I'll be curious to see others chime in on this, Gloria. My personal opinion is that generally speaking, yes. My comment is based on the theory that regulations are intended to protect the student. All students - whether they attend large or small schools - should be entitled to this same protection. Having said that, I know that some of the regulations are very cumbersome for smaller schools and, in many cases, a handful of students can significantly impact statistics of smaller schools, putting them at regulatory risk. I have seen some schools put on job placement monitoring as a result of a few students swinging the statistic into the unacceptable category.The opposing viewpoint would say that these schools also get the benefit of a couple students helping their statistics if the students secure jobs. In a graduating class of 10, each student represents 10%, whereas a graduating class of 100 would mean each only represents 1%. While one perspective suggests the seemingly unfairness of a few students putting the school at regulatory risk in the smaller school, the larger could argue that the small school only has to assist in providing up to 10 jobs vs. the 100 jobs - a big difference in certain disciplines and job markets. I don't envy the regulatory bodies when trying to find the right balance and how to deal with all ranges of school sizes, disciplines, markets, etc. I think the practical approach is ensuring the school can demonstrate good practices and effort. When a small school is scrutinized for something negative that may seem unfair due to size, if the school can provide evidence of their efforts and compliance with their policies and procedures, typically the penalty or consequences are minimized. While there are certainly exceptions, in my experience, the regulators are reasonable when conducting a review, particularly if the school can demonstrate valid effort.