Decision Regarding ACCS Postponed Until April 2004

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Bill.

I hope it is OK with you if I add a clarification.

By "Bethany" you mean the unaccredited school in Dothan, Alabama, not Bethany Theological Seminary in Richmond, Indiana.

Since the Dothan school has routinely used the other school's name to identify itself, and since people famously associated with the Dothan school continue to do this--in academic and professional context--this clarification seems useful for maintaining the good name of the Richmond school.

I am sure we would (most of us) think it untoward if ACCS faculty, adjuncts, or famous promoters were going about labeling themselves as associated with American University in Washington, DC--or with Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis--because of a partial overlap in names.

Can this practice be an accident or an oversight? Or a weakness of the flesh, or some other pseudotheological escape hatch? Think about it. How many people get mixed up on the name of the school from which they graduated, let alone the name of a school which lists them as adjunct faculty? Let's get real, chuckwallas.

That sort of crap does not go on at ACCS or with those who have said positive things past or present about ACCS.

Furthermore (I seem to be leaving the clarification back at the rest stop) it may be pointless to argue comparative rigor between accredited and unaccredited programs. Why? Surely not because there is no difference, and that a substantial one in virtually every instance? No, but because in our postmodern age rigor is in the eye of the beholder, regrettably enough. So a discussion of comparative rigor can immediately be taken by a flummerer to the level of is too/is not, yo mama, etc., etc. Creative assertions and ethical, um, improvisation are matters of fact, not opinion (however well-founded, Bill, your opinions of rigor certainly are).

Speaking in advance, Bill, once you receive your doc from the University of Zululand and are crowned with glory and honor, would it ever occur to you, or would you ever by pretended oversight, go about saying your degree was from the (newly named) University of KwaZulu-Natal? After all, UKZN is admittedly more renowned than UZ, and the names are henceforth pretty similar, and Americans wouldn't often know the difference anyway, so what's the harm?

No, you would never do that. Not ever.

When those who choose to represent certain unaccredited schools quit doing that sort of thing, admit they did it deliberately, and repudiate the practice (we might wax theological and call this repentance) then I'll start taking the schools they represent seriously. Not before.

All I have to do is ask myself, "What Would Bill Do?"

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

 

===

Say, why not call it , "Dothan Theological Seminary", or, DTS for short

 

"When those who choose to represent certain unaccredited schools quit doing that sort of thing, admit they did it deliberately, and repudiate the practice (we might wax theological and call this repentance) then I'll start taking the schools they represent seriously. Not before."

uncle janko,
By this quote am I to think you doubt the sincerity of certain Bethany supporter/s who claims to have already repented?????

It seems that one supporter is heralding the unfortunate and questionable decision by the AABC to grant Bethany and others (some real winners!) affiliate status.
Questions
1. Does anyone here really think Bethany is sincere in its pursuit of AABC accreditation (a judgment call, I know)?
2. Does anyone here think that they can really achieve such without monumental changes?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

Bill,

I cannot debtate your experience but I have taken quite a number of courses from them and mine have been not been like that at all.

Average:

Read Texts (eg one was 523 pages)
Documented minimum of additional 700 pages of relevant reading
Two 18 page research papers
Mid Term & Final Exam (proctured)

Maybe I should enrol in your NT course

North

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Accs Compared: Lbu,bethany,tts

 

I should also add that to the best of my knowledge no one teaching doc level courses in Bible/Theology at ACCS has a PhD,ThD in Bible or Theology. I believe they all rather have the professional DMins. I think that may be a TRACS issue, if I read those standards correctly.

I am not saying there have not be exceptions to the rule that a person would be required to have PhDs/ThDs in the doctoral areas taught , but I am saying that is the norm. Those exceptions who do not are rare and are justified by much evidence that those unique persons have attained such qualification by an atypical route as, eg, being much published in the field and widely recognized as being expert in the area in which they teach.

There is ,then, the question of whether one who has not an academic doc specifically in Bible/Theology should normally be considered qualified to guide one through the study of Bible/Theology at the doctoral level.

IMO, possible? , yes ; but probable? , no!

 

Not following closely but weren't the TRACS issues all administrative and financial???

 

===

Dennis:

No!

If you go to the TRACS website and download the Commission Action of May, 03, you will there see the 20-25 areas in which ACCS was judged to be deficient. Observe there, areas 11.10 and 15.1. Then go to the accreditation standards where these are defined. The first says that grad programs must be adequately supported in keys areas as finance, facilities, materials, AND faculty.

Now one could suppose that ACCS was deemed faulty by 11.10 in some other area besides faculty, like facilities only, except that TRACS also lists 15.1 as an infraction.

All in 15 exclusively address the issue of the grad faculty. And 15.1 specifically states that profs teaching advanced programs must be academically qualified by having earned terminal degrees from accredited institutions in the area they teach.

Admittedly this is on my part interpretation, but as the ACCS faculty who now teach grad Bible/Theology are rich in DMins , but impoveriched in PhDs/ThDs in Bible Theology, and as TRACS dinged them in this very area, I cannot , given these data, think other than what I expressed above, namely that ACCS needs to get on board some profs with academic docs in Bible/Theology if ACCS intends to go on offering docs in Bible/Theology which are by TRACS accredited.

I think two lessons are here seen:

(1) At least in this area of faculty qualifications TRACS is not Mickey Mouse at all,

(2) these unaccredited schools oft discussed here which pump out docs in Bible/Theology without qualified faculty are viewed as being Mickey Mouse even by this "lowly" and theologically fundi National Accreditor.


So, while there are other features in schools which must be included to effect quality grad studies in Bible/Theology, I'm going to continue to be vocal in the opinion that to do rigorous doc level work in these areas, with very few exceptions, requires being guided by profs academically qualified by accredited PhDs or ThDs in the areas they teach.