If you’ve ever served on a peer review committee, called our Atlanta office with a nuanced question, or sat across from me in a meeting, you’ve probably heard the phrase, “It Depends.” Sometimes it’s delivered with a smile. Sometimes with a sigh. And sometimes with a little frustration. In accreditation circles, “it depends” has become the punchline to an ongoing, somewhat-true joke. It can feel vague. Unsatisfying. Even evasive.

But today, I want to suggest something different. “It Depends” isn’t a weakness of accreditation. It’s one of its greatest virtues.

Where This Lore Comes From

Across many regulatory environments, there is a preference for bright-line rules. In general, four things come to mind: 1) A fixed number, 2) A checklist, 3) A universal threshold, and 4) A simple yes or no.

Bright lines feel efficient. Predictable. Safe. So, when institutions ask a question about faculty credentials, governance structure, substantive change, assessment evidence, or student support, and the answer is “it depends,” it can feel like uncertainty. I can certainly understand that, but this is why we must work harder to build that trust between us and our institutions. Often times, “It Depends” can be the beginning of a conversation with staff to identify the relevant standards and policies to support institutions in navigating the process.

That’s the lore: If SACSCOC can’t give a black-and-white answer, the standards must be unclear. But that’s not the law.

What the Law (and Our Philosophy) Actually Says

SACSCOC accreditation is built on principles, not mechanical triggers. Our standards require the categories such as institutional integrity, sound governance, qualified faculty, financial sustainability, meaningful student learning, and continuous improvement. What they do not require is uniformity of model. And that is intentional. Under Students First, Always, our responsibility is not to create a maze of technical traps. It is to ensure that institutional decisions serve students and demonstrate quality.

Sometimes it depends on mission. Sometimes it depends on context. Sometimes it depends on evidence.

And that is not weakness. That is professional judgment.

Law vs. Lore

❌ Lore: If the answer is ‘It Depends,’ the standards are unclear.

✅ Law: Accreditation standards are intentionally principle-based, requiring contextual evaluation and professional judgment.

The Pruitt Perspective

I understand the desire for certainty. I do. But I would be far more worried if every answer were automatic. Higher education is too dynamic. Too mission-driven. Too complex. Professional judgment is not arbitrary. It is anchored in standards, policy, precedent, and peer review. Going forward, there is certainly work to do. As I have already said publicly, we will be undertaking a mass retraining of reviewers with the new Principles to ensure common understanding. But that does not mean getting rid of professional judgement. I believe the direction we are heading with the new Principles will provide a whole new approach that will consider the missions of our institutions while also streamlining the process. But what remains is the peer-review and professional judgement of reviewers.

So yes, it depends. It depends on whether students are being served well. It depends on whether evidence demonstrates quality. It depends on whether governance reflects integrity. It depends on whether innovation remains rigorous.

That is not ambiguity. That is responsible oversight. Under our aspiration to be the organization that finds a way to say yes to rigorous innovation, “It Depends” becomes a pathway, not a barrier. As a side note, we are looking at how we can differentiate in the new standards, but the reality is that “It Depends” has already taken SACSCOC down that path. Differentiation is the goal that responses to standards are dependent on institutional missions, the uniqueness of their institutional student body, and the scope of their programs. So, as a practical matter, “It Depends” is a result of differentiation. As we move toward new Principles, more discussion on differentiation will be had.

Because it means we are willing to look carefully, think critically, and engage thoughtfully. We are not checking boxes. We are preserving quality for our students.

So the next time someone says, “Well, I guess ‘It Depends’…” Smile and remind them, “In accreditation, that might just be the most honest, and student-centered, answer we can give.”