Seeing a lot of negative comments here, especially around accreditation and pricing. As a co-founder of an accredited online university, son of a retired state university professor father, and grandson of a retired state university professor grandmother, I'd like to offer my own perspective.
University of the People is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC), a national accreditor recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CHEA recognized accreditors can be browsed here: https://www.chea.org/chea-recognized-organizations
DEAC is a US-based, non-profit accreditation agency founded in 1926. Our university (quantic.edu) was also accredited by DEAC. It was a multi-year process, and extremely rigorous; we were evaluated across all aspects of our organization: academic, operational, financial, etc. Many schools that begin the accreditation process do not successfully complete it. As the name suggests, DEAC specializes in distance education, so it's a good choice for a university that offers purely online programs. Some accreditors have requirements that implicitly or explicitly exclude online universities; for example, there might be a requirement for a physical library of a certain size. Regional accreditation also often takes longer, or requires you to have been in operation for more years. However, when comparing notes with my retired academic family members, there were similarities in the required documentation for DEAC to what was needed in the regional accreditation renewal process.
A prerequisite for accreditation in the US is licensing at the state level and compliance with all state laws within which the university has a physical presence. This means that you need to be very careful about where your school has physical offices and from which states you advertise and enroll students. Note that licensing is also required for issuing certificates, not just degrees; this is a common mistake for education startups, especially bootcamps. Lambda School [1] and Flatiron [2] were both slapped for this.
The differences between regional and national accreditation often boil down to "regional accreditation means credits are more likely to transfer." However, one thing that's thrown a huge wrench into this is that in 2019, the US Department of Education revised its rules to eliminate the distinction between national and regional accreditors! [3] This rule change will take effect in July 2020. The impact of this (and related) rule changes on credit transfer and how universities market their accreditation are open to speculation.
Regarding the University of People's pricing, it's important to note that they advertise as "tuition free." Terms like tuition have a very specific meaning in the world of higher education, and are considered distinct from "fees," for example. This is why UofP does not market itself as simply being "free," like we do for our early career MBA program. To use the word "free" unconditionally, DEAC requires us to prove our early career MBA students can apply, enroll, study, and graduate having paid no tuition or fees whatsoever. On the other hand, if you do charge for tuition, like we do for our Executive MBA, DEAC requires you to disclose all payment details up-front; this is why almost anywhere on our website where we reference a price, or even affordability, we also include a link to display a breakdown of tuition, payment plans, scholarships, discounts, and other potential fees.
The higher education space is very regulated, so innovation can be challenging. It's important to remember that most innovative organizations have to (at least initially) make tradeoffs to better serve a subset of the market over incumbents. Our raison d'etre is active learning, for example; we eschew passive lectures (no video professor) in favor of a proprietary interactive learning format that's mobile-first and broken up into small modules. This has numerous advantages for the learner, but it also means that our bespoke curriculum structure can't be easily packaged up into transfer credits. As a graduate school, we decided that was a reasonable tradeoff to enable innovation in the core learning experience. Likewise, we decided to pursue a quality-first strategy (see: Tesla master plan), building a deep, challenging curriculum with a selective admissions process (less than 10% admitted) to establish the value of the school and alumni network, with the plan to launch more open programs down the line.
If you've read this far, I hope that you at least take away the fact that building something new in the higher education space is hard. If some aspect of a program appears odd at first glance, consider if the diversion from the norm might also confer an advantage with a specific audience. And when evaluating educational program options, don't discount the value of a licensed and accredited provider recognized by the US Department of Education or CHEA.
[1] https://www.educationdive.com/news/running-without-state-app...
[2] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2017/ag-schneiderman-announc....
[3] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-department-education...
[EDIT: some sentences tweaked for clarity]