Trinity College of the Bible Theological Seminary?

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with Trinity College of the Bible Theological Seminary, or any other knowledge that would be helpful.

I spoke with them this week, and I would need 32 hours in order to meet the qualifications, and they said the other 96 hours could be earned via CLEP, or other forms of testing, and portfolio assessment.

I'm just wondering if there is any other information about this program that I need to be aware of. Thanks so much in advance I really appreciate the help!

Take care,

Matt

 

This institution has been discussed just about as much as any other on this forum. The search engine doesn't seem to be working at this time but when it is you will find out all you need to know and then some.

A number of posters on here have vehement disdain for Trinity due to its questionable past. Others seem to feel Trinity has redeemed itself due to its candidacy status with a regional accreditor.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and choose wisely.

 

Google search Trinity Seminary

Google search Trinity College

 

They are, indeed candidates for regional accreditation with the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. Their faculty seems very good. Many on this board and other boards have criticized the school for its lack of rigor compared to other Bible colleges and seminaries. A pastor I know asked me to fill out a questionaire for his PhD from Trinity. His research seemed like undergraduate stuff to me. You might want to check out the archives of baptistboard.com also.

 

Trinity College of the Bible Theological Seminary

Dear Patsfan,
Hello, yes I agree their courses are easy at Doctor Level.
Please select another University.

Regards,
Stae

 

I had some experience with Trinity a few years back. I was sucked in by Trinity's misleading and false claims of global accreditation , world-wide recognition, and acceptance. I completed three courses in the PhD in Bible. In my opinion the courses were "taught" at around MDiv level.

Work was required, but it was not rigorous. EG, : for a PhD class we took a basic introduction to Systematic Theology using material as Grudem and simple cassettes intended for master's work! I was repeating what I did at Western Seminary in the MDiv! Perhaps that was necessary in the curriculum because the bar for entering doc work was so low. But it certainly is NOT doc work!

Some of the textbooks, cassettes, and assignments required of PhD students were used by Trinity MA students and even B.A. students. I do not know how much of this is changed. Perhaps that was necessary as a cost effective device. But it hardly encourages rigor!

Indeed the faculty is qualified academically. That is one criterion IMO of credibility. But there must be also a connection of that faculty expertise to the needs of a student for the student to benefit from it. BUT a prof's degrees mean little if the school's requirements are not rigorous.

Besides, in my experience there was little interaction between the prof and the student. Probes were not made of the student's learning products as IMO should occur. Student work not only was not challenging, it was not challenged! By that I mean , the student was not driven to further explore his positions taken in written assignments! Papers were not even evaluated at all times by the profs. This was sometimes done by less qualified "graders."

It has been suggested that Trinity has "redeemed" itself from its past lying tactics by its current status as an RA candidate. I don't see that way. I have seen no admission of guilt. IMO repentance requires confession!

I don't mean to question the good intentions of Trinity students or of some Trinity staff. Neither is Trinity a mill. It just has a sad history of lying in my opinion and in my experience a sorry past PhD program in Bible, and IMO an inadequate present DA curriculum in Bible. .

So, I dropped out of Trinity and opted for a research doc in Systematic Theology with a South African school. IMO this research model is a very good way to learn. It also is inexpensive. Much cheaper than is Trinity. As an old retired guy on a pension , I needed to be thrifty.

But IMO a research doc in Bible/Theology should normally be done only by one with a considerable experience in grad courses and with a prior research product completed. That provides IMO a good foundation.

Best of luck,

 

vehement disdain

What Dr Grover said...and then some.

 

Okay, here's the deal...

The unaccredited Trinity (sometimes referred to around here as "Trinity Newburgh") has, in the opinion of many here, a bit of a checkered -- almost slimy -- past. In addition to the rigor issues already mentioned in this thread, Trinity Newburgh has, many believe, misled people about its relationship with the rather questionable Masters Divinity School and Graduate School. (Ick!)

For a long time, Trinity tried to foist off its endorsement from Canterbury Christ Church University College of England (CCCUC) (which, incidentally, is GAAP) as equivalent to (or at least just as good as, as a practical matter) being accredited. Of course, that's ridiculous! Don't get me wrong... the whole CCCUC relationship is kinda' interesting, granted, but it certainly shouldn't be seen as a substitute for accreditation... not by a long shot. Sadly, for many here, Trinity's CCCUC endorsement and its sort of offering that up instead of accreditation was little better than claiming some sort of trumped-up accreditor.

Even if having one's Trinity degree "endorsed" by CCCUC is somehow potentially useful (and it's highly debatable, by the way, whether it actually is), forum members here felt that to try to capitalize on the fact that many potential students don't really understand accreditation and may, therefore, think that CCCUC's endorsement will somehow be good enough is just not honest or honorable. For any institution to behave that way is bad enough, I think they thought; but for a seminary to do it... well... that just seemed like too much.

These moral/ethical infirmities, when viewed as a whole, combined to make many here just shake their heads in disbelief; and to generally dismiss Trinity Newburgh as a viable option for the degree seeker on moral/ethical grounds. I could be wrong, but I think that that's pretty much where Bill Grover and uncle janko are.



Surprise, surprise!

In January of 2004, Trinity stunned the distance education world by becoming a candidate for regional accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which is one of the six regional accreditors approved by the US Department of Education (USDE) and its Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). It doesn't get much more credible than that! Some people here were so surprised -- and they so doubted that it could possibly be true -- that they had to go out and check with the North Central Association to find out if their eyes were deceiving them. But, lo and behold, it was true.

Accreditation takes a few years, so it's unclear just when -- or even if -- Trinity Newburgh will finally be fully accredited. It's been a year since it became a candidate; and if Trinity takes the average amount of time that most other institutions do, then it's conceivable (and the operative word, here, is "conceivable") that a freshman enrolling in a four-year Trinity bachelors program this fall could end-up with it being regionally accredited by the time s/he finally completes it (since whether or not a degree is accredited depends not on whether it was accredited when it was begun but, rather, whether it was accredited by the time it was finally awarded). That would, indeed, be interesting.

Or Trinity could simply fail and end-up not actually being accredited after all... in which case, it will have to just continue being an unaccredited seminary which may or may not be a particularly good seminary, but which has nothing but its weird CCCUC endorsement to give it any kind of credibility. And, if that happened, of course, those who know its past will say they're not surprised, and Trinity Newburgh will be trounced here even worse than it has been in the past. And probably deservedly so, I would add.

All that said, if Trinity really is going to end-up regionally accredited then, whatever its failures of the past, it is, obviously, going to have to take these years after being named a candidate for regional accreditation and use them to spruce-up its programs and make them just as good as any other regionally-accredited college's or university's programs, or it doesn't have a prayer of actually being accredited. If it succeeds, and if Trinity ends-up actually becoming regionally accredited in a few years, then, obviously, some of its infirmities about which we've all been complaining here for so long will simply become moot... or at least nearly so.

But, even then, that will still leave the question of why Trinity behaved so badly in the past; and it will beg the question of whether one would want to do business with it after all that just because it finally figured out how to be legitimate. Bill's and janko's point, I think, is, in essence: "Oh, sure... you may be technically legit, but where's your coming clean and your acknowledgement of your prior bad acts; your explanation to help us understand what in the hell you were thinking; your apology; your declaration that you've learned your lesson and that you get it now; and your assurances that if everyone will just be patient and let you prove yourself, you'll show us that you've turned yourself around and that all will eventually be right with the universe." It's kinda' hard, some here argue, to take seriously a seminary that's teaching ethics and morals, but which seems so startlingly unapologetic and unrepentant.

I agree with these sentiments; and I'm suspicious of Trinity Newburgh. But having spent so many years in the hard-core, secular business world, I see Trinity as a corporate entity, and it's simply unrealistic to expect corporate entities to apologize; or to make too big of a deal of their past indiscretions; or to call whole lot of attention to their subsequent attempts at propitiation. Most corporate boards would weigh the damage to the company's future marketing that "coming clean" would cause, and would simply opt for silence about such things, and would let their actions speak for them... as Trinity seems to be doing. In this case, Trinity seems to be asking us to judge it on what it's now trying to do, and not on what it won't acknowledge it once did.



Well, is it, or isn't it?

The rigor argument is a compelling one, but it flies in the face of what Trinity's now trying to do. It will either meet regional accreditation standards, or it won't. I'm sure Trinity's board -- if it's even aware of how places like this regard it... and/or if it even cares -- is looking forward to its finally being accredited as that which wipes clean its slate. And I think that's not an unrealistic expectation; and that those of us in this forum should see it that way, too. If Trinity exhibits slimy behavior after that, then that will be another conversation for another day. If so, then at that point Trinity will simply join the ranks of several other regionally accredited institutions we all know of that, nevertheless, act badly in their business and/or other dealings. No one said regional accreditation suddenly fixes everything. All regional accreditation does is ensure that the coursework is rigorous and on-par with that of other regionally accredited institutions; and can be trusted by others for academic credit transfer or employment purposes.

It seems to me that if we're all going to extol the facial virtues of regional accreditation around here, then we ought to be fair and allow Trinity to enjoy those same benefits of being regionally accredited that we routinely afford to every other regionally accredited institution.

I, for one, have allowed myself to become generally impressed with the fact that Trinity Newburgh has obtained regional accreditation candidacy; and I, for one, am now just sitting back and waiting to see if it will succeed or fail. I'm assuming that Trinity is, today, a much better school than it was a year ago; and that a year from now it will be much better than it is today... and so on and so on. Personally (and not taking into consideration its conservatism which is probably incompatible with my beliefs in any case), I wouldn't even consider getting a degree from Trinity Newburgh until it actually became accredited; or, alternatively, not unless I knew for sure that it would be accredited by the time I finished said degree. But that's just me. Others might find Trinity's programs sufficiently compelling to not worry too much about that sort of thing. That, of course, would be up to them.

In the meantime, I'm thinking that maybe we should all kinda' get off Trinity's back a little. Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that fair warning about Trinity Newburgh's past shouldn't be dispensed to those who, like the thread-starter, inquire about it here; but I'm thinking maybe we should all take more of a wait-and-see attitude about Trinity and its future; and maybe give it the credit it deserves for trying to turn itself around and make itself right with the world... notwithstanding its lack of remorse.

That's just my $.02 worth, of course... which my ex-wife is quick to point out is pretty much all it's worth. But I digress... yet again.

 

Also, what it calls a DA degree isn't a DA degree. Clark Kerr died for your sins.

 

Who was Clark Kerr?

 

See this.

 

IMO a Christian school can admit its past mistakes. If it will not for financial reasons maybe that's wrong. Somebody creates the website and writes the ads.

A simple insertion : "WE USED TO TELL BIG WHOPPING FIBS TO TRICK POTENTIAL STUDENTS BUT WILL STOP IF WE GET RA " will satisfy me

 

But a bible school is still a corporation. Corporations aren't people. The quality of a corporation should be judged by how well it does the one and only thing it's supposed to do: Make money for its owners/investors. Doing that well doesn't usually include making a statement even remotely like what you suggest, not withstanding its intentional tongue-in-cheekity; and, in fact, if Trinity ever did make such a public statement, precisely because that would be poor stewardshp of the corporate entity and its assets, it would at that point lose even my support.

 

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18066
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17687
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17346
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15702
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14611
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14263
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14043
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13787
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12644
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12172
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10793
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8818
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7695
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7250
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7177
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6355
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4512
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4472
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2694
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1483
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1345
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1256

 

I've talked on and off with them for about 10 years before deciding not to enroll with them. They have changed their programs and degrees several times during my consideration of them. Financially, they offered some good discounts, but after finding and reading some of the posts on this site, I opted for another route... So far I am glad I did...

 

Add to these:

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8396
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7695
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5574

 

===

Gregg

You're much more knowledgeable about corporations than I. If we are to evaluate Trinity by how well it makes money for its investors, regardless of the methods employed, then I guess Trinity is a fine Christian school. My alma mater, Western, regularly hurts for money! So, by your standard TTS is doing a better job than Western.

But my opinion remains that Trinity also consists of people teaching people. Teaching should be by example, not just by textbook. And I've given my opinion of the example that Trinity has set. Again , I say that I do not doubt the sincerity of TTS students.

 

This beats Vasco da Gama discovering Ashtabula.

Wow. Ted's discovered the search thing. Glowry!

 

OK.
(sings, badly)
Back to the old, old story,
'twill be my theme in glory,
to tell the Newburgh story,
of TBS the joke.

See, it's not just that Dr Bill Grover is correct in extenso et copiositer. It not just that the old Toledo Bible was shabby. It's not just that they lied by playing the Brit and US senses of "accreditation" off against each other, first with Liverpool and then with Canterbury. It's not just that they lied about THAT, since one didn't get a degree FROM Liverpool or Canterbury at all, as one would have done with a genuine Brit- or SA-sense "accredited" feeder school of a university. It's not just paying extra for a shiny sticker that deceptively alluded to Liverpool or Caterbury on one's duh-ploma. It's not just that they keep on BS-ing about MDS (shame, shame, shame). It's not just that their doctor of arts isn't a doctor of arts. It's not just the blue-light specials on tuition and the high-pressure salesmanship. It's just, well, ding flum it, there was sumpin' else, but I fergit jes' now whut it wuz. I hate when that happens.

 

Yes, I remember some of those threads; and I went back and read them again thanks to Ted's providing links to them here (thanks Ted!). Pretty eye-opening.

Sometimes I get a little legalistic in my viewpoint on things because I understand perhaps better than the average Joe the role of the corporation as a legal entity; and the trouble that those who run it can get into by being too sentimenal.

That said, one of the other things I routinely point out to consulting clients and others is that when you take away a coporation's desks and chairs and conference rooms, what's left is people -- both employees and customers. And it is at that level that ethics absolutely should -- ne, must -- play a central role.

And, anyway... it's pretty tough to refute the time worn "teching by example" argument. It's an oldie, but a serious goody.

As I think about it, perhaps it wouldn't hurt Trinity to sit down with a good lawyer and a good PR person who specializes in reviving sullied corporate images and figure out a way to address the problem somehow. Given the egregiousness of the prior bad acts, some acknowledgement -- even if only brief and superficial and, therefore, wholly unsatisfying to many -- might be in order. It would be hard to know where to begin, of course; but I'm thinking it could be done... and probably should be.

[sigh] Why do people do stuff like that? I mean... are they that short-sighted? Did they actually believe that no one would notice; or that time would just erase prior bad behavior? It just wasn't necessary, ya' know? What in godsname were these people thinking? (Rhetorical questions, mind you... I'm just lamenting.)

Oy.

Then again, I don't even know why I'm wondering these things. One of the things that the Laci Peterson web site experience taught me was a lesson in sheer numbers, generally; and an even bigger lesson, specifically, regarding the sheer numbers of people who either don't pay attention and/or don't care and who will, therefore, buy-in to or believe anything. I mean, as much as we all sit around here and talk about Trinity's ethical infirmities, it hasn't stopped (or even slowed) its growth. No one cares! Trinity's still churning-out the graduates -- even without accreditation -- at a swift pace; and no amount of prior bad acts seems to have slowed its number of applicants. There will always be customers for these places. Of course, Trinity's not a mill or anything, so I'm using the phrase "these places" differently, here, than I typically do when I'm lambasting a bona fide mill elsewhere in these fora... but you get my point.

We can only hope, I suppose, that your... um... I think I read that it was a 12-page letter, with examples/exhibits, reached the right people at the accreditor; and that each of the things you called to its attention were action items for improvement during the candidacy period, and will be action items for review at the next site visit. Speaking of which...

This thread got me to wonderin' just how things are going; and to inquire about same of the accreditor this morning. I got a fairly quick response, to wit:

• "Candidacy is an official status that indicates that an institution appears to be progressing steadily and properly toward meeting the Criteria for Accreditation. The Commission does not grant candidacy to an institution unless it has strong evidence that the institution may achieve accreditation within the candidacy period (4 years). However, attainment of candidacy does NOT GUARANTEE eventual accreditation. To achieve and maintain accreditation, an institution must meet the Commission's Criteria for Accreditation.
  
  "Trinity College of the Bible and Seminary was granted candidacy on Feb. 5, 2004. It will have another on-site evaluation in Spring of 2006, either for continued candidacy or for initial accreditation, if this is warranted. If the institution is still a candidate in 2007-08 it must be evaluated for accreditation at that time. If it does not succeed in becoming accredited by then, it must withdraw from the process."

So, Trinity could be accredited as soon as the Spring of 2006; or certainly no later than 2008... that is, if it's to happen at all pursuant to its 2003 application. So I was right: If Trinity is to be accredited at all, it will happen soon enough that a person enrolling in a four-year bachelors program (or an MDiv program -- or any program that can't be completed until 2008 or later) at Trinity this fall will end-up with a regionally-accredited degree by the time s/he completes it. Are there any dice-rollers out there?

If he ever finally figures out how to use the smilies, too... oh, lawdy, lawdy, lawdy! (Just joshin' ya', Ted!)

Yeah, and it doesn't get any prettier or less confusing by reading about it on Canterbury's site, either. Ugh.

Shame, indeed. That's actually one of the most troubling things to me.

I don't know what to say about the DA except that let's hope the accreditor forces Trinity to bring that degree up to snuff; or to change it to whatever designation is more appropriate.

To be fair, the blue light specials on tuition and the high-pressure salesmanship almost can't be included in the same league with Trinity's other transgressions. The advent of the for-profit university in this country has made even the most reputable and ethical of them resort to hiring bona fide salespeople who employ classic sales techniques. I'm afraid that sort of thing is the future of higher education marketing -- even for the non-proifits. So I'm not sure we can fault Trinity for jumping on that particular bandwagon.

Isn't that enough? Er... oh... wait... that was your point, wasn't it? I got it now.

You and Bill have been talking about this for a long time, and you're both just dead-on about it. There's just no arguing the meaning and import of Trinity's long history of moral and ethical lapses. But you know what? If Trinity gets regional accreditation, it just won't matter anymore. I'm not saying that's right, mind you; I'm just saying that that's what I think will happen.

And what will be wrong with that, really. I mean, really. Sure, we'd prefer it if Trinity had a better ethical sensibility and bought-in to the notion that just because one can do a thing doesn't mean one should; but there will always be those who strain against the law's moral barrier. There will always be those whose actions are guided only by the letter of the law, and who don't have the innate sense of right and wrong to guide them to moral and ethical outcomes even without laws. I'm unhappy about that, but I've learned to shrug a bit and say, "So what!" As long as they, in fact, obey those laws, then I fear we risk losing-out on whatever opportunities they present us by holding them to our higher standards.

And of the accreditor that can figure out how to turn the sow's ear of Trinity into an educational silk purse, I say, "Good for you!" That, it seems to me, is accreditation's finest, and not its most disreputable, hour. It's a message of hope, if you think about it... of redemption. It's cogent commentary on the underlying and overarching need to establish, maintain and adhere to the standards; to honor the efforts of anyone who can rise above their baser instincts and find their better angels -- even if only with the help of a guidebook -- to bring something of objective value to the world instead of whatever detritus they used to sprinkle around.

I'm as unhappy about Trinity's past shenanigans as anyone here; but I'm just not prepared to write-off Trinity if it can, in fact, meet the regional accreditor's standards and requirements anyway. I think if it can accomplish that no-small-feat, then it should be welcomed with open arms into the community of accredited -- and, therefore, credible -- institutions of higher learning. Certainly other regionally-accredited institutions will; and as institutions, and not people, will not give so much as a moment's thought to the moral and ethical infirmities in Trinity's past... or even its present, for that matter... at least not as long as it remains accredited! If Trinity subsequently proves itself unworthy in spite of its accreditation, then that's a bridge, it seems to me, that we can cross at that time.

Let's hope I'm not wrong.