Louisiana Baptist University and Others

I am bringing this over from another thread. Accreditation is a gatekeeper of sorts and there is the undeniable fact of utility that in most (vast majority) cases is much greater with accredited schools.

What about some schools like LBU or the Graduate Theological Foundation? They seem to have quite successful alumni (admittedly not necessarily due to the school itself as they were already high performers). In other words credibility in their sphere. Neuhaus muses that in the case of two resumes (one with LBU and one with the University of Phoenix) the LBU one may be given more credence because of U of Phoenix's negative quality perception and not really knowing LBU.

Louisiana Baptist University has its own small campus with offices, classrooms and conference rooms (ie not operating out of a church basement). It has had the Attorney General of the United States speak at the school. Has produced at least two college Presidents with LBU degrees (maybe more administrators) and countless other well placed successful people with LBU degrees.

Louisiana Baptist University has from time to time had graduates who compare the rigor of LBU with RA schools (NOT always a reliable indicator since it is self serving). One I recall had a Masters from a highly ranked US school. Here is what "Jabbezz" said over at Baptist Board:

Claimed background

"My undergrad degree (BA in pastoral ministries) was earned at a regionally accredited university. I then earned the MA in church ministries (54 hours) at a regionally and ATS accredited seminary. Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) was then taken at the Baptist Hospital in my state. Acceptance was then gained into a Doctor of Ministry program at a regionally and ATS accredited seminary, which I completed with an emphasis in pastoral ministry. I share this only to state that my earning of the LBU Ph.D. was not to obtain the title "Dr." DMin graduates enjoy that title, if they choose to use it."

His Analysis:

"The rigor between the two programs was quite similar. Keep in mind the DMin is a professional (oriented toward the practice of the ministry), while the PhD is a research degree. The individual courses were similar in course content, requirements, etc. My PhD dissertation was double the length of my DMin dissertation. And while the PhD is unaccredited, much more "blood, sweat & tears" were invested in this dissertation than its DMin counterpart."

So, how do we determine the credibility of LBU or GTF (and similar schools) or legitimacy. Is it just accreditation? Some rather low functioning or low reputation accredited schools have that. Is it utility and how do we measure that. What says someone with a PhD from LBU or GTF does not have a PhD?

 

I recall a discussion on this very forum where we went out on LinkedIn and found graduates of LBU to see how well their degrees were being received. When it was pointed out that one LBU grad had used his unaccredited LBU bachelors to apply and get accepted to Regent Law and had clearly graduated and, I believe, was working on Regent's staff after graduation, people here lost their damn minds. He must have slipped through the cracks! This must be an anomaly! All of that rather than just accepting that schools in the evangelical/fundy realm look beyond accreditation when viewing the coursework of the others. It shouldn't be a shock. But the idea that an RA/ABA law school accepted an unaccredited bachelors degree broke peoples' brains here.

Part of the problem is that this forum views "unaccredited" as being equivalent to "fake." As in, "I have an unaccredited bachelors degree" is the same thing as saying "I don't have a bachelors degree." This isn't actually true. Degrees are not, for better or worse, real or fake, in my opinion. The schools that award them and the criteria used to award them can be so significantly substandard that the degree is functionally worthless. But you still have a degree. It might be a degree that is illegal to use in some states. But even those strict states don't regard your degree as being null and void. They view it as not meeting their standards and illegal to use or present publicly.

That's a significant difference that we should be aware of.

The doctors of this forum could undoubtedly form a committee, review research that I present and decide to award me a PhD. How well would my PhD from no school at all but signed by Drs. Levicoff, Bear and Douglas be received? Probably not so seriously. But what if that same degree from no school were awarded by Drs. Sagan, Hofstadter and Tyson? In academia, not at all. But should an employer hoping to hire an astrophysicist take such a candidate seriously? Why would a PhD endorsed by our own in-house doctors be OK as long as they were serving as a committee at UIU but not when they are acting independently?

The institution is supposed to carry some weight. The institution is supposed to be respected. Nobody looks at Harvard and says "Oh, well it's RA so I guess it's good." Likewise, no one ever looked at Cornell and said "LOL, they're accredited by the NYS Board of Regents, they must be bullshit." Accreditation in this country was a byproduct of institutional reputation. Over the past few decades, however, we flipped it around to be the thing that grants institutions their reputation. An institution should build its reputation from the work of its faculty. But at many schools it is the faculty receiving status from an institution instead.

Stanislav and I have frequently mentioned St Sophia's seminary in New Jersey, an unaccredited seminary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church USA. Undoubtedly legitimate but lacking in institutional accreditation. No accreditor, however, will tell the Orthodox Christian world that the school is substandard. And no accreditor could tell them that a school not teaching their theology their way is more acceptable.

LBU is officially affiliated with a small baptist denomination. But the word "Baptist" carries far and wide and their alumni are represented across many mainstream denominations. For better or worse, the same can be said of Trinity (Newburgh). We have seen their doctoral graduates teaching at legitimate, well established B&M seminaries and universities around the U.S.

I don't think it should be so controversial to say that their value, particularly within the world of that faith community, is stronger than any accreditor's reputation. But the issue, as I've said, is that we are trying to allow institutional reputation to stem from accreditation rather than the other way around and I think it's finally coming to a point where people are seeing how absurd that line of thinking is.

 

Neuhaus, "Part of the problem is that this forum views "unaccredited" as being equivalent to "fake." As in, "I have an unaccredited bachelors degree" is the same thing as saying "I don't have a bachelors degree." This isn't actually true."

Good point (among others made). People do make that leap.

 

Good guys at "Good guys wear black" (a resource on vocations in Orthodox Church) have this to say about picking a seminary:
https://goodguyswearblack.org/2018/06/14/fb-live-how-to-choose-a-seminary-and-succeed-in-distance-learning/
In short, in person vs. online doesn't really matter; accreditation matters even less. Just go to your Bishop and attend wherever he tells you. Period.

The guy who did that article (and video) is a priest and attended St. Sophia, at a distance (well, I believe technically hybrid; for MDiv there's a pastoral part done at your parish).
Many Ukrainian people, especially older ones, would prefer a priest from St. Sophia rather than the one from a "Russian" or "Greek" school. I'm a bit disillusioned with our community (to the point of looking in direction of a Roman Catholic church); still, I'd be at least initially vary of a priest with Jordanville diploma, no matter how accredited, legit, and impressive that school is.

 

Yep, but it's not just this forum. Outside it's even worse, as many in the peanut galleries equate anything not non-profit or not regionally accredited to fake at worst, substandard at best. There are people who do that here, too, but there is at least some balance here as opposed to many other places where there is none at all.

 

It's significant that some unaccredited universities (notably in the religious community... ie seminaries) are able to achieve pretty broad acceptance, as mentioned. Is it their quality of work, credentials of those who lead or instruct there, notable alumni, transferability of credits to RA schools or all of the above? Or is it a matter of their longevity over time? Clearly, some have thousands of graduates and yet lack any credibility. (And of course, low/millish standards never bring about the kind of acceptance you are talking about).

 

Yes, some of those same peanut galleries (outside here) believe the University of Phoenix to be unaccredited, a diploma mill, substandard or a combination. Which does make you wonder if you are getting your money worth in terms of reputation. But then as I mentioned on another thread I mentioned "Capella PhD" to someone with a residential Masters and they smirked and rolled their eyes. Some of these places can be a victim of their own marketing success in terms of reputation. On the other hand, they may be less concerned with reputation and more with revenue. Someone referred to the for profits as "McUniversity".

 

I think in general, track record, however defined. Also, utility within the denomination. Eg. St. Sophia is ran by Abp. Anthony who is also vocations director at UOC-USA - you do not need any other recognition to demonstrate utility. Your diploma is literally signed by the guy who is in charge of selecting you for ordination. You'd notice that, incidentally, St. Sophia has well-credentialed faculty and fine track record. In the (somewhat) broader Orthodox world, affiliation with any of the 14 mutually recognized (almost, ignoring the semi-schism of 2018 - present between Russia+friends and 3 "Greek" Churches over Ukraine), plus partially-recognized Orthodox Churches of America and Ukraine provides basic legitimacy.

 

I think Andersonville Seminary suffers that issue. Its reputation was so negative that even with obvious surface improvements to some programs, they will find that hard to overcome short of accreditation. There was a much publicized attempt which fizzled (for whatever reason). That perceived lack of credibility may not matter to the crowd that they market to. Andersonville is cheap and if lack of cash but a desire for a "degree" is a driving motivator, that dog apparently hunts. That is not meant to bring in to question the motives of the powers that be at Andersonville. You need some sort of niche.

 

I remember our old friend Jimmy used to speak well of Bethany Divinity College and Seminary, though unaccredited. I don't think it would be on level of LBU.

 

The acceptance of transfer credit and meeting admission requirements for programs are actually subject to a pretty broad degree of institutional discretion. I've seen a few hide behind the (false) excuse of "Our accreditor won't let us." Yet, it isn't actually a requirement in most states that you need to have a bachelors degree to get into a JD program for licensing purposes. I know Albany Law had on their website fairly recently that in some exceptional cases you could be admitted to the JD program without a bachelors if you had significant experience. St. Tikhon's Seminary (OCA) in Pennsylvania has the same rule for their M.Div. They're ATS accredited and you can potentially get into their masters program without a bachelors degree. Cornell Vet is very open about the fact that you only need to meet the pre-vet requirements and can be admitted without a bachelors.

So I don't think it is really that far of a reach for a school like Regent to say "Yeah, that LBU degree is fine for getting into our law school."

Transfers? Look at religious course publishers. Almost all of them have some sort of arrangement for one or more schools to grant credit for their courses. Thirdmill is one, I just posted about it in the certification thread. So let's think about that...

Imagine I have Neuhaus publishing, a respected producer of Christian courses you can take in the comfort of your own home. So quality are they that respected and well established seminaries offer you credit if you complete my courses. What are you supposed to think of the small, unaccredited schools that also grant credit for my courses?

I don't think it's a single thing. I think religion trumps all other things to many people. So if LBU is a godly school in your eyes, then it's A-OK. If you think Patrick Henry College is where real patriots go to school then it doesn't matter to you that they're TRACS. And as for admissions and transfer? If other schools hold that same religious and or political position, why would it be shocking that they do the same thing?

For better or worse, it's about branding and public perception. Trinity (Newburgh) requires coursework. They don't just sell you a degree. The result is that they have MANY seminary academics and actual pastors in real, established congregations among their alumni. It's the perfect little arrangement for the small town pastor who, in a pre-Liberty Online world, had few options for earning a doctorate especially the often coveted Th.D. (I don't know why, probably because it's different). That gives them influence and good optics. If you just sell your diplomas then you're not going to look as good. You're appealing to a lower tier student who is likely to achieve far less. If you do get a high achiever they'll be few and far between. And even when their resumes blow up, we see their employers rush to their defense.

It honestly wouldn't shock me if someone publicly called out a Trinity or LBU grad if we saw some politicians calling it an attack on religion and vigorously defending the school.

Beyond all of that, if you're, say, an Orthodox priest and the whole Orthodox world thinks your degree is fine and you have a solid paycheck from a parish that thinks your degree is fine, would it really matter to you what we thought?

 

For some schools accreditation may make little sense. It is very expensive. Thousands for applications, thousands in other fees, thousands to get it where the accreditor wants and thousands after accreditation to various entities. The University of the People claimed to have spent seven figures.

Some schools seemed to have done better before. I believe Bob Jones suffered an enrollment drop after becoming accredited (first TRACS and then Regional). Could have been happening prior, could have been other factors. Tennessee Temple became accredited and then merged (could be other factors).

I think they have to weigh issues including their constituency and return on investment.

Of course, some schools claim they don't become accredited due to cost or control when the reality is they would not stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining accreditation. Slidell is not an unaccredited Harvard.

 

The real cost of accreditation, particularly regional accreditation, is with regards to the required quality control processes that need to be in place and not the fees. An immense amount of paperwork and reports need to be generated regarding targeted performance metrics, evidence based strategic plans, etc. While I grumble with compiling portions of the report, realistically, it's simply documenting and providing an audit-able trail of what one should be doing if they are properly running an educational institution, IMO.

 

I think the tens of thousands a year in various fees and cash outlay plus bandwidth for what you mention above may be beyond some schools. They could raise tuition and fees but that may be detrimental.

I wonder if the whole education market has not become pretty competitive. Schools are inventing new graduate programs that may not fly and recreating existing ones. How many similarly priced Strategic Leadership programs, MBAs and other bland costly degrees do you need? Walden and Capella seem to have found a market for their doctorates thanks in part to access to Student Loans. Mind you, when the party is over graduates owe six figures plus to stick "Dr." on the front of their name. That may cause a hangover. I know one graduate of undergraduate and Masters programs whose student loans are growing like a snowball and heading for 200,000. It stresses the person (who tries not to think about it). The plan is that at death tax payers can pay it.

 

Documenting and providing an auditable trail? Sure.

Simple? So simple you need around seven figures to gain RA, often have to employ a full time staff person (preferably a team) to deal with the accreditation and often have to hire six figure consultants to guide you through the process.

In reality, the process is very expensive and terribly convoluted. For DEAC it involves, among many other things, paying for business class flights for all evaluators to visit your site for the initial and any subsequent re-evaluations that are necessary. My company brings in billions of dollars per year and anyone this side of the C-suite flies coach unless they are expected to be in the sky (layovers don't count) for more than 8 hours in one day.

And yet, there's little New York that manages to do it at a fraction of the cost. I've not heard any complaints that New York is a joke of an accreditor. They accredit very few schools themselves though the registration process is so robust (and expansive, there are tons of schools especially in NYC) that I think it warrants mention. The difference? One is a public entity with a mandate to serve education in the state. The other is a private, ostensibly non-profit organization that relies on these fees to keep the lights on and the salaries flowing. Private entities that are handed a government endorsed monopoly, no less.

It wouldn't really take much for states to just do a proper job of vetting the schools within their borders rather than trying to outsource it.

 

Absolutely. They regulate everything else from professions to other entities. They could do it and likely at a fraction of the cost.

 

Here is an LBU dissertation I could find.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://jabalallawz.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/0/4/21048306/chuck_whittaker_jabal_al_lawz.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjH1Zmun7LpAhW7HzQIHbcLDTg4ChAWMAB6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw0x217ppcPDxMnf8LaJqN8_

 

Apparently, at one time the Graduate Theological Foundation had the endorsement of the Archbishop of Canterbury and he appointed a Church of England Bishop as an official representative.

Not sure how deep that relationship goes today. I think GTF was at one point heavily focussed on Anglicans and Catholics but now has added Jewish, Islamic and Buddhist programs. Its current President is also part of some interfaith program (not saying that is a bad thing).

https://www.gtfeducation.org/about-the-gtf/runcie-convocation-lecture-series.cfm

https://www.gtfeducation.org/about-the-gtf/community-of-scholars.cfm

 

And probably what would the outlay of large sums of money for accreditation benefit these Eastern Orthodox Seminaries (other than financially crippling them)? They have a built in constituency and reputation.

In terms of many denominations, "accredited" is not good enough. Where is highly important. A potential Methodist or Orthodox clergyman cannot just enroll in Liberty University's MDiv program (even if it has programmatic and institutional accreditation).

Of course, these Eastern Orthodox Seminaries or the WELS Seminary are not Billy Bob's Church Basement Seminary of the Holy Potluck.