Ensuring the quality of higher education in Argentina is a policy that has been in place for the last two decades. Within this framework, evaluations of undergraduate programs of public interest are carried out, evaluations which culminate in decisions made by evaluators in relation to established standards.

Our work analyzes the distribution of value judgements in eight undergraduate accreditation evaluations. These evaluations were then characterized according to a study of their discursive and pragmatic linguistic features.

In accordance with its depth and objective, this research is exploratory, qualitative and quantitative, and it is of a descriptive-interpretative nature.

The results demonstrate that several objects of evaluation and variables presented in the standards were evaluated on more than one occasion using various judgements, while others were not evaluated at all; these judgements were primarily descriptive, binary, of complex structure, brief and imprecise. Improving accreditation procedures could generate more prototypical value judgements in the decision-making process.