TRINITY COLLEGE &LIIVERPOOL UNIV.SOMETHING NEW ????

Folks,
I contacted the source listed by trinity college at Liverpool University in person of Dr.Jimmy Chubb Dean of College studies therein requesting clarification of the relationship between Liverpool & Trinity (Indiana's) specifically I wanted to know if it will be a jointly issued Degree. Well here is what he wrote back.
"Dear Timmy

Thank you for your enquiry.

For Trinity students who opt to join the accreditation scheme and
successfully complete their programmes the name and logo of The
University of Liverpool will appear on the award certificate.

If you require further information, please let me know.

Sincerely
Jimmy Chubb"
QUESTIONS TO THE EXPERTS ON THIS FORUM:
1) if Dr. Jimmy Chub is Legit and what he said here is determined to be a de facto "ACCURATE" Doesn't that add real value to the Trinity stuff ?
2)What is the implication vis avis Universal acceptance of such Diplomas. I know that Universities & Colleges Worldwide do have joint programs and Degrees together.If the Liverpool connection is as Dr. Chub stated, then I think that will infact change the equation of things as far as I am concerned
regarding Indiana's Trinity or no ?.
Well over to the panel of experts.

Timmy.

 

Tim:

This is a subject which has been discussed at length on a.e.d., as well as this forum. While I make no claims of being on the "panel of experts," I have indeed researched the Trinity/Liverpool association--even to the point of enrolling early in 1998, received my first materials, kept them three days, and sent them back. Just a couple of observations:

1. The Trinity/Liverpool association is not the standard UK model of accreditation, in which one school accredits another school, with course work being completed at the accredited school, but the degree awarded by the accrediting school. If this was the case, all course work would be completed via Trinity, examined and approved by faculty at both Trinity and Liverpool, with the degree awarded by Liverpool. This is NOT the case.
All work is completed via Trinity, the graduate receives a Trinity degree, which does contain a small glossy UoL sticker.

2. In correspondence with Dr. Chubb, I was told that a Trinity grad is not automatically granted admission to a degree program at UoL based on a Trinity degree. This is odd indeed! If I earn a BA say at Duke, surely the Duke BA would qualify me for admission to a Duke masters program. This is not the case with UoL. My question is WHY?

3. UoL faculty have absolutely no interaction/association/connection with Trinity students. All work is totally between Trinity and the student. For example, in my Ph.D. program with Potchefstroom University/GST, all work is examined and approved by examiners/promoters from both PU and GST. When I graduate, I will have a PU degree, not a GST degree--as GST awards no degrees of its own, but is basically an extension site of PU.

4. A Trinity degree will not enjoy the recognition of a RA or GAAP credential. I have corresponded with a guy who is enrolled in the PU Ph.D. program, who earned his Th.D. at Trinity. His BA and MA are regionally accredited. He told me that he did learn from the experience, but that the degree was always a source of contention, and that he was always having to justify it. Thus, the reason for enrolling in the PU program, to have a GAAP doctorate.

5. Trinity has one of the best advertising programs I have seen. However, the degree recognition is not there.

If you are considering Trinity, I would suggest that you do your research. At the present time the degree will not be recognized as properly accredited in the broad context.

Russell

 

I have no opinion on Trinity vs. UoL, but this point isn't necessarily valid. I was specifically told by an admissions counselor at NYU (a long time ago) that being a graduate of their undergraduate business program didn't help my chances of getting into their MBA program.

Their MBA program was considered Top 10, but their undergraduate program was not that highly regarded. At least, not at the time. It is the case with many top schools that the grad/undergrad sections are completely separate, and have distinct reputations.

Scott

 

Thank You russel for your $million contribition, You're an expert im my book.
can you or (anyone else)kindly post how to log on to e.a.d forum ?

Thank you.
Tim.

 

The archives of AED can be searched at Google Groups http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

In the block for newsgroup type: alt.education.distance and place your search criteria in the "find messages" blocks. There are probably many more threads and messages about Trinity College & University (an outright diploma mill) than Trinity - Liverpool, so you may have to tinker with your search words a little to focus your results.

------------------
Bill Gossett

 

Thanks Bill

 

To Russel A. Morris :

Russel, Can you please email me via tdapo@hotmail privately, there some things I 'like to ask you regarding this topic and your experience off the general forum.

Thank You,
Tim.

 

I am not diminishing the quality of the UoL, or any UK university. The only concern I have, and the reason for my response to Timmy, is that a Trinity degree (at this time) will not enjoy broad recognition/acceptance in the US academic community--due to its accreditation status. If Trinity grads were awarded UoL degrees, then the scenario would be totally different, and I for one would have gone with the program. I did check with a RA school where I had considered applying at some future time, and was told that the Trinity degree would not be accepted.

Russell

 

I never mentioned the University of Liverpool's quality either, nor that of any other British university. I'm sure that their quality is excellent.

What I am criticizing is the practice of individual British universities "accrediting" other independent degree-granting universities, particularly when that is done in a context where the word "accreditation" means something very different to prospective students, and where the resulting confusion is apparently going to be used as a marketing tool.

If they called this a University of Liverpool *approval*, then I would have less of an objection. Although it would still be tacky to make individual students pay the University of Liverpool before that school approves their degree. I mean, if the University of Liverpool approves of Trinity's academics, then they approve of Trinity whether or not an individual student pays them the "accreditation fee", right?

I'm happy for you, Russell. But I have a further objection to the ethics of this arrangement, which was the reason for *my* post. It was never my intention to restate your point, but rather to present my own.

But while we are on the subject of your views, what IS your opinion of the ethics of this Liverpool arrangement being advertised as "accreditation" to American students?

I wouldn't, because I don't like the theological commitments that Trinity wears on its sleeve. I would find them far too constricting. But that's another issue.

I would agree with you though, that the program would be far more legitimate in a formal sense. It would then be very similar to the example I gave in another thread where the Graduate Theological Union grants its own degrees for studies undertaken largely at the CA-approved Institute of Buddhist Studies in Mountain View.

The resulting degrees would be *far* more credible and useful, the University of Liverpool would be forced to get serious and define its relationship with Trinity clearly, and perhaps most importantly, the British QAA would acquire jurisdiction in overseeing Trinity's activities.

I for one would welcome British universities adopting quality state-approved universities in this country and awarding British degrees for work done at them, so long as the process was credible and open.

 

When I was checking into Trinity I phone a few respected religious schools... none would accept their credits.

 

Bill,

I think the ethics of this presentation is at the very best misleading. Let me say also, that my concern with Trinity is not its effort to provide training for ministry, but its advertised accreditation. As I stated in an earlier post, Trinity has a very good advertising campaign going on. Consider the following:

1. Trinity advertises in major religious publications, mostly evangelical, e.g., Christianity Today, Charisma, Discipleship Journal, etc.

2. These ads are usually full page ads, which gives the appearance that Trinity is indeed fully legitimate in the sense of offering accredited degrees. By the mere fact of the ad's presence in such mainline publications, this lends credibility to Trinity in the minds of many people.

3. The ads usually portray a Trinity graduate, who, because of the Trinity degree, is serving on faculty at an accredited school, serving in a denominational position, author, pastor, etc.

4. The University of Liverpool accreditation is perceived by the average prospective student that the Trinity degree will be "an accredited degree," i.e., equal to any other fully accredited school. This was certainly my initial impression. However, this is not the case.

Russell

 

For those who don't remember, Steve Levicoff did quite a bit of research, and in his classic style, did quite a bit of "pot stirring."

The responses from Trinity management were typical millspeak, with lots of threats, empty defenses, etc.

There is also quite a web of unsavory stuff associated with the honchos who essentially "own" trinity (It's supposedly a nonprofit, but, if memory serves, all of the cash flows out of the nonprofit into a "management" company that is conveniently owned by the head honchos of the "nonprofit." I suspect it wouldn't pass muster if the IRS investigated.)

 

This is a tough one to get one's arms around. International Management Centres and the Canadian School of Management (one entity, really) have a similar arrangement with Southern Cross University (Australia). You do the Doctor of Philosophy program through IMC/CSM, but actually receive a Doctor of Management. This degree/diploma is "endorsed" by Southern Cross officials (for a 10% markup in your tuition). But the degree itself is issued by IMC. And I don't think it meets GAAP.

IMC and CSM are both accredited (along with the University of Action Learning in Colorado) by DETC. DETC's accreditation extends through the master's degree, but explicitly excludes the doctorate. (DETC conducted an accreditation review of IMC's doctoral program as part of DETC's pilot effort to accredit first professional degrees. While impressed with IMC's program, DETC excluded it from their accreditation on the basis that the degree didn't meet the definition of "first professional.") So while the degree is issued by an institution that meets GAAP (IMC, due to its accreditation by DETC), the source of that recognition specifically excludes the doctorate. That's where Southern Cross comes in.

Southern Cross meets GAAP. They don't issue the IMC/CSM-earned degree. Rather, they endorse it. Does this elevate the doctorate earned at IMC to one coming from a school that meets GAAP? It's like being "sorta" pregnant.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. How one's degree is accepted and useful is what is important. That's one of the arguments against MIGS: even if the CEU technically meets GAAP, will the never-before-issued doctorate be any good? In the U.S., regional accreditation of the issuing school tends to take care of that (which helps in the Touro International University/Touro College arrangement). But the rest of this stuff is murky. If the degree earned through Trinity were issued by Liverpool--or the degree earned through IMC was issued by Southern Cross--then okay. But this endorsement/accreditation arrangement leaves much to be desired. And explained by the student, I'm afraid.

Rich Douglas

 

I agree, Rich! Although I believe GST to be a credible school, I probably would not have pursued the program had the association with Potch not been in place. Upon graduation, one will receive a degree, not from GST, but from a 131 year old established residential university, where the former president of SA is a graduate and now serves as chancellor. And the individual QA is in place as well, e.g., all of my work MUST be examined and approved by faculty of both GST AND Potch. So there is indeed academic oversight/involvement/direction from Potch throughout the process--as well as a Potch degree in the end.

Liverpool has no such oversight/involvement/direction with Trinity students or their work.

Russell

 

Timmy,
The whole Trinity/UofL accreditation is a sham, plain and simple. Both schools are well aware that their "accreditation" claims are deceptive. As one who was once enrolled in their Ph.D. program, I can tell you firsthand that the work required is an absolute joke, the "professors" do not know their subjects, etc....

The thing that has amazed me through all the Trinity discussions on AED and here, is that no one is willing to say anything against UofL! They are just as much a part of this deception as Trinity. I have no doubt that the UofL understands the U.S. accreditation system and that they have been more than willing to be a player in the Trinity scheme.

Let me explain to you what UofL "accreditation" really is. It is a university crest that appears on your diploma that says "Accredited by the University of Liverpool". For that crest you pay a $250 fee. UofL gets the fee, Trinity gets their "accreditation". If you will call Trinity and ask them what happens if you don't pay the $250 they will tell you that the program is exactly the same, but it will not be "accredited". Think about that one.

Barry

 

I didn't know the process was so superficial. I described the IMC/CSM/Southern Cross process above. What I didn't say is that Southern Cross gets a copy of all materials ahead of time (application, CV, dissertation proposal, etc.), and then gets the final documents produced before they decide to endorse the degree awarded. It's still unclear what value the endorsement has, but at least Southern Cross actually evaluates the work performed before giving their blessing.

Rich Douglas

 

OT: Barry, I dredged up an email address for you from AED archives, but don't know if it is still active. If you don't mind a question or two, would you email me at [email protected] (Remove the "SPAM".) Thanks. --Bill Highsmith

 

You are exactly right, Barry! I too asked the same question during my enrollment at Trinity (which lasted 3 days, and I then returned all materials). I was told that the course of study is identical for both scenarios. 1) The student pays the accreditation fee and gets the beautifully embossed, color coordinated, raised letter, full regalia and crest, of the UoL, which is then applied to one's diploma. 2) If one chooses not to pay the fee, the course of study is identical, minus the little self-adhering UoL sticker.

I wonder if I could pay $500 and get a Harvard sticker? Or for $750, maybe two stickers?

Russell

 

I've been on the University of Liverpool's case for two years now. (See my first post above.)

What's interesting about all this isn't Trinity College and Seminary itself. Trinity's motivations are transparent. What's fascinating is the University of Liverpool and the Council of Validating Universities.

The university knows all about this "accreditation" arrangement. And Dr. Chubb went on to the chairmanship of the CVU in part on the basis of his having pioneered the Trinity/Liverpool relationship, according to a press release announcing his appointment. So not only does the rest of the British higher education establishment know about this, they apparently approve and want to use it as a model.

Even assuming British universities steer clear of the United States in forming their "accreditation" relationships, if they "accredit" DL institutions abroad (or their individual diplomas), then we will be encountering them and the confusion their "accreditation" causes here on degreeinfo.

As I said above, if these schools wanted to merely *endorse* or *approve* the individual degrees issued by other schools (for a fee of course), it might be less objectionable, although still tacky. The only real damage they would be doing would be to their own reputations.

But they seem to have chosen the word *accredit* precisely because of the confusion it creates. Students want 'accredited' degrees, but they couldn't care less about 'endorsed' degrees. Obviously that's because the word 'accredited' already means something that people find valuable.

Certainly Liverpool is well aware of the elaborate and expensive advertisements that Trinity is running in places like 'Christianity Today', and seems to have no objection to them.