Arizona's "Astrological Institute" accredited.

Someone else you folks might enjoy reading is particle physicist and Anglican minister John Polkinghorne, a jolly and lighthearted philosopher-theologian (and how often does one hear that phrase?) who has (nicely) debated the likes of Nobel Prize winning physicist Steve Weinberg. All of his books are good, approachable and, in an exemplarily Christian way, charitable towards pretty much everybody.

Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Ken,

I hope you aren't becoming obsessed with the possibilities of a BA in 4 weeks.

Russell

 

Quite right. Is the subject closed (in my mind)? No. It is like a closed door. It could open, but I'm not going to spend my time staring at it, waiting for it. But nor do I reject completely the idea that it could open.

Rich Douglas

 

Of course, one has to worry that it is the opposite: an open door that eventually becomes shut and unopenable.

 

(1) The subject matter being taught is relevant, because astrology is not only a rather flaky or "alternative" discipline, but its practioners are also flaky. Does anyone really believe that great scholars on the history and practice of astrology are teaching at this institute? I doubt it.

(2) This school's curriculum seems to consist of nothing more than participation in some sort of short seminar.

(3) I believe people in this thread have referred to astrology not being a matter of religion. But its whole basis is religious--based on ancient Greek and Roman beliefs about the divine significance of the heavens. Yes? If it were being taught by great scholars as a past and discredited system of thought, that would be one thing. But if the school's teachers are buying into it and expect their students to, which appears to be the case (how can you write up horoscopes if you don't believe in them?), it becomes more like a cult.

(4) The religious beliefs of a school are certainly something that people will take into consideration when judging its quality. Rational people certainly think less of schools devoted to creationism (and the prevention of miscegenation, etc.) than they do of schools that are less...misguided?

(5) This whole issue underlines the inadequacy of the whole American "accreditation" system, because not enough distinction is made between institutions with the right to the glorious titles "university" or "college" and those that are mere "institutes" or "schools." If there were some real distinction that was obvious to all, the existence of a school such as this wouldn't be at all appalling or disquieting. But with "government-approved (or quasi-government-approved) accreditation" of all universities, trade schools, etc., they are all made equal under the umbrella "accredited" status. They can all enjoy the status of a "university." In fact, this accreditation is probably a first step on the way to this provider of short astrology seminars calling itself a university, and getting the resulting moolah from students who will like to believe, or pretend to believe, that they are getting the equivalent of a Harvard education for studying how to make up horoscopes.

 

Do you believe that accreditors should have the power to censor the content of what is taught in the schools they accredit? Or what amounts to the same thing, to deny accreditation to schools whose content they disagree with?

This institute is not a university. It offers neither university degrees nor college credit. It's more akin to a manicurist's college. So your point about great scholars is irrelevant.

I agree that the course they offer seems pretty minimal. Setting prejudice against its content aside, I might agree with you that it is not sufficient for a vocational course.

I think that's a complicated historical question that is serously off-topic for this group.

Or perhaps a subject you disagree with.

I don't think so. I gave my opinion on schools that teach Biblical inerrancy and literal six-day creation in my last post. But my opinions aren't really the issue.

The issue is whether my opinions should control what can and can't be taught in educational institutions. We all know that there are accredited schools (both some RA and even more AABC) that state flatly that any evidence that contradicts scripture must be false. Period. Including all of paleontology, historical geology and evolutionary biology I guess. So should these schools have their accreditation pulled? They seem to be contradicted by modern science at least as dramatically as astrology is. Should modern science be made the criterion for admission to the educational community?

The Astrological Institute is not a university. It does not pretend to be a university. It offers no degrees. Its program carries no credit. It is a trades and vocational-type course like one would find at a manicurist's or barber's college. I think that any confusion on that score is probably caused by inattention, not by any failing of the accreditation system.

They can? How are they "all made equal"? You seem to be opposing the idea of accreditors accrediting any sub-degree-level courses at all. Well, most of them do it and always have. I graduated from a high-school that was regionally accredited, but nobody would confuse it with a university. There are a whole group of accreditors that specialize in trades and vocational education. I fail to see anything wrong with that and see lots of good.

That's certainly imaginative.

 

BillDayson,

(1) Yes, I do think that the subject matter being taught should be a factor in decisions about whether to accredit an institution. While I don't believe in censorship, and people are welcome to whatever beliefs they like, I don't think that most sane people in the United States would argue that accreditation, government or quasi-government approval, should apply to certain out-there disciplines. You apparently believe it would be A-OK for there to be accreditation for the Such-and-Such School of Devil Worship.

(2) Since the institute is teaching a body of knowledge that supposedly involves scholarship, the fact that real scholars are probably not involved is, despite your cavils, significant.

(3) Regarding the history of astrology and its religious component, I am simply responding to an issue that was raised by other people in this thread. And I did not seriously expect a great deal of further discussion on the matter. I was simply making a small point. For you to attack it as "seriously off-topic for this group" seems bizarre to me. A lot of small and varied points are going to be made in mail threads that do not immediately, then and there, discuss distance education. Perhaps all of the threads should be edited and slashed and pared down until they meet your rigorous standards.

(4) I do think that if people are seriously going about teaching about and making horoscopes, with all of their mystical and religious significance, they are indulging in a cultish activity. What is the point of your saying "Or perhaps a subject you disagree with." Are you going to chase down everyone posting opinions in this newsgroup, and whenever they state a critical opinion, throw out some line like, "Or perhaps you just disagree with it." My disagreement with the subject matter taught is crystal clear and obvious.

(5) I would never say that modern science should be THE criterion for "admission to the educational community." But it should be A criterion.

(6) I know the difference between a "university" and an "institute." I know the difference between an institution that grants degrees and one that does not. A member of the public need not be "inattentive" to perceive institutions claiming "accreditation" as existing together in some glorous "accredited" realm. That is the whole point of this institute bandying about its new "accredited" status. It wants that prestige.

(7) You ask, "How are are they all 'made equal.'" As I think is patently obvious from my statements, because, they all enjoy the title "accredited." They are made equal in that way. The same label, that particular label, is applied to all. And, yes, I am opposed to "the idea of accreditors accrediting any sub-degree-level courses at all." I think that high schools can have whatever sort of accreditation high schools get and trade schools can have whatever sort of accreditation trade schools get. The whole high school and the whole trade school must be accredited. And at the university level, there should be no "accreditation." "Universities" and "colleges" should be government-chartered. Money-making institutions would likely not get government charters, and would be called "schools" and "institutes," with or without accreditation. And a lot of the degree-mill problem would go away.

(8) "That's certainly imaginative," like your remarks about inattention or subjects I disagree with, and your generally argumentative tone, seems designed to be snide and unpleasant.

 

I couldn't have said it better. You are completely on the mark but don't expect kudos around here for your insight... truth is not always commended much around these parts... the snide and argumentative tone is merely in response to presenting an opinon at odds with the prevalent group think.