DEAC has accredited NationsUniversity

This is actually untrue. As I stated elsewhere, I did send Jodie a PM asking her to tell us what position she held at the school. She replied to me in a very rude manner, essentially refusing to identify herself. I did not tell her that it was required that she use her real name or identify her position. I told her it would be "nice" if she would volunteer the information but she has refused and since then her membership privileges have not been altered in any way. Based on her behavior to date I would question whether she is an official spokesperson for the school and so I would question the reliability of her information.

 

Kizmet raises a good point, and I would have to concur – I think Jodie is a renegade member of the Nations cult, possibly a student, possibly a staffer who was not posting here in an official or even authorized capacity..

I’m sure that Nations would love to use D.I. to get good publicity in light of their achievement (and, despite my known opinions about DEAC, it is an achievement). And, in fact, most people have written here about Nations in a positive light. A school representative would be far more cordial and open about his or her identity and position with the school.

If Jodie were, in fact, an employee of Nations who (1) posted here without authorization and (2) came off with “bad attitude,” I’d fire her ass. Whether student or employee, Nations can do without her.

(And yes, when I talk about Nations as a cult, I’m joking. The sense of enthusiasm on the part of its, um, devotees is impressive, even if a little absurd.)

 

Revealing his/her role would add to the likelihood his/her identity would become known. But....

Not putting a name to things means we don't have to give credence to that person's opinions.

 

While the witch hunting on the part of its less than a handful of haters is shocking, and a bit ridiculous.

 

Man, I'd hate to see what you would do in the case of an actual witch hunt.

I've not seen anyone here calling for politically motivated investigations into Nations. There are no campaigns to immediately revoke the accreditation.

In fact, I doubt any person here who does criticize Nations ever shared those comments with DEAC. If I really wanted nothing but misfortune for the school wouldn't that be a logical course?

So no, there is no "witch hunt" there is criticism. And that criticism seems to ruffle your feathers. Consider growing a thicker skin, putting your big boy pants on or any number of other cliches about toughing through it.

No school is ever beyond criticism. Ever.

Nations is no exception. I get that you're exceptionally proud that they are now accredited. And, as stated, I'm happy for you and the school. But that doesn't mean I have zero criticism of the school and it doesn't mean that criticism of the school is no longer valid.

That's not "witch hunting."

The fact that criticism in an online forum is "shocking" to you highlights Steve's point that maybe online programs are not appropriately equipped to prepare people for certain helping professions like the ministry. Because I'm not seeing very much turning of the other cheek going on with Nations critique. Instead I see a lot of lashing out and stomping of feet. And if you think that this is bad I assure you that much worse awaits you in the "real world" of ministry. I've seen congregants of supposedly Christian congregations emotionally abuse clergy into nervous breakdowns. That isn't pretty and it isn't right. That, much more than the discourse contained on these boards, is "shocking."

But if Nations is setting the impression that my comments are as bad as they get for the would-be minister or that the appropriate response is to throw up as many victim cards as you can then yes, the criticism of Nations is going to continue more vigorously, because you're proving our point that Nations is failing to prepare you at the same level as a traditional B&M seminary. Don't agree with me? Prove me wrong. Better yet, ignore me. Focus on doing all of the good you claim to be pursuing regardless of my criticism.

But for some reason I don't recall ever reading about a famous spiritual leader responding to criticism by calling his opponents "haters" and declaring that their criticism was a "witch hunt." So, start acting like a serious divinity student and maybe people will treat you like one. Act like an angry teenager hiding behind a cloak of internet anonymity? Well, don't complain when your opinions are ignored.

 

... What in the bloody HELL are you even talking about? When did I EVER say I was trying to go into ministry? LOL!

Look, nutcase... oops, I mean Neuhaus, your ramblings are becoming more bizarre, ridiculous, and childish with each new edition, which is hilariously ironic considering all of the "I'm bigger and better than you!" ranting and puffing yourself up you're doing. What's next? You're going to tell me your Dad can beat up my Dad? :lmao:

Neuhaus, grow up.

I couldn't care less about actual legitimate criticism regarding a school I don't work for, attend or have any plans to attend, and gain no financial benefit from. I also couldn't have cared less if they achieved accreditation or not; I wasn't on pins and needles over this. The reality is though, they did achieve accreditation and I am happy for them, and you're simply salty about it for some strange reason that you can't articulate other than making baseless accusations and engaging in amateur (VERY amateur) sleuthing, but that's a sign of a lack of growth and emotional maturity, and you'll need to work that out at some point in your life.

What I DO care about is when people take things to extremes like calling a legitimate school a mill, or making baseless accusations about a schools' academic rigor when they've never taken a single program at said school or even know anyone who did. That's just plain pathetic.

But keep it coming. At this point, your posts are just shtick entertainment for the sane.

 

You exhibit such a profound emotional maturity that you really can't see why it's hard taking Nations, or its acolytes, seriously?

Please don't project.

Ahh, I see. I had thought, at first, that you were simply a Nations devotee. Clearly I'm mistaken.

Because I went through your post history where I see that you've spent the better part of your 200-ish posts lashing out at other people and launching even more ad hominem attacks against others. You also have a clever tendency to work Nations into your recommendation list even when people are absolutely not looking for religious degrees.

Was it as pathetic when you lashed out at Ashford University in 2013? I believe here you argue quite vigorously against Ashford despite being regionally accredited. Or in this other place where you basically state that a degree from Ashford would be worthless if you were the hiring manager? You also seem to be pretty anti-university of phoenix which, despite its reputation, is also a legitimate and fully accredited school.

Of course, you've also crapped on Thomas Edison State College.

But nearly half of your overall posts have been spent railing against Ashford, which you lovingly refer to as "Assford."( including, at one time, telling the world that if DETC re-accredited Ashford, you were "done" with DETC).

So, the better part of your time on this forum seems to have been spent either poo-pooing Ashford or trying to sell everyone on Nations and University of the People. Apparently accreditation is all that matters for Nations but doesn't matter in the least bit for schools you dislike.

Sorry, Mr. Smart, but I think you missed it by that much.

Run along little trill.

 

True. Thank you for noticing what you yourself lack.

Gimme a break, smh.

I perceive.

I doubt it matters to you. Your furious hatred for this tiny volunteer, low-cost school would rear its ugly head no matter if it were from a devotee or a passing onlooker. I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and pain Nations' very existence has somehow caused you, and I mean that sincerely. You're clearly hurting.

Total exaggeration.

More exaggeration, even baseless without considering context. This is your attempt at an exposé? :laughing:

*SIGH*

What's pathetic is that you actually took the time to dig up old posts in a fruitless attempt at, well, whatever it is you think you're doing.

Further, what the hell does Ashford being regionally accredited have to do... with ANYTHING? Surely, you're not one of those people; a drone who can't think or make judgments for him/herself that automatically says "A school is great quality if it's regionally accredited, no questions asked!". Sorry, Charlie, but that's not how it works. A school CAN be trash regardless of being regionally accredited.

I went with this school, I found it to be utter crap, and whether you like it or not I'm not alone on that feeling. This same school was under several well-known media firestorms concerning everything from quality of education, to handling of student loans, and basic staffing matters. Basically, it was called out--by students, faculty, AND authorities alike--for being of questionable quality. You'll also find some other ex-students here pointing out the same issues (see NMTTD). So don't sit here trying to act like this was all on me and there is nothing to it. That's bull and you know it.

Try again.

So you have no problem with intellectual dishonesty. I say that because to conclude what you're attempting, you'd have to completely ignore--on purpose--the rest of the postings in that thread as if they don't exist.

Secondly, so what if I were the hiring manager and I didn't look favorably at a degree from a school who has been publicly questioned by students, faculty, and accreditation authorities about its quality issues? So... WHAT? FYI, that's what a good hiring manager would do. I also said that other factors will need to be up to snuff, and that's reasonable, too.

I have a few issues with UOP. And? Lots of people do. That doesn't make me "anti", it makes me conscious of its issues. You're REALLY reaching...

Bull.

No, TESC crapped/craps all over prospective students with their approach to accepting credits from ACE evaluated programs. Clearly, you're not actually reading enough surrounding what you're posting to gain proper context... kinda makes what you're doing even more pointless than it should be...

Bull.

And?

More bull. I hope you have tall boots on...

What a ridiculously elementary, inaccurate, baseless conclusion, lol.

I love how you can dig up and take out of context, posts from years ago, but ignore a post from like last week where I talked about my prior belief that Nations would never even become accredited, and about its past issues with other parts of their educational model not related to the religious education, that was a reason they had trouble obtaining accreditation.

You're one crack(ed) investigator.

Your wit? Agreed. But in my defense, it is an easy miss to make.

Trill? In slang, it means true and real. So, thanks.

Formally, it means a quavering or vibratory sound, especially a rapid alternation of sung or played notes. My guess is, you either mistyped "troll" (how cute) or you tried to be clever... and failed.

Taking all of your ramblings into account, I'd say you were an Ashford grad, but that would be too unfair an assumption to inflict even on them...

 

Well, in Neuhausian "trill" is what happens when a "shill" and a "troll" fall deeply in love and have a baby...

 

So, gang, what do the fight judges say thus far? Notwithstanding that we know Newhaus, and that Maxwell_Smart is merely another anonymous, um, "trill," I give the first several rounds to Neuhaus. And he's pulling it off without hitting below the belt or engaging in violations of TOS.

Well, for what it's worth, I've found that the best solution is to ignore trolls. Eventually they go away.

As for me, I am, like, totally not into sports. But the way people are debating various schools, it reminds me of how fanatics talk about their favorite football teams. "Nations, Nations, rah-rah-rah!" and all that crap.

I have no idea who this Maxwell_Smart character is, but I do give him a point on "Assford" - that one is actually funny. But merely from the way he uses multiple quotes, I'd say he needs a life.

Well, carry on, kiddies . . .

 

All this discussion about NationsUniversity has made me interested in taking a few courses to see what the quality is. Unless I missed it has anyone with any seminary background taken any of their classes?

 

I'm going to admit that I actually laughed out loud when I read "Assford." I have never taken a course with Ashford and I've heard quite a number of complaints. So the title may well be justified. But it's a pretty fun little burn either way.

Honestly I've been considering the same. The problem is that I have no seminary education. So I can't really take a course and evaluate it's quality. It may very well be challenging to me but it's equally possible that a course at a proper seminary would be impossible. Likewise, I might find it easy. But that could be because I simply have an aptitude for the course material.

One of the problems with student reviews is that the statement "I received a very good education" is very often completely meaningless. I, personally, stand by my CTU education because I took courses at CTU after taking courses at a traditional B&M. I have a basis for comparison. Then again, I can only reasonably compare CTU to the schools I've attended, which includes the University of Scranton. I have a feeling that if I took certain courses at certain elite schools then I would probably feel like ALL of my education was lacking (even the overpriced Jesuit parts of it).*

I think back to high school and how people then chose schools. Some schools were chosen because they had "cool" campuses in interesting locales. Some schools were chosen because they were highly ranked. Nations is unlikely to achieve any significant ranking. But it could, perhaps, prove itself in an academic arena. That goes beyond achieving accreditation (even if our resident Agent 86 seems to feel that Nations having DEAC accreditation means the school is "legit" but that RA accreditation for Ashford doesn't prove anything about the school). That means scholarship. That means pumping out graduates who actually do something with their degrees other than point to it and smirk while saying "See, and it's even marginally accredited!"

I'd say I hope that Nations does step up and prove itself to be a well respected institution of higher learning but the truth is that I don't actually care what they do. Right now they are a non-issue for me. My attitude toward Nations is that they aren't a university. They may have legal right to that title. And they may well be on their way to achieving that goal. But right now, they are a mail order bible study group, in my opinion. That opinion is subject to change as more information becomes available. But I'm not going to give every Mickey Mouse school my hard earned pennies (kids are expensive) to try to either condemn them or vindicate them. I just don't care that much. Nations, to me, has the same status as the countless little career schools I pass when I drive through various cities. I see that they exist. I see that they have dedicated students and alumni. I'm sure Cost Cutters likes that they have a neverending source of cheap labor from those places. And I recognize why, for some people, those schools offer something meaningful.

But just as earning a nationally accredited certificate in "Finance" in a strip mall in Syracuse is not really an ideal business education I don't really regard Nations as being an ideal theological education. It is the religious equivalent of the strip mall school with the certificate of dubious value.


*I don't think that all elite schools are, in every manner, intrinsically better than their lesser known counterparts. However, if you have a course taught by a well known expert in a field (and are lucky enough to have them actually teach a course and not merely put their name to one adminstered solely by a TA) then that's going to be a very different experience from many "lesser" schools.

 

You have a lot of nerve. The irony here is that, by definition, Steve, you actually are a troll based purely on how you post. Ignoring you--and believe me, many people do--certainly hasn't made you go away, so I think the method you offered there has to be re-examined.

Anyway, everyone, except those who post their real names (which has never been a popular thing to do on internet message boards, btw) is anonymous. Big whoop. Making a deal of that is like showing up to a masquerade ball and complaining that nobody is showing their faces. I think the fact that Maxwell told you a thing or two, and you didn't like it, you now have to say something negative about him. That's really lame and awfully immature.

To be honest, your declared love for Neuhaus is contradictory to the standard you've just mentioned, considering the way he posts, which is actually about the same as the way you post, both being awfully disrespectful. It's as if you can't post anything without being disrespectful, so you're the last person on earth who has room to speak that way.

And for the record, Maxwell is "winning" whatever this is. Why? Because he's actually making cogent points. Your buddy is just talking crazy, putting together flimsy points and misusing references, so I have to question your thinking for supporting that.

Clearly, the both of you have a lot of personal growth to do, your ages notwithstanding, and that's truly the sad part. Even sadder is just how oblivious you appear to be to it when you make a post like that. This is just nonsense.

 

Don't sweat it, LA. I don't take Levicoff and his lunchroom-level attacks seriously. Besides, he can't help himself: those exhaust fumes have obviously distorted his judgement.

Hey, keep on truck'in, Stevie boy, keep on truck'in.

 

My oh my we have a little dust up. Neuhaus strings together statements in an articulate fashion (I like word craftsmanship) but if you read carefully they often lack substance, are in response to Neuhaus crafted statements and not in response to what someone actually said, and have no expert insight into the issue at all. Neuhaus just makes statements that in the opinion of Neuhaus something is x. Flowery verbiage but not always substantial. If you take this too seriously my question would be why? I would caution anyone reading these boards about taking people's opinions here as gospel (pardon me...too funny).

For those of you enraged over Neuhaus or other posters remarks and are supportive of Nations (student or otherwise) , you really should want to represent the school well so I would advise you to think about your own approach.

BTW, I do enjoy how Neuhaus writes! If I were in person I would often dig into the statements and enjoy the discussion because they are worth challenging from the point of substance but Neuhaus can turn a phrase.

 

I really have no desire to see this ridiculousness linger on. But I think you're letting your bias cloud your objectivity.

Mr. Smart here has stated that it is ridiculous of me to say that Nations is anything less than a legitimate school because it is accredited. Yet, he feels that "Assworth" being accredited doesn't prove that the school is legitimate. Mr. Smart feels that DEAC accreditation for Nations proves that Nations is good. Yet, he states clearly in other threads that RA doesn't indicate a school isn't crap.

That isn't a cogent argument.

You seem very, very confused by the word cogent. Let me help you.

You see, Mr. Smart is making a valid argument.

That is, regardless of the truth value of his various premises, many of his points would logically follow to a conclusion.

Let's try it in a syllogism:

P1: If all schools accredited are schools that are good and
P2: If Nations is a school that is accredited

C: Then Nations is a school that is good

You see, that's a valid argument. If P1 and P2 are both true then the conclusion logically follows in all possible worlds.

For that point to be cogent the argument must first be valid. Which it is, so step one complete. But the truth value must now be factored in.

P1: All schools that are accredited are good and
P2: Nations is accredited so
C: Nations is a school that is good

With me so far? Excellent.

Now, the problem comes into play with the fact that Mr. Smart has proposed two contradictory arguments which fail to reconcile:

Argument 1:

P1: All schools that are accredited are good and
P2: Nations is accredited so:
C: Nations is a school that is good

and Argument 2:

P1: Some schools that are accredited are bad
P2: Ashford is accredited
P3: Ashford is bad
C: There is at least one accredited school that is bad and that school is Ashford

Now, the problem is that those two arguments, as standalone syllogisms are both equally valid. We can't fully evaluate cogency because the terms "good" and "bad" are subjective so their truth value cannot be readily ascertained. The truth value of "The street is wet" is observable. The truth value of "the school is bad" is not. It is a matter of opinion.

So, even if we ignore the fact that you can't actually determine the truth value of Maxwell's statements about Nations, the fact that he has two conflicting statements about accreditation really undercut any claim at cogency.

But hey, you know what, you keep on playing with logic and hiding behind your mask. Because you see, unlike your ridiculous masquerade party (an example that probably would have flown in the internet world of 1998), it's more like you are a person who keeps showing up to professional conferences and social events and uses an alias because you're afraid of...something.

I certainly hope you didn't study logic at Nations. If you did, then you've validated most of the criticisms of its academics.

If you are too cowardly to make the statement under your real name then that's your business. But let's call it like it is. You really, really like Nations and you hate that someone thinks Nations is a joke. So you're going to call your opposition names and state that it's all just "crazy talk."

 

Isn't he Agent 86?

 

There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

 

Sigh. Just sigh.

 

They did it whoo hoo. I graduated in 2013 with their MRS degree. Unfortunately, it was before accreditation. I am currently asking them if they have a way that MRS grads can get credit toward the MTH degree somehow with more work and get awarded that one. I don't know what will happen. If not, the MDIV will be my only option. I should have done what others did and waited to take my last class but I was so sure it was going to happen in 2013. We will see. Nations missed getting accredited the last two years due to silly technicalities. They had their site visits etc back in 2012 or so and were working very hard these years. I am happy for them.