My Letter to NCA re TTS

A friend suggests by email that I give again the essence of my letter to the NCA re the accreditation of TTS. I here do so with these disclaimers: (1) I do not doubt the sincerity of TTS students, (2) TTS enlists a qualified faculty, whether they actually teach is another issue. (3) I have not made a thorough, recent examination of the TTS website, (4) I mainly am commenting on the TTS DA degree in Biblical studies not "lessor" degrees or other disciplines. (5) *** I realize everyone must decide for himself what school is best for him.



I. Regarding the NCA Standard of Ethics it appears to me that TTS violated for years this standard by a misuse of the term "accreditation" and a misrepresentation of the utility of the TTS degrees.

A. Page 23 of 2001 TTS Student Handbook claims that TTS then enjoyed "global accreditation." This IMO is deceit intended to confuse prospective students.

B. Lowe, a TTS VP, says in his definition , p 1, that Liverpool "accredits" TTS. This also is deception.

C. The TTS "Accreditation Form" sent in by the student with a $225 fee shows further the TTS misrepresentation .

D. Experts as Levicoff (Alt Ed 12-09-98), Bear (IBID, 12-03-02), and Baker Ibid 10-13-98) all say TTS in making these accreditational claims is practicing deceit. Walston (Guide, 42) implies that it certainly confuses prospective students.

E. That TTS has now softened some accreditational claims coincidental to its approach to NCA may be suspected as evidence that TTS fully realizes the impropriety of those years of deceit. This does not IMO smack of genuine repentance but rather of doing what now best serve TTS to gain RA.

F. The 2001 catalogue claimed that the Liverpool "accreditation"made the TTS degrees , ...""widely recognized as an assurance of quality." This evaluation was not evidenced!

G. Lowe on p5 says, "Accreditation by Liverpool opens up a whole new range of possibilities regarding the transfer of credits and degrees from Trinity to other institutions... ." This claim was not demonstrated!

The TTS claims , for years, of accreditation and of utility were purely intended IMO to deceive!




II. In regard to the NCA standard of rigor, Trinity also made extravagent claims about the rigor of its programs. It in 2001 TTS claimed that it has," ... superior academic standards which are recognized the world over." TTS also claimed, "...an unparalled standard of excellence."

A. But first, TTS lacks rigor in its requisites for admission.

1. As I recall the current catalogue does not list an accredited masters as a prerequisite! What other Evangelical RA school does not?

2. Other DA programs require some sort entrance exams or evidence of research skills. The U. of Mississippi DA in Music requires the GRE plus three exams in Music. The Idaho State DA in Biology requires the writing of a research paper. The U. of N. Dakota requires a 3.5 grade av plus the GRE. The U. of Illinois requires a 3.75 av plus a high pass on the masters thesis!

3. Such entry requirements show that the applicant can in fact do genuine doc level work! If the bar for entrance into doc work is low, how can the rigor be high? Without such, is only the possession of a credit card evidence of genuine ability to do doc work?

B. Then second, in my experience at TTS there was little interaction between profs and students . There was little probing of student responses. Rather a one page evaluation sheet was used to, supposedly, measure competencies akin to Bloom's Taxonomy. The prof merely needed to check boxes in his evaluation to fulfill his professorial obligations.

C. TTS also lacked rigor in its curricula. 50 % of the material and assignments PhD student in Bible used was exactly the same as the BA student used! In many cases both levels listened to exactly same cassette tapes and used the same textbooks and did the same assignments! In other words, 50% of the TTS doc work was at undergrad level! How was this rigorous?

D. Candidacy for a degree as I understand is achieved when all classwork is complete and the dissertation is begun yet TTS made me a PhD candidate when I had finished only two classes!

E. The current TTS DA in Biblical Studies claims to prepare one to teach the Bible , that is the "Old" Testament and the New Testament Books, in college and in seminary. Yet it does not require prior or doc work in the Biblical languages! But NO doctorate in OT/NT in any RA?GAAP school that I know of can be done with no experience in the Biblical languages. I really don't see how doctoral research in the OT/NT can be done without the Biblical languages or how a seminary prof could teach Bible to grad students in Bible without recourse to these languages!

I provided exhibits, evidence, for everything I wrote to the NCA. I got no reply from the NCA.

 

Bill,

I am curious. You have expressed some concerns about ACCS on this forum.

Given the current situation with ACCS and TRACS, have you written TRACS about your concerns? If not, why not?

 

===

I had called the NCA. I was told to write.

The answer to your question is I called TRACS too and spoke personally with the head executive at length. He shared his concerns about AACS and I shared mine.

Fair enough Jimmy???

 

Yes. Thank you for your quick resonse. Take care.

 

Hi Bill: I have done the same with NCA officials about Trinity and with TRACS officials about ACCS and about a school in candidacy with TRACS. The NCA official was less than forthright, but the TRACS guy was most helpful.

It should also be pointed out that the Trinity "DA" does NOT follow the structure or emphases of the standard DA degree. They seem to have glommed on to the nomenclature without accepting, or possibly understanding, the concept. Check out the NDAA website or the sites of real schools offering real DA's to see the differences in detail.

But you know, Bill, maybe you with your documentation and I with my inquiries are being too harsh. After all, shouldn't there be a school that will hand out doctorates to people (hypothetically speaking, y'unnerstand) who misrepresent their status publicly with two South African universities, who have run degree mills in the past that made the old Toledo Bible look positively integral, who have promoted defunct denominations, who misrepresent an *accredited* seminary in Indiana, who claim to repent but whose behaviour never changes, who defend lovely schools like Andersonville, who proved that there is a kind of "honour among thieves" in Dothan after all by snapping even Shuemake's elastic standards, and who engage in racial and pseudopsychological epithets on this very forum? I mean, come on, Bill, donchu believe in equal opportunity, you old meanie?

 

===

No, I'm getting grumpier as a certain impairment of mine now is making my fingers and feet burn. That distracts me from my dissertating making the labor even more difficult! How is that equal opportunity?

But while I would wish diabetes on no one, if I need to be rigorous and diligent in my own studies, despite having that distraction, then ,as much as I can, I will continue my belief that every doc student in Bible/Theology needs to be rigorous and diligent as well. And a school which has not required such, while claiming to, should have its deficits exposed.

Again, I do not mean to slur the character of TTS students.

 

Thanks for posting that distillation, Bill. I hope it guides people onto the narrow road of rigor.

 

Go get' em, Bill. Remember, too, one of you sick is worth 100 flummerers healthy, or a dozen or so of the rest of us. Zey gezunt, comrade.

 

===


I luv you too Unk--even when you are hyperbolic !

 

The reason the initial letter to NCA received little, if any, serious consideration seems rather clear. Bill's citation of Levicoff as an "expert" gave only minimal legitimacy to his concerns.

What seems oddly out of character here is that RA/GAAP is touted to be THE stamp of approval (and certainly, in terms of utility, it is the gold standard) which guarantees quality/utility of a degree. Yet, when a non-RA/GAAP school seeks to obtain RA/GAAP status, its efforts are maligned. Then, when NCA deems such a school worthy of candidate status, the school continues to be ridiculed. Perhaps the NCA needs an on-site visit.

 

===


Perhaps it would be better to respond to my criticisms instead of suggesting that applying to RA removes all grounds for those criticisms.

If you have evidence that the points I made about TTS are wrong, then please provide that evidence point by point instead of naming me a maligner for speaking truth.

 

I should add that the NCA itself solicited written input from people who had experience with or opinions about Trinity. When I asked people on this forum if I should write several encouraged that! Therefore, to suggest that my reponding to that solicitation is merely taking an opportunity to malign is inconsistent with the occasion. What are you thinking-- that only positive remarks should be acceptable about a school that Walston, Bear, Baker, and Levicoff all have criticized????

 

Have you tried Via voice?

 

==

Sorry to mention the problem ; we all have our difficulties! Mine is not debilitating --just very distractive.

No. I have heard about that device. But it is not so much the actual writing that is the most difficult for me ; it is determining what to write.

At present in a chapter I'm creating a list of about 8-10 arguments by which to evidence a particular view of a certain doctrine. There is no such list of arguments that I know of in existence. At least not a complete one or one intended for my purpose. It has not yet been compiled as far as I know. So, I need to: (1) think of an argument to put on the list , (2) determine the argument's value through a study of related Biblical texts and through a theological synthesization with cognate doctrines, (3) decide how the argument should be used and expressed, (4) then actually express it in writing. The last step is by far the easiest . This present activity is but one part in one chapter.

But thanks, Mike, for the suggestion. I'm scheduled for another blood workup in May, but probably should do it this month.

 

Dear Bill,

I am sorry to hear about your worsening medical conditions. I will keep you in my prayers.

Your friend and brother in Christ,

Jimmy

 

My comment about Levicoff was jest, Bill. My other comments regarding maligning were general statements about not only the TTS process, but any school that pursues this end. As an example, who can forget the Northcentral University saga. Here was a school which many deemed questionable at best, but when the NCA process began, i.e., when NCU seriously pursued NCA, DegreeInfo was inundated with posts regarding its worthiness. It was "questioned" at every level (eg, SCUPS, 100% DL doctorates, etc.). Yet, to the chagrin of many, NCU now enjoys RA. So, my observations were in general, noting that non-RA/GAAP schools are often maligned for being what they are, then, when they seek RA/GAAP there is an effort (or desire) to keep them from obtaining such.

Its the system I tell you, the establishment is trying to keep the little guy down.

 

===

Thanks. It just a new and bothersome symptom I've not before had. I just now checked my blood sugar and it seems OK. I'm over reacting I'm sure .

 

==

Russell

Yes I understand. I tried to say that I was not maligning the character of the TTS student body. I also tried to mostly focus my comment on grad studies in Bib/Theo. Some of my criticisms are based on dated observations. Perhaps changes have been made. But , IMO, some criticisms are yet valid.

It seems the most valuable thing to do , if I unfairly misrepresent TTS, which is not impossible, is for you, or someone, to provide solid evidence to the contrary. I base my criticisms on my experiences with TTS and on various proofs.

But have all of these conditions really changed? For example, does TTS no longer accept unaccredited masters to enter doc studies? Does TTS no longer offer docs in Bible with no language requirements? Does TTS no longer use some of the same curricula for both undergrad and grad study?

Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't mind being shown incorrect!

But you see, even were such deficiencies now entirely eliminated, that would still not eliminate the fact that for years TTS misrepresented its rigor, its accreditation, and its utility in order to confuse and deceive prospective students---would it!

 

There's another question, too: if they are really heading toward accreditation, why are they admitting to a doctoral program somebody w/o an accredited degree above bachelor's, indeed with decidedly millish degrees (can't recall the name just now)? What does that say about rigor in the present moment?

 

If indeed TTS "misrepresented" itself in the past, then the above statement is true. And if true, whether of TTS or any other school, how does an institution move forward? TTS can certainly not undo what has been done, nor can it erase the past. It would seem, given its pursuit of NCA accreditation, the wise course of action would be to move forward.