by Prof. Misri Gozan,

 Chair of the Indonesian Engineering Executive Committee-The Institution of Engineers Indonesia  Professor of the University of Indonesia

Lately, discourse has emerged so that the implementation of college accreditation and study programs is returned to the country through BAN-PT. The reasons put forward are quite tickling: the state may not release responsibility for the quality of higher education. At first glance there is a patriotic. But is it true that accreditation is entirely the responsibility of the government?

Keep in mind, accreditation obligations have been regulated since Law No. 2 of 1989 and PP No. 60 of 1999, with the main implementer at that time was BAN-PT, an institution formed by the government. But as the number of study programs increase, which now exceeds 31,000 according to PDDIKTI data, BAN-PT is no longer able to serve all needs efficiently. The emergence of Law No. 12 of 2012 marks an important transformation: accreditation remains mandatory, but its implementation is not necessary by the state, but can also be carried out by an independent accreditation institution (LAM) formed by the government or the community, namely the professional association and the organizer of the Study Program.

This step is not just decentralization, but a strategy to strengthen the participation of scientific communities in ensuring the quality of higher education. The state continues to play a role in regulations and recognition, while LAM is present to carry out the accreditation process that is more responsive, professional, and accountable. The state burden is reduced, but responsibility is maintained.

Independence Lam: Key to International Recognition

Accreditation is not only important for national consumption, but also a prerequisite for global recognition. World accreditation forums such as Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, and Seoul Accord only recognize institutions that are legally and governance. Direct government interference is actually considered to reduce the credibility of the assessment.

countries such as the United States (ABET), Germany (Asiin, Aqas), Japan (Juaa), to South Korea (KCUE) have long adopted an independent model. Even in the ASEAN region, the Philippines uses PAASCU private institutions, while Malaysia and Thailand are developing a semi-independent body. Indonesia is in the same path through the presence of LAM. For example, the technique has implemented a financial audit by a public accountant and obtained the title of Fair without Exception (WTP) as well as ISO 9001: 2015 Certification, signifying accountability and transparency from the start.

Not a burden, but the opportunity

The assumption that accreditation is a burden often arises because of campus management that has not been arranged. In fact, if managed properly, accreditation can be a very strategic reflection tool. He helped compile a development road map based on data and input from the academic community and the world of work.

The issue of costs is often exaggerated. LAM Accreditation fees, if divided per student per semester, equivalent or even cheaper than internet data packages. To answer efficiency, Indonesia can emulate other countries by extending the validity period of accreditation to 6-10 years, equipped with quality periodic reporting.

Who's responsibility?

Accreditation is a legal obligation, but also the moral obligations of educational institutions to guarantee the quality of graduates. His responsibilities cannot be charged unilaterally, not only to the state, lam, or lecturers. This is a collective responsibility: the state as a regulator, lam as an independent implementer, and the campus as a guardian of quality culture.

It's time to stop debating who should bear the burden. What's more important is to work together to build an accreditation system that is credible, efficient, and recognized by the world. Because without it, the quality of Indonesian higher education will only be a slogan without substance.

This paper is also published in Kompasiana