I agree that the immediate effects of the policy would be beneficial. But you have also created a government sponsored body that is now deciding what is a startup and what is not. That is very, very, very dangerous. This organization over time may lobby Congress to actively ban all non-accredited startups. This is exactly the path followed by the law schools, medical schools, architect schools, dentistry schools, interior design schools, etc. The track record is not good.

Can you offer any evidence that university accreditation is a net lose? It may prevent "startup" schools, but it also prevents scams. You haven't made any effort to weigh the costs and benefits.

And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right. Whenever you try to build any kind of filter, people will try to game it, but that doesn't make filters pointless.

Gatekeeper laws cost Americans hundreds of billions a year in tuition and lost wages. It's also condemnable from a personal liberty perspective. The burden of proof is entirely on the schools to show that the costs in money and liberty are worth it. They have not done so. Heck, there is no proof that even primary education is worth it. Despite massive increases in enrollment, length of schooling, and school spending, overall rates of numeracy and vocabulary have been flat over the course of the 20th century.

Recently I was talking to friend who had just left law school. He described the process as: "We spend all semester in class where we listen to boring professors who just like to hear themselves talk. Then we do internships where we get paid to learn." I have close friends in architecture school who say the same thing. Almost all the practical stuff about code and structures students learn on the job. The school teaches stuff like "aura" and deconstructionist design. Compare the current Boston City Hall the Old Boston City Hall and you see the results of this wonderful, accredited training. There is simply no evidence that law school or architecture school is a net positive, much less that is worth the cost. (Medical school is a tougher case as care has improved. But this seems to be the result of improvements in science and technology, not schooling).

I hear the same exact stories from people graduating other schools - education schools, meteorology programs, business school, etc. It's pretty clear that the primary result of establishing an accreditation body as legal gatekeeper to a field, is to create jobs for professors and increase wages for professionals. ( note - computer science classes tend to be more sound, perhaps precisely because there is no legal credentialing requirement to enter software programming, and thus the departments must prove their worth the old fashioned way)

If the purpose of credentialing laws was merely to protect consumers, the laws would only care about the results of the schools teaching ( whether graduates could past the Boards or the Bar ) rather than the process ( whether the school was accredited). The law would also allow people to get around the defaults. For instance, your web browser warns you when you access a potentially malicious site, but it still allows you to access it if you really want to. But you cannot do the same with lawyers; you a non-accredited lawyer cannot represent you in court.

And even if school accreditation were a net lose, that doesn't mean accreditation in general is always a mistake-- that it's impossible to do right.

In the context of the American political system of 2008, it is impossible. Washington does not work. You can expect to make a reasonable policy suggestion, and have the actual result come be close to what you wanted. The only thing we can do is keep the poison from spreading through Silicon Valley as long as we can.