Time for Religious Seminary Mills to end...

My assertions per this subject have little to do with LBU other than the fact that LBU is unaccredited. Approximately 15 years ago I conducted a personal research project (the project was neither published or peer reviewed, but was a project of personal interest). Some 35 small religious unaccredited schools were surveyed. School catalogs, phone conversations and in some cases course syllabi were examined to determine such details as: accreditation info, faculty credentials, course requirements, rigor of the program, types/number of degrees per qualified faculty, etc. The data was then collated and viewed in juxtaposition to the same criteria at regionally/nationally accredited schools. In most every case, the unaccredited school offered a substandard regimen of study. Examples include: (1) 30 page dissertations with 10 required sources in the bibliography; (2) master's level courses with one book and fill in the blank open book exams; (3) doctoral degrees where 2/3 of the program could be covered by life-experience credit; on and on it goes.

I understand that there are exceptions to the rule, and that not every single unaccredited religious school is a degree mill. However, my personal opinion is that the vast majority of unaccredited religious schools are substandard in terms of academic quality/rigor/substance. With the number of solid/substantive programs now available, I could personally never recommend the unaccredited route.

 

I think this depends a lot on what you want to do with this credential. In Canada, many non denominational churches do not require an accredited degree but just an ordination from a seminar that has a bible curriculum with a certain number of hours.
For people just looking to become ministers at a non denominational church, perhaps an non accredited degree might be enough as long as there is evidence of training. The main requirement seems to be related to experience. Many ministers do not hold traditional credentials but they just have good communications skills.

There is also the argument that some people are not interested in a religious degree with a traditional view but with a non traditional curriculum such as interfaith, gnostic, metaphysics, etc that are normally covered by non accredited schools.

Many non denominational churches cannot afford to pay to ministers so they cannot ask for people with traditional degrees and more rigorous training as they basically need people that can serve the community for free.

Of course the more traditional churches (e.g. catholic, evangelist) require people with MDivs from accredited schools but they also can afford to pay them decent salaries and expect people that devote full time service their followers.

 

Well, there's a reason why that study was not peer reviewed. The reason is that it likely never would have passed muster. The only shared characteristic of unaccredited schools is that they don't have institutional accreditation. You've shown the correlation. Fine. I get it. Prove the causation or get off your soap box.

At best, your study could help us to identify which states allow diploma mills to run rampant. A school operating in New York or New Jersey is, simply put, not going to be a diploma mill. If a school there does prove to be a diploma mill we have reasonable belief that it would be shut down by the government quickly. In Florida, however, we need only look at their list of religious exemptions for a few moments before we can start picking out schools that likely fit the description you've outlined.

And that's really the biggest problem with the study you conducted. You say "most" or "the majority" while the good schools are the "exception." But that isn't really the full story. The full story is that some states are incredibly lax in allowing schools to operate with impunity under a religious exemption. And, in those states, diploma mills thrive. But in other states, even ones with a religious exemption (but one that requires more oversight or something more than a simple affidavit and/or greater enforcement power) we see small, unaccredited and wholly legitimate schools.

To take that data and say "Well, it's clear that if it's religious and unaccredited it's probably crooked" is a misapplication.

 

The school is a straight up mill. It's structure can often leeds one to believe they might offer some rigor. I'll explain later, hard to use my smart phone.

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I think many people attend unaccredited schools out of ignorance and that's bad, in my opinion. My feeling is that if you A) Understand and accept the potential limitations of an unaccredited degree B) Actually do the work and the work is rigorous enough to actually resemble college coursework C) Don't intend to fraudulently use said degree then I'm pretty OK with a person making a big boy/girl choice about pursuing that education.

We can turn this discussion on LBU or Trinity College and Seminary (Newburgh, IN) or any number of schools. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, to say that a person who attends them isn't a "true believer?" Why? Because only true believers in any particular religion pursue education at schools with USDOE recognized accreditation? I guess I missed that verse. Yeah, if you're intending to deceive people, I can see your point. But the bulk of people with unaccredited degrees whom I have encountered seldom lie about their degree. They don't hold it out as accredited by a USDOE recognized accreditor. If you ask them point blank they'll admit such. They aren't trying to deceive people the way people with purchased degrees from Almeda do, in my experience. In fact, the unaccredited piece is a point of pride for some graduates of unaccredited schools.

Unaccredited does not equal "fake." Never has. You may feel that unaccredited degrees are "fake." That's fine to have an opinion like that. I feel like any mayonnaise other than Hellman's is fake. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. But the states are pretty clear that such is not the case. In Florida, it's illegal to use the title of "Doctor" unless you have an accredited doctorate or a doctorate from a school that is approved by the state or authorized by religious exemption. Even the mighty Oregon allows unaccredited schools, with state approval and some under limited religious exemptions, to operate in their state without labeling their degrees as "fake."

Is it your contention that, overnight, degrees from Nations University were "fake" and then miraculously became "real" upon receiving DEAC accreditation? It's fine if you do. That's your opinion. But don't get angry when the rest of the world doesn't subscribe to your accreditation transubstantiation theory.

Well, for starters, that isn't a degree. And I don't like it when private designations use the word "Licensed" because it implies state licensure. But it's also a line that many other well regarded private providers have had no problem screwing with. So I can't blame the NCCA for doing the same thing. Other designations freely play around with words that imply some sort of state recognition. I've never met a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) who didn't, during the course of the pitch, compare his/her CFP to a CPA ("Accountants have CPAs and financial advisors have CFPs!"). The choice of "Certified" in a space where "Certified Public Accountants" previously held the most gravitas, I cannot imagine was unintentional. The American College of Financial Services (non-profit, RA) proudly offers designations that use other licensure implying modifiers in designations such as Registered Health Underwriter. So you can be a Registered Nurse, a Registered Pharmacist, a Registered Physician Assistant (as it is in some states) or a Registered Health Underwriter. Good to know.

I tackled this issue separately because it is irrelevant to the topic of accreditation. Designations are awarded by private entities; some for-profit and others non-profit. And they do so without the need for approval or accreditation religious or otherwise. My CEBS and SPHR are both awarded by private bodies without any form of institutional accreditation. And there is nothing stopping me from starting my own designation today. Does that make me a mill? Well, it could, depending upon how I market the program and the rigor it takes to complete it. And there are some designations which are kind of laughed off in the professional world for this reason. But never has it risen to the level of something that "must be stopped" unless you have people using the designation fraudulently and, even then, the action taken is against the individuals not the organization and certainly does not involve shutting down the ability for private entities to award designations altogether.

 

I would personally have no problem recommending St. Sophia's Orthodox Seminary to anyone interested in Eastern Orthodoxy with Ukrainian flavor. Similarly, Christ the King seminary to fellow Orthodox with some kind of affinity with ACROD (American Carpato-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese). For starters, these are the go to institutions for people seeking ordination in these bodies (both canonical (arch)dioceses under Ecumenical Patriarchate, members of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, just like the much larger Greek Orthodox Archdiocese). Oh yeah, I would object to the notion they cannot bestow degrees while the big guys (St. Vlad's, St. Tikhon's, Jordanville, ...) can.

 

I think of it this way. There is a "wonderfulness continuum" that exists in the world of higher education. Some schools are consistently rated as most wonderful and we all know their names. It's the Stanfords and the Oxfords and the Harvards of the higher education universe at one end of that spectrum and then there are some at the other end. They are decidedly unwonderful. Now I'm not talking about "fakes" either. I'm not talking about the Axact universe, I'm talking about real schools, physical or virtual where people actually "take classes" and tests and write essays, etc. Maybe someone actually reads those essays and maybe not. These are not "fake" schools but they are substandard schools and they are, for the most part, unaccredited schools. We know that there are good quality unaccredited schools but they are, I'm guessing, in the minority. I'm guessing that most are substandard and I will confess that when I heat that a school is unaccredited my assumption, my default position is that it's probably substandard. Probably. I'm open to the idea that it might not be substandard but I maintain that the burden of proof lies with the school. They need to convince me. Some schools, like WISR, can do that fairly easily. Others fail or don't even try. That's what accreditation is, it's a sign of having met a minimum standard. If you're not accredited then you have to convince me some other way. If you can do it, that's fine. If not, then you get the dreaded stamp of kizmet disapproval (like that matters to anyone). That's all.

 

I am interested in the evidence you have that Columbia Evangelical Seminary is a "straight up mill". Hopefully more than simply old quotes from the Mormon web site upset with James White. There are two professors who post on line with accredited doctorates who support the school's rigor (both served as faculty at various points), CES was listed among the top apologetics schools (only unaccredited one) by an entity that is quoted by RA schools (due to their own ranking on the organizations various lists), and you have the ODA who are somewhat notoriously tough on unaccredited schools, having evaluated their DTS and saying it is equivalent to an accredited doctorate and therefore may be legally used without disclaimer.

 

I have a similar approach to unaccredited schools. But, and I've made this clear during my time here, I also have a special caveat carved out for purely religious schools awarding purely religious degrees. I'm not talking about a B.A. in Christian Business. I'm talking about a Bachelor of Divinity, a Bachelor of Religious Studies, a Bachelor of Ministry, etc. If it's unaccredited and issuing secular degrees my mind goes to "mill" and they have to work fairly hard to get me off of that position. To date, I believe only WISR (as far as US based institutions) has caused me to budge. Though, the two unaccredited schools of naprapathy which lead to state licensure in Illinois and New Mexico have certainly convinced me that they aren't mills. I think naprapathy is pseudoscience but that is a separate issue.

For better or worse, we have a bible school culture in this country. And it's been allowed to develop over many many years without accreditation. Within denominational spheres there should, in my opinion, be no question. If you are a member of denomination X, want to become clergy in denomination X and denomination X's seminary is unaccredited then of course you should still go. The denomination knows best what it takes to be a clergyperson for that denomination. And, frankly, they know better than ATS or any other accreditor what it takes. And our bible culture has allowed schools that freedom to not only make that determination themselves but to award degrees.

Outside of denominational circles things start to get murkier. My idea of "Christian" and your idea of "Christian" can differ greatly. I could start a Christian college today in Florida or Virginia with the utmost academic rigor that would never pass the theological muster of ABHE or TRACS. Can I afford ATS or RA? Maybe I can't. Maybe it doesn't even pay for me to try. But if I'm not awarding secular degrees then I fail to see how I am really hurting the academic world. If an employer chooses to hire someone with an unaccredited Bachelor of Ministry in lieu of a person with a B.A. from Penn State that is their prerogative as an employer. To say that I'm doing something that absolutely "must be stopped" because some states allow these shenanigans without doing anything is silly. It's extreme. And it runs contrary to our notions of religious freedom in this country as it applies to higher ed.

 

Way to long..I read the first part and saw that you completely missed the point of my post. I asked if there are any legit schools left. I don't think there are very many now that all the big players have gained accreditation. PCC , BJU and many more unaccredited schools were not mills.

 

I can tell you because they offered me 90 towards a bachelors for just ministry experience. They hire people like Bill and list them but they are never used. Feel free to ask Bill about this, I have also talked to another person who they contacted and listed but never used. Offering life experience credit for a Phd? Psst. You think a 60 page dissertation is good enough? They sell degrees. Just because they showed Oregon a few good ones and that's been everyone's line now...but Oregon but Oregon. But nothing, shame on people passing these con men off as legit.

 

The question was asked whether there are any academically "legit" non-accredited religious degree programs out there.

Here's one. It isn't the school that I mentioned earlier, this is another example of a school that I consider fully and impeccably legitimate.

Degree Programs – Institute of Buddhist Studies

As you can see, the Institute of Buddhist Studies in Berkeley offers three masters programs:

Two are California-state approved and not formally accredited: an MDiv and a Masters of Buddhist Studies (MBS).

The former and historically the latter served for preparation of clergy for the Buddhist Churches of America.

http://buddhistchurchesofamerica.org/

The MBS is also aimed at individuals interested in the academic study of Buddhism who don't need an accredited degree for employment or doctoral admissions purposes. It allows them a freer choice of electives, I guess, but still has language requirements.

The third is an MA, awarded jointly by IBS and the Graduate Theological Union (WASC and ATS accredited and perhaps the largest consortium of schools of religion in the United States). While not a 'member' school of the GTU, the IBS is recognized as a GTU 'affiliate'.

The GTU offers its own RA accredited PhD in Buddhist Studies and all of the specialist doctoral faculty for that program are drawn from the IBS:

Buddhist Studies | Graduate Theological Union

IBS publications are numerous and impressive, quite influential in their academic context.

Publications – Institute of Buddhist Studies

This is another one that's exploring the possibility of applying to WASC for RA. They have already been granted 'eligibility' to apply for candidacy.

Bottom line: Given this thing's reputation in the Buddhist world here in California, and given its association with the Graduate Theological Union, extending to a joint masters degree program and its faculty providing GTU's Buddhist specialists for GTU's own doctoral programs, I'd say that even their California-approved MBS is not only going to be credible, but perhaps even impressive.

 

You probably ought to have clarified to whom you were saying "shame".Think logically through this with me. All most people know about CES is what is posted. You refer to Bill. He is credible, has an accredited doctorate in theology, did indeed say that he was not utilized but has also repeatedly said the program is credible (has rigor). Bill is not a guy given to rash statements and is highly critical of mills and schools without rigor. There is another guy on a board with an accredited doctorate and he has mentored students and says the school is credible (rigor). There are other faculty who have been utilized. I imagine it depends on numbers of students. Then there is the ODA. They (Conteras??) was tough. Not easy to get a stamp of approval from them but CES got it (DTS equivalent to RA doctorate). And there is the apologetics listing.

What you say may have merit and be concerning. But with credible people and entities touting CES, there is no "shame on people" who say so. Bill has far more credibility and education than you do. It does not make you wrong about your experience but does mean you will have to prove up a case.

 

I believed the hype but when I was offered 90 credits for volunteering at my church? No legit school would ever do that. Period.

I know Bill has more education than me. He's also has more credibility. But in my defense have you ever heard of migs?

Read the break down over at degree discussion. I also read a guys proudly posted dissertation.

No one should be pimping for these schools, people should be warning potential students.

 

Students, all adults, should be capable of doing the basic research about the limited utility of unaccredited degrees while weighing that against their goals and objectives. Plenty of people studied with Nations for years before their accreditation became a reality. And, if DEAC yanked their accreditation tomorrow, I'm sure throngs of people would continue to study with them.

So, you can get all worked up about it or, and this is my suggestion, realize you aren't the "degree police" and you can't save people from making dumb decisions. But let's not go trying to yank all religious exemptions because this one school makes you kind of grumpy.

 

In no way am I grumpy I was asked a question and I answered. I think no school should be able to offer unaccredited degrees after x amount of time. I am for new schools and just like non religious schools there should be a path to achieve this. Is my church not as deserving of a properly accredited degree holder? Why does a person need the title of doctor to preach? It's not the title but the education one seeks so offer them a advanced certification and leave the Phd out of it. In no way am I worked up btw so don't try to marginalize what I'm saying. If a non religious school did a tiny bit of what they do yall would be crawling down their throats. If you think I'm being harchs read what Dr Levincoff says about them

 

I know. And thankfully the majority of U.S. states don't share your opinion.

Of course there is. But it comes with a seven figure price tag.

Sure it is. But then it is your church's responsibility to only hire people with accredited degrees. Public policy doesn't come into it. My company has a policy of only hiring people with degrees from schools accredited by USDOE recognized accreditors (or foreign equivalents). That's how we resolved the issue. We didn't proclaim unaccredited degrees "fake" and we certainly don't feel that the government needs to take away religious schools' exemptions, some of which have been in use without issue for nearly a century, because the very idea of unaccredited degrees inexplicably offends us.

It isn't for me, or you, to tell any religious denomination what the requirements for their clergy should be. That's kind of the whole freedom of religion thing.

I'm not trying to "marginalize" what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out how your desire is ill-conceived.

Right. And if non-religious schools started awarding the titles "Archbishop" and "Pope" I'm sure people would be crawling down their throats regardless of accreditation. The point is that religious schools have a unique role and if the degree they are awarding is purely religious then it shouldn't really be causing you any particular distress because it doesn't affect you.

Steve Levicoff says a lot of stuff. Some of it good. Some of it not so good. I don't think you're being harsh I think you're too narrowly focused. You've been all over the place and have attacked unaccredited degrees alongside designations offered by private entities (two different matters entirely). So, no, I don't think you're being harsh. But I do think your argument is based more on emotion than reason.

If "Levicoff says worse" is the best defense of something you're saying then it might be time to reassess.

 

I do not think that I can make the time commitment to enter a Goddess program but I could take a shot at High Priestess.

OWM Schools

 

Kindly tell how this path would look like for St. Sophia, a school with four full-time faculty, 17 adjuncts, and a typical graduating class of under 20, clergy and laity. Also tell me why should they even bother.
You know, the traditional "accreditation" system for preachers included Apostolic Succession and communion with canonical Bishops of the "catholic" church. St. Sophia maintains this system, BTW. But making this a requirement nationwide would imply a horrific regress in religious freedom. That's why you don't see very many even fringe Traditionalists advocating something like this. What you're advocating is only slightly better.

 

As our friend has generously offered, St. Sophia can just not award academic degrees.

In fairness, St. Sophia used to offer a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) before moving to the Masters I suspect the reason for the switch was that every other Orthodox seminary within earshot is offering an M.Div. for the exact same coursework.

But, you know, people are inexplicably offended by these schools. It would be like getting all worked up over ULC doctorates.