordance with Section 24 (5) MRVO will once again apply without restriction, although one of two on-site visits can be carried out online for system accreditation procedures.

If a study programme accredited by an Agencies or the Accreditation Council is offered by a (now) system-accredited higher education institution, the system-accredited higher education institution may evaluate changes to this study programme itself on the basis of the internal processes provided for in its QM system. This is due to the fact that system accreditation gives higher education institutions the right to make their own decisions on all accreditation-relevant issues relating to their study programs.