Bakke Graduate University vs Piedmont International University

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Pugbelly2, Mar 27, 2015.

Loading...
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's true, Lamar Alexander had presidential aspirations at that time and overruled his own advisory panel to approve TRACS. But that was over twenty years ago, and neither the Clinton administration nor the Obama administration is beholden to fundamentalists, yet their approval continues.
     
  2. Garp

    Garp Active Member

    Okay, the philosophy guy is coming out in me. "As everyone in HE knows...."? I suspect not. However they initially came to be recognized more than a quarter of a century ago, they have continually had their recognition renewed after re evaluation. They have also been permitted to add PhD programs and in addition to US DoE gained CHEA recognition.

    So, no I do not see your assessment as realistic as much as biased. You, me and others may have issues with fundamentalism but whatever TRACS is doing is meeting the standards of the US DoE and CHEA and is therefore meeting standards for higher education.

    I will grant that most schools are small and am not making a comparison with the U of Southern California but then I wouldn't compare U of Phoenix with UCLA either.
     
  3. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    So then you seem to feel that accreditation is meaningless in all forms. Here, TRACS is BS because, well, you don't like it. It matters not that USDOE recognizes it as an accreditor. I mean heck, it's just the U.S. Department of Education. Not like they have anything to say on the subject of higher ed, right?

    You also just wrote off CHEA recognition as being largely inconsequential. It's true, it is not an accreditor. I never claimed CHEA to be an accreditor. But recognition as an accreditor by CHEA is kind of/sort of generally regarded as a good sign. CHEA/USDOE recognition of accreditors is kind of important.

    But in another thread, just yesterday, you asserted that "most for-profit colleges are a ripoff." So evidently, you don't think very highly of accredited schools which have a for-profit corporate structure.

    So Bakke is bad because it's accreditor (recognized by USDOE) only accredits small, Christian schools. I assume then that you have an equally strong objection to any institution accredited by the Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools?

    Capella, CTU, Walden and a slew of others must be bad because, despite having regional accreditation, they earn *gasp* a PROFIT rather than banking a massive endowment and buying crap like private jets.

    THEN, to bring it 'round, you condescendingly frame your own inconsistent opinion by stating that it somehow better captures the "complexities of accreditation?"

    Realistic? Sorry, no.

    You seem like a rather angry person, in my opinion. You can't let schools like Bakke exist in peace because of made-up reasons which seem to show a rather intense disdain for certain branches of Christianity.

    Then you go on the offensive against for-profit schools, many of which have regional accreditation.

    You don't read like someone who understands the "complexities of accreditation" as much as someone who really doesn't understand accreditation at all.

    So, let me rephrase my line, which you so kindly quoted without attribution:

    TRACS is recognized by USDOE and CHEA. Your finding them "dubious" is far less significant than those recognitions.

    Maybe this will make my point clearer.

    I don't care if you're convinced by what I have to say. The US Department of Education has made a determination and has sustained the status of TRACS for two decades. I care about what USDOE's position on TRACS is because their position, unlike your own, actually impacts the governance of the school and its students.

    You can dislike the fact that TRACS is a recognized accreditor. You can lobby to have that recognition revoked. You can throw darts at pictures of TRACS. But to argue that USDOE/CHEA recognition does not afford an accrediting agency ANY legitimacy isn't a "realistic" position to take. It is an incredibly childish position to take akin to stomping your feet and saying the Department of Education is "stupid!"

    Accreditation, at its very core, is meant to give students a sort of quality control measure so that they have an objective means of seeing if a school is "real." That stamp of approval either means something or it does not. For you to essentially write off the ability of the federal government to make that call and claim the right for yourself isn't the least bit "realistic." Quite the contrary, in fact. It's borderline delusional.
     
  4. warguns

    warguns Member

    Not beholden but apprehensive.

    Maybe not beholden (however, Obama got the votes of African-American fundamentalists) but apprehensive. Hence the continued approval.
     
  5. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    Wow. The ignorance is astonishing.
     
  6. warguns

    warguns Member

    There's no need to be rude. But I suppose that's the way some respond to disagreement.
     
  7. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    My intent was not to be rude, but I certainly see how it could easily be taken that way. I apologize.

    Dictionary.com defines ignorance as: "...a lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."

    Your position on the question of what constitutes legitimate accreditation and/or a legitimate university, as others here have pointed out, is wildly inconsistent. Your arguments seem to be formed on outdated information, a lack of information, or a lack of understanding of current information.

    You seem like an intelligent person, albeit an angry and bias one. My use of the word ignorance was not an attack on your intelligence or character. It is, in my opinion, the basis from which you make your argument.
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I don't agree with warguns on much of anything, but calling someone astonishingly ignorant is rude, even when it's true.
     
  9. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    Steve,

    For clarity, I was referring to his position on this matter, not to the person on all matters. Still, I completely understand that, though it was not my intention, my comment was rude. I issued an apology. For the record, I will issue it again:

    Warguns, I apologize for the rudeness of my comment. Though I believe your position on these matters is inconsistent and without merit, my delivery was unintentionally rude. It's ironic, because I think I accused you of having a poor delivery at the beginning of this thread. :redface:
     
  10. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    On another topic, when did the word ignorant become so offensive? I freely admit my ignorance on any number of issues.
     
  11. novadar

    novadar Member

    I think the use of the word "astonishingly" in this context is what made it offensive/rude. The word ignorant in and of itself is highly charged but really should not be. However there are always ways to say something less abrasively.
     
  12. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    Got it. Thank you for the feedback.
     
  13. b4cz28

    b4cz28 New Member

    I would just for the record like to point out the school was not named for it's founder...It was around long before Bakke. THe name change was in 2005. This was bugging me.

     
  14. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    OK, so it wasn't named for its founder it was named for its leader. Happiness?
     
  15. Garp

    Garp Active Member

    I read that the university is actually named after the Bakke family. Ray is into cultural transformation and innovative ministry concepts (sensitive to indigenous leadership be it urban or outside the US) and Dennis Bakke is an innovative businessman who cofounded a Fortune 200 company.
     
  16. warguns

    warguns Member

    Leland Stanford Junior University? :)
     
  17. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    Certificate program in Transformational Leadership

    I'm enrolled in the transformational leadership certificate program. Might be a good way to determine the quality and content of some of their TL curriculum. I'll update everyone once I get further into it and complete it.
     
  18. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    That particular school was named for the founder's son.

    I think that, years ago, it was a perfectly acceptable thing in the U.S. to found a school bearing your name. Cornell (University and College) did it, too.

    Now, years after the death of those founders, the names have taken on their own meaning.

    I doubt it was any less of an ego trip back then than it is now. These days, for a school to be named after a living founder, it just seems a bit much to me.

    As I've said in the early days of this thread, however, I still think Bakke has an interesting program that is worth exploring for those who would be into this whole scene. I, personally, can't see any reason other than vanity for wanting a DTL. But if you have the money, time and inclination, who says you can't pursue a little vanity?
     
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well, there's this: https://www.keiseruniversity.edu/arthur-keiser-ph-d/
     
  20. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    Bakke

    Bakke Graduate University offers a certificate in Transformational Leadership. I am nearing the end of the course and have to say that it was both inspiring, informative, and practically helpful day to day in regard to leadership. It is also a good way to get to know Bakke in their approach. Their staff is extremely responsive. I'll consider their doctorate because its hands on nature in the world.
     

Share This Page