University of Sedona Dissertation

As was pointed out, not in U.S. there ain't.
A priest candidate has two employers: the parish (sometimes) and the bishop (always, by canon law). Ukie parishioners are intensely proud of their jurisdiction and their seminary, and do not give a hoot about accreditation. Both diocesan bishops of this Church are involved in running St. Sophia; Bp. Daniel also teaches there. Normally, you are not admitted to a canonical seminary without your Bishop's endorsement; if you are in UOCUSA, why would they send you anywhere else? Besides, if you are e.g. a subdeacon, you go to a Seminary your ruling hierarch chooses out of simple obedience.
On the other hand, a degree from any other seminary can be met with a hint of distrust (based on petty politics if nothing else); a candidate is likely to be sent to St. Sophia for language and local church history (and liturgics - there are subtle differences in a way different churches do the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) classes anyway.

Actually, in the wider Orthodox Church people care about canonical status and intercommunion far more than about accreditation. So the Greek bishop (who is a member of Ecumenical Patriarchate Synod) would look favourably upon a seminary governed by a Ukrainian bishop (also a member of Ecumenical Patriarchate Synod). For example, Fr. Andrew discussed here (a fellow with multiple accredited degrees who runs his own, apparently accredited by agreement, seminary in Puerto Rico) had a career spanning multiple jurisdictions (Greeks, Serbians, ROCOR, Greeks again) based on his St. Sophia degree. Harvard MDiv would not do.

 

Roy Wallace taught at Baptist Bible College, the accredited school of the BBFI. However, it wasn't always accredited. The moment BBC gained accreditation, they would no longer allow Roy Wallace to serve on the faculty. Why? All of Wallace's degrees were unaccredited. His doctorate was from LBU. It was at that time that Wallace began serving on the faculty at LBU, and did so until his death a few years ago. He told me this himself in 2004. #accreditationmatters

 

I work in IT and this is the case for this industry as well, an IT degree might help but you can lose the job against someone with a BS from University of Sedona in Metaphysics if the latter has the required skills and experience.

Since the University of Sedona has business and psychology metaphysics programs, they might add an IT metaphysics program that teaches people how to use IT to develop metaphysics web sites and blog sites.

 

I'm not interested in replying to the entirety of yet another bloviated post by you, but this little statement is particularly insulting. You may or may not agree with something I post, but to say that it (and thus, me) is not "rooted in reality" is nonsense. When you do a PhD specializing in nontraditional higher education, with a dissertation focused on accreditation and how it impacts the acceptability of college degrees as measured by the people in your own profession, then get back to me. My research and opinions don't necessarily make me right, but they're certainly not lacking a base in reality.

My opinion: you obviously have a great deal of knowledge and thinking ability. But you're just a practitioner in a narrow field that, frankly, can't get out of its own way. HR departments enjoy fantastic levels of loathing for very good reasons. It might be a good idea for you to leverage your obviously prodigious intellectual skills and energy towards improving it. (Seriously consider learning the scholarship underlying your field by doing a doctorate in it and, thus, becoming a scholar-practitioner instead of someone just reacting to the current thinking in HR.) I'm a scholar-practitioner in two fields related to this board and this thread: higher education and HRD. Try it even once.

As an SPHR (like me), I think I know what I'm talking about. So save your petty insults for those who are cowed by them and instead consider doing something positive with all that energy and intellect. I'm confident you can have a real impact on the field...and its crucial customer base, the entire workforce. If you choose to do so.

I deeply respect you and what you post. Good luck in your continued development.

 

Rich, I am sorry you chose to take my comment as a personal attack or take offense to it. Such was not my intention. I didn't mean to say that you were not rooted in reality. However, you are, as you say, a scholar. And so the conversation of accreditation and its relevance is a conversation that is relevant to you. But it is a conversation with fairly limited professional participants. The majority of employers simply don't care. The majority of HR departments simply don't care. If you choose to look at degrees in a vacuum and try to establish that there is an objective "good" in the realm of degrees, that's your business. But to say that such a discussion is central to THE discussion of DL? That's part of the conversation, to be sure, among some participants in that broader discussion. But there's no reason to say it is THE central part particularly since so many new innovations in DL operate outside the sphere of accreditation.



With regard to a study as measured by members of my profession, I will just say this;

Some years ago some psychology grad students set up an experiment. They set up a table in a discount store and lay out three pairs of pantyhose. They polled everyone in the store to tell them which of the three brands was the cheapest and which was the highest quality. Labels obscured, no markings. Over 80% of respondents selected the third brand was the top quality. They eloquently articulated what made it so much better. The feel, the strength, the quality of the fiber. It was undeniable.

They were all the same brand.

 

How do you know this? Have you worked for the majority of HR departments in the world? Have you done quantitative or qualitative research into this question? Have you done an extensive literature review of the scholarship? Have you sat on the editorial staff of scholarly journal in human resources and seen this question addressed and reviewed the research for the soundness of methodology?

When you state a proposition conclusively, as you have done, you need more than a horseback opinion supported by having worked for an HR department or two.

 

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

I did. Obviously, you don't know that. But your ignorance should not also be the source of your ire.

At the time I did my doctoral dissertation on this subject, coming to this conclusion, I was the only person who had ever researched it with HR professionals. I do not know if it has been revisited by others, but I'm pretty grounded in my assessment.

As an HRD practitioner (who also holds the SPHR) for 35 years, I can comfortably say the HR field continues in this blindness and is the major cause of people using diploma mill degrees in the U.S. This problem continues to lie at their feet. They should be ashamed. And you should be ashamed for the inflammatory ignorance displayed in your questions. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

I'll confess that I had to look up "horseback opinion." It's really a cool phrase. But after more than 10,700 posts on this board, 35 years working in HRD, earning the SPHR credential, and writing a doctoral dissertation on the subject of accreditation and its impact on the acceptability of college degrees (where I surveyed more than 270 HR professionals who were not only SHRM members, but also members of local chapters), I think I'm offering more than an off-hand or hastily offered opinion. In fact, I think FTFaculty was offering a "horseback opinion" in his/her post--asking those questions and then coming to his/her conclusion without knowing a single bit of the background behind my comment.

But, hey! I got to learn a new phrase. Thanks, FTFaculty!

 

Take a closer look there, I was replying to Neuhaus, not you, Rich--unless, somehow, you are also Neuhaus and were engaged in a lively debate with yourself using two nom de plumes.

 

And for the record, I am utterly ignorant of such things, not my field. I was just taking umbrage at Neuhaus (again, not you) making conclusive statements about such things; I don't have a dog in this fight, at least the substance of it that was the source of your debate with Neuhaus (which, strangely, you seem to agree with him on--or maybe I'm completely out to lunch and missed what you fellows were arguing about entirely).

 

My humblest apologies. I am a fool.

 

My only beef with him (this time; there've been others, IIRC) was him saying my comments weren't based in reality. When I read yours (and mistook them for me), I thought "geez, another one?" But again, I was mistaken.

That's the thing with Neuhaus. He can say a lot of really right things, but it gets buried in a lot of other stuff.

Again, my apologies.

 

I worked for a very large multinational staffing company as a recruiter. So I've had this discussion with literally hundreds of employers. Anecdotal as it may be, that forms the basis of my opinion.

Rich surveyed, as he said, 270 HR professionals through SHRM. That's great. But if I send out a survey to, say, 270 accountants and ask "which accrediting agency sounds more legit to you" the results don't necessarily mean that accountants actually look at accrediting agencies in the course of their work. It just means that they made a snap decision on a survey with the information provided.

However, I'm glad that it was a fairly innocuous comment which caused Rich to whip out the "I had two doctorates and you don't" mic drop move. Last time we disagreed it got ugly fast. Things tend to de-escalate quickly once Rich reminds us all that he has two doctorates and knows the HR industry better than anyone who actually works in it.

In any case, I don't feel like getting dragged down the rabbit hole on this one. I've made my points regarding religious degrees. If Rich wants to believe that accreditation is actually a topic on everybody's lips, that's his business. I suppose it's no more whacky than believing a dude walked on water. We are all entitled to our beliefs.

 

Methods? Methods? We don't need no stinkin methods at Sedona.

 

If you're a fool, I'm a double fool. :wink:

 

Actually, as I've posted here numerous times, more than 1,000 started the survey. It was a very significant fact that so many didn't finish the rigorous process. Many, however, noted in their comments that they just didn't look at things like accreditation, and that they accepted at face value whatever applicants and employees presented.

Also note that the competency framework SHRM provides has absolutely nothing regarding this subject. Not a thing on HRCI's SPHR exam either--nor in SHRM's prep materials for it. They don't know and they don't care.

I work in it. Not only have I been an HRD practitioner (in the public, private, academic, and academic sectors) for 35 years, I was one governmental agency's chief of human capital strategy.

The only people who ever trot out the comments you make about holding a doctorate (one or two) are those, like you, who haven't done it. It makes you look very, very small.

It's not. But it should be. Too bad people like you are so derelict in their professional responsibilities that they (and you) allow diploma mills and their customers to thrive. You're petty and narrow-minded. But it's okay. You're right in line with the HR profession.

 

Naw, it was my fault for assuming your comment was directed to me. Your comment, as it was directed to Neuhaus, was dead on.

 

I'm not an HR person and I don't even play one on TV but I was in the HR office one day (no, not a disciplinary thing) and asked a casual question about responses to a recent job ad. I got to peek at a small pile of resumes and pointed out to the HR person that one cited a mill degree as their primary qualifier. "That's not a real school, ya know? A degree mill. Fake." To her credit she did hold it out of the pile, "Hmmm. I'll have to check it out." But the point is that she didn't catch it herself. She probably would have caught it eventually, since it was a mill but maybe not.