Graduate Theological Foundation

This school has some very interesting programs, well qualified faculty and people associated with the school, interesting associations (e.g. Catholic Dioceses, Oxford scholars) and connections, and well placed alumni. Why on earth would they not pursue DEAC or Regional Accreditation. Their rationale makes no sense now (maybe 20 years ago) as there are plenty of non traditional programs like theirs accredited to the doctoral level.
Welcome to the GTF

Without accreditation their programs are rather over priced.

 

I am aware of the ACI issue. It appears to have been a very brief and poorly informed choice to solve a problem they had. According to someone on these forums several years ago they did it due to a requirement by Oxford for the school to have accreditation to continue a level of relationship they had. I suspect whoever made the decision did so without enough research and soon realized the stain it placed on the school.

 

Reading through the faculty list a little closer a significant number have their highest degree from GTF (though on top of other good degrees).

 

You're kidding, right?

Besides a large amount of home-grown faculty, a very (VERY) brief review of the faculty list sent up more red flags than a Scotland-Ireland soccer game.

Meet Doctor Doctor Doctor Graber, who appears to have zero educational credentials beyond what has been bestowed by GTF.

Ann V. Graber, D.Min., Ph.D., D.D.

Also say hello to Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Chan;

Henry A. Chan, Ph.D.

Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Chan lists 4 doctorates, including a Psy.D. AND a Ph.D. in Psychology, both from GTF. He also lists that he's a member of the American Psychological Association, which sounds impressive until you realize that anyone can join the APA for a small membership fee.

Then we have Doctor Doctor Doctor Doctor Leong, whose 4 doctorates all come from GTF;

Francis Leong, MM

I got bored and quit looking after that, but I believe the point is made. I can't see any legitimate accrediting organization touching them with a 10-foot pole.

I can only hope that Steve Levicoff sees this and chimes in.

 

Well, if I must . . .

I wrote about these guys well over 20 years ago. In the last edition of NIFI (1995), here’s what I said:

Keep in mind, of course, that the above statements were current at the time of publication. I haven’t looked at GTF since. Haven’t wanted to. After all, I’ve since become a crochety trucker who hangs out here to bust people’s balls. Which, quite frankly, can be a lot of fun. But seriously, if most religious degree mills are for the suit-and-tie evangelicals, GTF leans more toward the incense and robe crowd.

 

One of the practices of questionable religious institutions is to develop numerous "interesting associations and connections," many of which are legitimate.

 

Nor can I.........

 

Really? I am not attending or planning to attend but let me play devil's advocate to make this interesting. Which questionable religious institutions have the same level of connections and associations as GTF? I mean to the level of Roman Catholic dioceses and other reputable institutes? Let alone the number of graduates as faculty in legitimate colleges and universities (someone posted a list of 50)? I will be the first to grant that having a doctorate from GTF did not necessarily get them the position.

 

Please read my post slowly and carefully! I did not say that even one religious institution has the "same level of connections and associations as GTF." I said one of the practices of questionable religious institutions is to develop numerous "interesting associations and connections," many of which are legitimate.

 

That was rude!

In terms of the topic and your statement by way of comparison, you did not say anything relevant.

 

I think he was trying to point out that the number of associations claimed by this institution coupled with the lack of bona fide credentials of the faculty (e.g., many apparently possessing no legitimate credentials, but rather a multitude of alleged degrees granted by the institution for which they allegedly teach) is a sign of a potential mill using loose associations with legitimate institutions as a cover. This is not unlike the modus operandi of the typical Ponzi schemer. This is not to say this institution is fraudulent by dint of this fact alone, but I think this is the legitimate and relevant point RamPhD is attempting to make.

 

I remember once there was a heated debate about the millishness of a particular school. One element of the conversation was that they appeared to have a very nice faculty listing with bios, photos, etc. It turned out (after contacting several of these professors) that they had never heard of this entity and had no idea that they were being featured on the website. My point is this, if GTF claims association with these other organizations, do those organization claim association with GTF?:dunno:

 

I'll say this: GTF has, and has always had, an impressive act (a word I choose carefully). And frankly, I have neither the time nor interest to delve into their, um, presentation in greater detail.

But, as a general principle (which works for any school), I'd say that any institution that raises a significant number of questions regarding its credibility, raises a significant degree of doubt about its legitimacy (notice that I did not say legality, which is a different matter and which has not come under debate here), and creates a situation in which its adherents/fans/students/graduates feel the need to defend their credentials should be avoided like the proverbial plague.

If one chooses to earn a credential from GTF, at the very least, you will be the object of questions, of my laughter (which I don't wish on most people), and of having to defend your credential until the proverbial lake of fire and brimstone freezes over. Believe me, it ain't worth it. There are enough options out there that don't raise such issues.

Do you want a legit cred? Then earn one "that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15). At the very least, whatever GTF is, it is not above reproach.

I have spoken. And yes, I am laughing at you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

I wasn't trying to be rude, Garp. You suggested that I said a certain number of religious institutions have the "same level of connections and associations as GTF." I did not. I said one of the practices of questionable religious institutions is to develop numerous "interesting associations and connections," many of which are legitimate. The relevance of what I said, by way of comparison to GTF, is that one of the practices of questionable religious institutions is to seek affiliation with reputable associations/organizations for the purpose of perceived legitimacy. In that sense my statement has relevance.

 

I would not earn a degree there. I think it is overpriced for an unaccredited degree.

I think you are correct to a certain extent about the need to justify or explain the degree. I also think that it is possible they do not need to do too much explanation based on the constituency they seem to serve (and exist in) where it appears to enjoy some acceptance. The list of 50 faculty employed at credible higher education institutions (bricks and mortar) as well as tribunal studies for the Roman Catholic Church seems indicative of that.

People with strictly distance learning degrees often feel the need to defend their credentials. I have met U of P grads who do. RAM goes to great lengths to explain his PhD. I suspect based on the need to do so that it was not a bricks and mortar South African school.

What is true is that when a GTF grad gets outside of their constituency, they may have to explain their degree. Where only an accredited degree works, it likely will not. RAM and others with credentials from accredited institutions will be able to say their degree is accredited. That is a a substantive difference.

 

In my sig line I go the extra mile because the two research degrees are from South African institutions. Many persons who frequent DegreeInfo recognize the legitimacy of accredited South African degrees; however, others do not. Since I live in the USA, where the gold standard is regional accreditation, the sig line includes a statement that per two foreign credential evaluators both research degrees were deemed equivalent to a regionally accredited degree.

 

South Africa has some great learning institutions, world class faculty and value for your education dollar. There are many faculty in the US with research doctorates from SA.

The need to explain your South African degrees not only in your sig line but occasionally in posts let me know instantly which school you graduated from. People would not feel the need to do that with the University of South Africa, University of Pretoria, Stellenbosch, University of the Free State and other bricks and mortor schools. The little bit of insecurity made me think it must be the 100 % online and relatively new but legitimate school. Kind of like someone graduating from Kaplan or Trident and trying to prove their degree is accredited (which it is).

 

Who are the deranged souls who don't recognize the legitimacy of SA degrees? South Africa? Really? This is not some war-torn little backwater, it's a major nation of 50 million with some of the finest academic institutions in the world: Stellenbosch, Cape Town, UNISA, Pretoria, Witwatersrand. Those are universities that are better in terms of world reputation than many flagship state universities in the U.S.. The U.S. most certainly has more fly-by-night and crooked little mills than SA, by a long shot.

 

When I first heard of South African DL options--20+ years ago--I remember thinking, "What?...South Africa?" Further research revealed the excellent academic system in South Africa. But this was something I had to learn. That being the case, I was referencing primarily newcomers to the forum.

 

In all honesty, the reason I added the equivalency statement in the sig line had nothing to do with being online/residential/etc. It was because I live in the USA and completed the two research degrees via SA. My "little bit of insecurity" was solely because the schools were in SA, which is why I submitted both to IERF and AACRAO for evaluation. They passed with flying colors, which took care of the "little bit of insecurity."