Time for Religious Seminary Mills to end...

I have been doing a ton of research on religious seminary's as of late. I really don't think there is much of an excuse anymore to attend an unaccredited seminary. With NationsU and SATS both having full accreditation and their cost being oh so low, the justification of cost being the main factor for attending unaccredited schools is lost.

I have found numerous places one can obtain a Phd in Africa from ACS school for 5-10K by research. These are all fully accredited schools with research, law and medical schools.

Bob Jones and PCC have gone main stream with TRACS. Are there anymore big seminaries left without accredidation?

 

The primary excuse is still there. It's the original excuse. "I don't have the time-energy-intelligence to get a real degree." Combine that with the "No one will know" factor and then if they do know I can always throw the "religious exemption" card. We've heard all that stuff before. But, as far as I'm concerned, you've got it right. There is no good reason for this anymore.

 

I support First Amendment exceptions for religious institutions. If they don't want the government and external entities dictating what they can do academically, then they should have the right to remain unaccredited.

 

I don't know that anyone said that they shouldn't have "the right to remain unaccredited," did they? But in my mind there is a big unanswered question. I've never gotten even a marginally good answer on the question of "What academic changes would be required of the school in order to make their degrees/school accredited?" Personally, I think it's just an excuse to retain a substandard program that is easier to get through for their students. I can not prove that and they can't disprove it. They don't care if I think badly of them but that is the case. So they have the right to remain unaccredited and I have the right to hold it against them.

 

Some institutions just have an ideological objection to being controlled by others. It's kind of in the same vein as refusing Title IV funds. Accreditation also costs a lot of money.

 

For some institutions it is largely financial. Some denominations are small and cannot afford to pursue accreditation. The example I keep coming back to is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA. They are absolutely "mainstream." And they don't seem to oppose accreditation. But they are small. And they often have, at best, a few seminarians at a time. And the education of those seminarians is often paid for by the church.

Accreditation would not offer the church very much. The students would receive the same education.

I don't have an issue with unaccredited religious degrees for this reason. What I object to is when those unaccredited religious degrees are not really religious degrees. When the school starts offering a degree in business, for example, I begin identifying red flags all over my radar screen.

 

I have read/researched the subject of unaccredited religious schools for over two decades now. From everything I have personally encountered, what Kizmet has stated above in bold print, in the vast majority of cases, has been the case. the school was content to remain substandard rather than take the steps necessary for accreditation. If the religious schools could have obtained legitimate accreditation as they were, they would have jumped at the opportunity. But, rather than beef up the rigor of the program, obtain faculty with legitimately accredited credentials, etc., the schools in question either would not or could not meet the standards of accreditation.

 

Part of the problem is that faith based accreditors don't really service the plethora of faith based organizations in this country. If you operate a Buddhist, Muslim or non-Orthodox Jewish college, you're pretty much out of luck for faith based accreditation. So your only option then becomes regional or national. If you aren't in the distance biz, and your program isn't a "career" program, then even in the NA world, you are sort of light on options. So your only option becomes RA. Which is fine if you can afford it.

That's a huge gap. And unless that gap is filled with a viable option for the other religious groups who tend toward unaccredited programs, I think it unwise (and rather unfair) to punish those programs because others exploit the system with substandard degrees.

Part of the issue is that we've conflated "unaccredited" with "diploma mill" in this discussion. That's not really a fair assessment. And there are ways to shut down the mills (or at least deprive them of what little legitimacy is afforded by state approval) without insisting that all religious programs need to be accredited to be legitimate.

If I open a bible college in New York, I am required to obtain a charter from the NYS Board of Regents (the charter replaces standard incorporation, you cannot just incorporate a school using the process that you would for a for or non-profit corporation). And degree authority comes after a lengthy review of my curriculum, faculty and financial condition. If I open a bible school in Florida, I can do it just by signing an affidavit that my school, and the degrees I award, are religious in nature.

I'm not suggesting that a state needs to be as rigorous as NYS. But maybe they should also not be as lax as Florida. There are ways the states can take responsibility for these schools without requiring them to pursue accreditation which may not be financially feasible.

 

I like the way we do it in Canada. If you operate a religious school, you can issue all the faith-oriented diplomas and certificates you want. Degrees? Another thing entirely. You have to pass the sniff-test and be a real university/college.

J.

 

If the definition of a degree mill includes not only the cash-for-diploma paper mill, but also covers entities that offer substandard programs of academic study (e.g., 30-page dissertations; grad courses comprised of a book and fill-in-the-blank syllabus; etc.), then a great percentage of unaccredited religious schools in the US would fit the definition.

 

As I said, there's a simple (Canadian-style) solution to both types -cash-for-diploma and substandard program (or a combo). Let 'em all exist - and print certificates and diplomas - religious subjects only. That'll reduce the market - only the lower-end / lower-cost mills will stay. (Most people would not pay all that much for a non-degree.)

NO degrees of ANY nature without proper sniff-test.(Provincial charter here, recognized RA or NA accreditation in the US.) Bet it'll never EVER happen across-the-board in the US, though.

J.

 

This was another point I was going to make. Where does a faith-based school go to for accreditation if it is not a Christian, Jewish, primarily distance learning, or career school? It would be forced to meet higher standards and pay more money for regional accreditation while the Christian, Jewish, and distance learning schools can just go to national accrediting bodies.

 

Because - in this century - it works best. I think our system (Canada) works better than yours. We're not entirely free of fraud, chicanery and millism, but there's a lot less of it. Nobody here has freedom to issue a fake or substandard thingy and call it a "degree" under the guise of religion.

Sure, religious institutions came up with degrees (and degree-granting institutions) centuries ago, but they lost the monopoly a long time back. I wouldn't like to see things go back to that state, either.

J.

 

Yeah they do have that "freedom" -- as long as the issuing institution passes the academic sniff-test. If not, the paper can still be issued. It's just not to be called a degree - it can still be a diploma, certificate, award etc. IIRC the US "religious exemption" on degrees only applies in 20-odd states. AND I'm OK with our hate-speech prohibitions. I think they save people from possible harm - and I like that just fine. This is a darn good place to live, in many ways!

The things I'm not as free to do as in the US - are mostly things I don't want to do anyway, like carry a gun around - but YOU guys can carry 'em anywhere (in the US) you want -- and I won't say a thing.....

J.

 

Sadly or not the times have changed. I would say about 995 of non accredited seminaries out their are full of crap. The legit ones have pretty much all have been accredited.

I think they should be evaluated like any other school. They should treated very rigorously, these people are using these degrees to lead sometimes large churches. Its absurd to believe a PhD should be issued out of a church basement. If you are granting degree titles then you should be or attempting to be accredited. If you are just doing it to learn than a diploma or cert should be just fine. I agree that their is not a faith based accreditor for every religion, their religion can found there own if need be. I also think it's a way to trip up the conversation as there are not many Monks out there handing out advanced doctorates.

 

Yeah! What b4cz28 said! Welcome to Canada (only if you want to, that is. :smile

Interesting - Church and State. In the past, the Church kept a stern eye on the State, in many ways. Now, that's reversed a good bit, although when they don't like something (e.g. divorce, abortion, gay rights, women's rights, right-to-die etc) the clerics can still (mostly) preach whatever -within reason - I prefer it this way.

J.