The accreditation umbrella... or lack thereof

The damnable Earlham thread... er... wait a minute... that didn't come out right...

(just kiddin' around)

...but seriously, that thread was getting downright interesting with regard to the whole business of whether a given school's overall accreditation also extends to its various sub-parts... like, for example, whether Earlham College's regional accreditation also extends to the Earlham School of Religion. But the trouble with that thread was how distracted (and distracting) it got (was) on account of the attack on someone's personal credentials that's going on in other fora, and his understandable and frustrated response thereto, which spawned it; and which, consequently, attracted some abusive, troublesome and now-banned posters into the fray. So I closed it.

However, that doesn't mean that the quite interesting larger accreditation umbrella issue can't -- or shouldn't be -- discussed here. It's just that we should be doing it without all the personalization.

Someone with some really interesting stuff about Earlham's accreditation PMed me and I agreed that what he wrote is a perfectly wonderful place to re-launch the discussion, so I told him I'd start this thread and he promised to chime-in with his info, whereupon I'm hoping a good accreditation umbrella debate will ensue... sans the personal stuff, of course.

So, all... have at it!

 

I have no connection to Earlham School of Religion, or to any of the associated personal issues. I just found it curious that there could be ambiguity regarding the accreditation status of a given institution. But after a little online research into ESR, I found it can get complicated.

There is a detailed (160-page) history of ESR from 1985 here, which includes thorough discussion of accreditation issues (Acrobat pp. 65-67). The key points appear to be as follows:

(1) ESR has historically offered two kinds of degrees: academic degrees (MA) and professional divinity degrees (originally BDiv, later MDiv and MMin).

(2) The MA degree in religion was originally offered by Earlham College (EC), which is RA. Even after ESR was started, EC continued to hold the ultimate responsibility for the MA degree. So the ESR MA degree was historically RA.

(3) The divinity degree program (BDiv) was subsequently initiated by ESR, independently of EC. The divinity program was not covered by EC's regional accreditation; on the contrary, it was completely unaccredited for some 15 years. The ESR history explicitly notes that the EC faculty were quite uncomfortable with the unaccredited nature of ESR's divinity program; it also (Acrobat p. 30) acknowledges that ESR divinity students took a chance by enrolling in this unaccredited program.

(4) In 1975, the ESR divinity program was accredited by ATS (to the relief of EC faculty). The BDiv degree was eventually replaced by the MDiv or MMin degree. But apparently the ESR divinity degrees were never covered by EC's regional accreditation. The current EC accreditation statement states that EC is approved by NCA to offer the BA and MA degrees, but does not mention divinity degrees.

(5) At some point, ESR assumed full responsibility for the MA program, and so the MA apparently became ATS rather than RA. It currently appears that all of the ESR programs are accredited by ATS. The current (2004) NCA accreditation report for Earlham College states:

So in summary, it appears that ESR degrees may be either regionally accredited by NCA (historical MA degrees), or professionally accredited by ATS (current MA and divinity degrees), or unaccredited (historical divinity degrees). The accreditation status of an ESR degree can only be determined by assessing both the type of degree and the date that it was issued. No wonder there is confusion.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter, since ESR degrees are universally recognized and respected. ESR is obviously a specialized program, and in such cases, professional accreditation (ABA, ABET, ATS, etc) may be more valuable than RA.

 

This is very strange, CalDog. No, not your very detailed and informative post--but the fact that I posted a brief thank-you to you on this thread about 4 hours ago--and now it's gone. Anyway, thanks. I have had little contact with ESR for more than 20 years, and found your post very interesting.

 

And....

I thought accreditation was an esay issue?!!

 

Why does this thread exist? What are we discussing?

What features of Earlham School of Religion make it interesting or important or whatever it's supposed to be? Why are people talking about it? What broader conclusions should we draw from it?

Why was the previous thread closed? Why was this continuation thread opened? What was wrong with that one? What's right about this one?

I'm probably incurably clueless (that's jamestown's cue), but sometimes the distance learning boards really do seem like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That's why I feel at home here.

 

Beats me, Bill.

Maybe we ought to discuss the harassment of ESR fostered in jamesville, the incitements to lawsuits against ESR, the e-mail to its dean, etc., etc. Maybe we ought to discuss millists and degree liars engaging in targeting a perfectly decent school because of personal hatred. Maybe we ought to discuss the utter incomprehensibility of some folks feeling we owe goofballs a fair hearing when nothing drives the goofballs but malice, deceit and frustration. Maybe we ought to discuss why the Hermann Goering Fan Club constantly tries to "out" me--to utterly no avail, since my organizational superiors approve heartily of what I do. Maybe we ought to discuss hiring millists as high school teachers. Maybe we ought to discuss accountants behaving badly. Maybe we ought to discuss the inane internet phenomenon of considering all opinions of equal worth just because they're in cyberprint.

Or maybe not.

Would that Karl Kraus were alive at this hour!

Have a nice weekend, Bill. You, at least, have something (in fact, many somethings) worth saying and worth hearing.

 

Its title is not self-explanatory?

I mean... I'm not tring to be a smart a___ or anything. I honestly thought the "umbrella" thing would be kinda' sufficient unto itself. I'm sorry if I misjudged that.

Earlham's not the intended subject of this thread. It's a launching point, perhaps, for a larger discussion of whether and by what means the accrediation of a given institution might (or might not) include/cover any of its sub-parts.

Because it was, as this one is now beginning to be, about an individual... specifically in response to stuff not even posted at DI. It had already attracted a poster with an ax to grind regarding said individual who has since been banned from DI. The thread, for the specific purpose for which it was started, maybe shouldn't have been. However, the larger discussion which it either did or could have spawn(ed) regarding how accreditation of a given institution might or might not flow/trickle-down to its sub-parts was -- and remains -- legitimate and worthwhile.

Because the aforementioned flow/trickle-down discussion is worthwhile and is better discussed in a thread where the subject of individuals and their issues with other fora should not be a distraction.

Asked and answered, above.

No comment... that is, of course, other than to say "no comment."

And I, for one, am grateful that you feel that way. Seriously. You are a nearly-indipensable part of the character and useful content of the DegreeInfo web site, just generally... or so it is my opinion.




NOTE: The following exchange is in response to something posted by someone whose username I will not now disclose in my quoted text, below; and whose words to which I'm replying, below, have been deleted by another moderator who didn't realize that I was about to address them in the helpful and clarifying way that have, below; and whose words need a reply so that not only this thread, but the whole issue, just generally, will maybe stop being so out-of-control.

On the contrary, even the Earlham School of Religion (ESR), in a recent email messsage sent directly therefrom in response to the question, says that it's regionally-accredited under the Earlham College (EC) umbrella... hence the reason I chose the whole "umbrella" thing in this thread's title.

The folks at ESR are most certainly bright people -- many of whom have degrees even higher than a masters -- and they're clearly unclear about it, too. All is not as cut-and-dried as it may, at first, appear.

Having seen neither, I cannot comment on that... other than to say that if the accreditation status of ESR is actually printed on either, then you most certainly have a categorically valid point.

The confusion about the issue, which even ESR personnel appear to have, clearly renders that belief invalid, if not unsound. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your having that opinion... or even that you're necessarily incorrect (although I, personally, believe that you are, in this particular case). I'm just saying that there's obviously more reason to give the benefit of the doubt in this instance than maybe you realized at first. Heck, even ESR believes its degrees are regionally accredited. It is not, therefore, unreasonable for its graduates to believe the same. It only makes sense, in fact.

I believe that you are being disingenuous when you try to make it appear as though you have no idea who Uncle Janko is; or you imply ignorance of the fact that he and this matter have now become fodder in other fora. That's just an opinion on my part, mind you... but I believe it. If I'm right, then you're probably from said other fora and signed-up here expressly for the purpose of continuing the attack on Janko. And that's precisely the sort of thing that I didn't want to happen, hence my closing of the other thread. Please don't try to end-run that here, okay? Please. I don't want to have to close this thread, too... or to ban anyone. We can stay on topic without it getting personal and destructive.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that, either. If you can prove me wrong, I'll happily come back here and acknowledge my error -- and apologize for it -- in big, bold, red letters.

Again, with the personal attacking and the disingenous "Uncle Janko person" phrase.

Oy.

Okay... I will say, for the last time here, that Janko has misrepresented nothing... at least not intentionally, I'm certain. ESR itself says it's regionally-accredited... and that remains ESR's position as of this writing. Janko merely took ESR at its word and acted accordingly... as every last one of us would have done, as well. No misrepresentation was intended or, I dare say, committed by Janko or ESR. It's confusing, and more research into the matter needs to be done... which, as I understand it, ESR is now doing.

For all I know, it may turn out that ESR has always been wrong when it told people that it (and its degrees) is(are) regionally (and not merely nationally) accredited; that, in fact, it does not fall under EC's regionally-accredited umbrella; and that, in fact, it is only ATS accredited after all, as has been alleged. Maybe that is what we'll all eventually learn when the dust finally settles.

But, if so, then I assure you that it'll be news to both ESR and Janko... both of whom, I'm quite certain, will thereupon immediately and from that moment forward begin representing ESR and its degrees more accurately, based on what will, at that point, be their surprising, new knowledge. If so, then no harm, no foul, I say. This is not as big a deal as some are trying to make it. Let's, please, please, keep this whole thing in perspective, shall we?



So... anyway... please, everyone... please confine your commentary here to the intended subject of this thread. Feel free, of course, to continue to use Earlham as an example if you wish... it is, after all, the very example that I intended to at least get the larger "umbrella" conversation started in this thread. But, please... let's leave personalities and individuals out of it; and let's focus, here, only on the so-called "umbrella" discussion, as intended. Please.

Thanks!!!

 

Peace in our time.

 

Anyone that signs up here and launches into personal attacks against our good Uncle on their first post should be banned for extreme silliness. Thank you, moderators.

P.S. Now if they had instead launched into personal attacks against me then they should be rewarded for their intuitive high intelligence but the current TOS does not allow exceptions. Which just goes to prove the old saying that sometimes life is not fair.

 

IMO, what's complex here is not the accreditation issues.

If accreditor X says that A falls under their accreditation, but A' (we say A-prime in maths) does not, then since X is the accreditor, then X gets to say whether or not A' falls under their accreditation. In this case, A' is accredited under the accreditation of accreditation Y, which is not a regional accreditor, but a recognized accreditor.

A - X by X's admission
A' - Y by Y's admission, not X by X's decree

That part is simple. That someone, somewhere, let's use the variable Z to represent this person or persons, may or may not have realized that this was the case -- goes to good faith. We say that if Z believed A' was X-accredited "in good faith" that nothing is amiss. If it shows to be that A=X and A'=Y, with no other variation or umbrella, Z will simply move on under this new understanding, in equal good faith.

All that is pretty simple, too.

There are background issues here that predate Noah, unfortunately, and these cloud the issue. If Z, back before the flood, called Z' (Z-prime) on an accreditation umbrella issue as regards a degree from institution B that is B^3, where accreditor W only accredits degrees from B^0 throgh B^2, on the lack-of-umbrella of W's accreditation of B ... and then an umbrella issue appears to arise with A and A' and their X and Y respective accreditations -- Z' may feel that Z should take-it-like-(s)he-dealt-it.

However, the issues indeed are orthogonal rather than parrallel.

In the case of X and Y's accreditation of A and A' -- it is an issue of inclusion of whole set of degrees from those institutions. In the case of B's accreditation of B^0 through B^2 but not B^3, it is an issue of accreditation not of the whole set, but of the power class.

What constitutes good faith (hereafter G) in the case of Z and Z', then, is not closed over the equality operator. That is to say, there is n function f(n) such that one can determine whether or not f(G) = f(G') since U(A) union U(B^n) = {0} for n > 2.

This being the case -- can't we all just be friends?

Q.E.D.

 

ESR was *formerly* under an RA umbrella

I have contended (see above) that the accreditation status of ESR is confusing. It appears that various ESR degrees have, at various times, been RA, ATS, or ununaccredited. The most recent (2004) NCA accreditation report indicates that ESR is not covered by Earlham College's "RA umbrella".

But what about previous NCA accreditation reports?

Take a look at these "Basic Institutional Data Forms", prepared by "The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools" for the academic years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. Two points stand out:

1. The forms consistently have the heading: Name of institution/campus reported: EARLHAM COLLEGE & EARLHAM SCHOOL OF RELIGION

2. There is one page (Acrobat p. 8) that explicitly focuses on Earlham School of Religion. It includes the statistics for ESR MDiv degrees.

So, what does this mean?

Conclusion 1: ESR was apparently included with Earlham College as an NCA-accredited institution during the 2001-2004 period. However, ESR was apparently dropped from the scope of NCA accreditation in 2004.

Conclusion 2: Confusion regarding the accreditation status of ESR degrees is understandable. As stated previously, ESR degrees have been a combination of NCA-accredited, ATS-accredited, or unaccredited. There have apparently been times (like 2001-2004) when all ESR degrees were technically under the RA "umbrella" of Earlham College. There have apparently been times (like the present) when ESR degrees were outside the RA "umbrella". Finally, there have apparently been times (pre-1975) when ESR academic degrees were under the RA "umbrella" while ESR divinity degrees were outside the "umbrella". These are just examples: I don't claim to know the whole history.

But given this variability, it's clear that it may be difficult to determine the exact accreditation status of a given ESR degree. It would depend on the type of degree and the date that it was issued.

For practical purposes, I don't see why it is important. All post-1975 ESR degrees should be either RA or ATS (or both); either form of accreditation should be perfectly acceptable for pursuing a career in ministry or a higher academic degree in religion. An old (pre-1975) ESR divinity degree would be unaccredited, but ministry is a professional field where accreditation is only desirable, not essential; there is a generally accepted "religious exemption" for such degrees.

Conclusion 3: I don't feel like doing any more research into this issue.

 

Hi Caldog:

I'm taking some time off from degreeinfo--Nov. is frenzy* time on a major paper . But I had to post to thank you for your exhaustive research into this topic.
I appreciate your thoroughness and lack of animus. I also thank you for vindicating the reputation of ESR.

Yours cordially,
Janko the Mad Priest


*Screamin' Jay lives!

 

Quinn,

Wow - you should save this post for reuse whenever you want to close another tedious thread. I know that it was enough to cause me to throw in the towel.