Graduates of TRACS

A few additional institutions that could easily have chosen to go the ATS/RA route, but, for whatever reason, chose TRACS instead:

Christian Heritage College (www.christianheritage.edu). This school had enjoyed wide acceptance among more conservative Christian institutions.

King's Seminary (www.kingseminary.edu). This institution in California is quite new. However, it has some high-powered Pentecostal scholars serving as administrators and faculty members.

Michigan Theological Seminary (www.mts.edu). Stong faculty; solid programs (strictly residential).

Also, let's not forget that, just a couple of years ago, a master's graduate of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary in Tacoma, WA (www.faithseminary.edu) was accepted into the PhD program in Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins. The folks at JHU were quite impressed by the fact that two of his recommendations had come from Faith Seminary faculty members who, themselves, held doctorates from Claremont.

Another interesting institution that currently is a candidate for TRACS accreditation is Mars Hill Graduate School (www.marshillgradschool.org). I'll be interested to see what the future holds for this institution.

Cory

 

Re: Re: Well, since you asked . . .

I too have great respect for Steve's research regarding Christian DL programs. NIFI was one of the reasons I became interested in this whole subculture.

The book of which you speak, "When the TRACS Stop Short," was written before TRACS achieved USDoE/CHEA approval/recognition. At that time it was uncertain whether TRACS would achieve such recognition, to be frank many were sceptical that it would ever happen. However, the TRACS did not stop short, as they now enjoy USDoE/CHEA recognition. Is this RA? No. But neither is it realistic to base one's current opinion on research which is almost a decade old. I wish Steve would update NIFI in a 2002 format. It would be most interesting to see what changes have occurred, which schools have gotten worse, better, gone out of business, etc.

 

Very informative Cory!

I too saw Mars Hill Graduate School. I do not know in what context I have heard of them before but the name is familiar.

North

 

re: TRACS accreditation

I find it interesting that Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary is regionally accredited, as well as through TRACS. Their programs are respected on the conservative side of the aisle, and their professors are well published and academically credible. The same could be said of Temple Baptist Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary, except that they are not regionally accredited.

Whatever can be said of other TRACS schools (I am not familiar with them all), there are some good ones.

 

For the record, I also doubt that ATS and TRACS will ever get along. All of the TRACS schools I have looked at hold to a very conservative position on matters such as the inspiration of the Bible. Many (although certainly not all) ATS schools/professors hold very liberal positions on such topics.

Regardless of the academic rigor expected of the students, many professors will say that school "X" lacks "serious" scholarship, referring to the school's doctrinal position.

 

Tuition is inordinately expensive at $345 per credit hour. There are RA/ATS programs which do not cost this much. Tuition for the doctoral program at Erskine (RA/ATS, Associate Reformed Presbyterian) is less than $250 per hour.

 

I believe that Christian Heritage is accredited by both WASC and TRACS. I don't know why they chose to do that. Perhaps TRACS gives them more credibility in a very theologically conservative Christian environment than RA alone would.

Dallas Theological Seminary is both RA and ATS, isn't it? They seem pretty conservative. So it appears that neither the regional accreditors nor ATS is put off too badly by conservative theology. Theological conservatives may feel like Daniel in the lion's den, but apparently they won't be summarily denied, either.

All this makes me wonder what the theologically relevant differences between RA, TRACS and ATS really are. Do RA and ATS make conservative institutions feel pressured to compromise something important? Does TRACS expect any kind of doctrinal commitment from its member schools? (Like Biblical inerrancy?)

If a student chooses a TRACS school, what is he or she getting into, besides the familiar RA/non-RA issue that we are all familiar with? Is anything more implied by this accreditation?

 

TRACS defenders:

So which do you prefer:

An exclusively TRACS degree or an exclusively RA degree?

Begging the question by pointing out dual accreditations doesn't cut it. TRACS was started to support an academic fraternity for creationism (Henry Morris). Instead of simply pointing out the more respected schools, why not list the least? Seems honest to me, instead of trying to spin TRACS rep.

Plus, I don't give a rip for your def. of GAAP. The intent of GAAP (which has been a changing definition since day-one) is to ID programs that have wide acceptance and utility on a global basis). In other words, could you take *any* TRACS accredited degree and expect the same utility as RA?

Take your TRACS degree and see how far it gets you. To say that such a degree has solid utility is ridiculous.

 

I'm not a TRACS defender. But I'm not sure that I want to attack it unnecessarily, either. My interest is in developing a more sophisticated view of its strengths and weaknesses, and in forming a sense of when choice of a TRACS program is wise and when it isn't.

I'll speak semi-hypothetically from my own situation. I'm not a Christian. But assuming that I were, I'm 53 years old and would be pursuing a doctorate avocationally in order to better understand religion and theology, and perhaps to refine my own faith. I would not be contemplating a career in either university teaching or the clergy, though I wouldn't want to shut those doors either. Things do change.

In my case, I'm a lot more interested in the educational experience than in the ultimate degree. I already have a masters degree and feel no need to collect diplomas. But I do feel an intense need to continue learning and developing intellectually. That means that I look closely at what courses graduate schools offer to see if they address my interests. I look at the faculty to see what they are doing. Accreditation is a secondary consideration.

So to answer your question, I would choose an RA program, all things being equal. But all things are seldom equal. In real life there may be no RA program available. If there is, it may only accept young academic careerists, want a full-time residential commitment, be way too expensive or not offer a program that's of any interest to me.

If a credible non-RA program made me an offer that I couldn't refuse, then I wouldn't refuse it. I also wouldn't generalize my decision to apply to others. Each person has unique needs, interests and goals, and has to make his/her own choices in life. All I can do is give my opinion.

I didn't beg your question, I finessed it. And if you are going to reply, you will have to lose the two-fisted attitude and make a response that addresses real people's real needs.

I've heard similar things, but don't know whether to believe them. I know that several TRACS schools teach a literal 6-day creation etc. But is that true of all of them? Is this kind of thing written into their accreditation requirements, either explicitly or implicitly?

If you know something interesting about TRACS doctrinal requirements, please tell us. This is what I was asking about in my last post.

Utility is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? If a school, whether RA, DETC, TRACS or even CA-approved, meets my needs, then it has utility. Reading books and journal articles in a library has plenty of utility, but it has no accreditation at all. But any number of RA or ATS programs have no utility at all for a guy like me.

I think that you are arguing against a straw man of your own creation, Engaged Org. Nobody in this thread that I know of has equated TRACS with RA or ATS. Nobody has suggested that it has the same utility. But you seem to be demanding that everyone agree with you that TRACS-accredited schools have no utility at all, and that they are always a bad choice for every student. Is that realistic?

 

It appears that two separate points of view are being debated as though they were one. 1) Will "any" TRACS degree have the same utility as RA?; and, 2) Can a TRACS degree have solid utility? The two are not identical and should be debated separately.

1. It isn't an issue of certain TRACS programs having the equivalence of RA. No TRACS degree will have the same utility as RA because it is not RA. Only a RA degree will have RA utility.

2. Just because a TRACS degree may not enjoy RA utility, doesn't mean it has no utility. In many contexts it may indeed enjoy solid utility, with solid being defined as meeting the objective. For those who were admitted to military chaplaincy on a TRACS degree, the credential certainly had utility for them.

 

Re: Re: Re: Well, since you asked . . .

I think a good case could be made that Steve's book helped to give the necessary nudge to TRACS to get them in shape for DOE/CHEA approval.


Bruce

 

It seems to me that if one has to get in shape for DOE/CHEA then DOE/CHEA recognition actually means something. There are those who seem to feel that RA is the only way. If this is the case then why does DOE/CHEA recognition even exist?

 

Accreditation by an agency recognized by the USDE/CHEA does mean something; in fact, I'd say that's exactly what the recognition translates to. It's the USDE and CHEA, the two organizations that evaluate accrediting agencies, saying "This accreditation means something."

On the other hand, RA is the gold standard--RA degrees have wider acceptance than DETC or TRACS degrees, and this is why they're often a better deal. The gist of the argument from the RA-only crowd seems to be "If you have the option of picking the gold standard, why go with a silver standard?" It's a persuasive argument when it comes to first undergraduate degrees, where there are RA programs that are actually cheaper and more flexible than the nationally accredited alternatives, but the situation is less clear-cut when it comes to graduate and certificate programs.


Cheers,

 

Well Put Tom. I would agree for the BA degree RA would seem the way to go. However I believe it is a rather long process for a school to get RA approval. It seems that those schools that exist with right intentions and good faculty have something to offer even if they never achieve RA status. I feel rather sorry for good school with solid programs yet do not have the ability as yet to be RA.

 

It is for this reason that i am a fan of DETC and TRACS. They along with RA make sure that Degree MIlls stay out of the mix, and yet are a viable and legitemate alternative to RA

 

Because the government is faced with the problem of destributing funds to educational institutions and to the students that attend them. They don't want taxpayer's money to go to degree mills, but there are thousands of degree granting schools out there and the government doesn't want to examine all of them.

So they recognize accreditors that enforce standards that involve real credible educational experiences. So sure, obviously this accreditation is valuable and means something.

The question is whether the education meets the standards expected by a profession or in a scholarly field. And even if it does, whether the particular degrees have the desired recognition and utility among professional peers and employers.

Just because the US Department of Education decides that schools accredited by ABCD are valuable enough to qualify their students for federal financial aid doesn't necessarily imply that ABCD-accredited schools are the academic equal of RA-accredited schools. It certainly doesn't imply that employers, graduate schools or professional associations must recognize the ABCD degrees.

Of course, many of the facts about relative quality and recognition remain unknown or controversial at this point.

My feeling is that if things are otherwise equal, a prospective student probably should go for the better recognized alternative. If things aren't equal, then you have trade-offs and things get complicated. But when a student chooses a less recognized alternative, it should be with full awareness of the possible consequences.

 

I certainly agree with that. We just need to remain realistic.

BTW, it's Degreeinfo heresy to say this, but I'm fond of some of the CA-approved schools too. (But I wouldn't recommend them except in special cases.)

I like the idea that in the United States people can get together to start schools and institutes without them having to be government sponsored or having to meet a single set of mandatory and monolithic requirements. I very much like the fact that we have lots of alternatives.

But it's an inevitable fact of life that freedom always implies responsibility. If we have greater freedom to operate a wider variety of schools, that carries with it the responsibility to understand them and to make more difficult choices.

 

I can relate, Bill; I've considered CCU more than once myself. Until the DETC is able to accredit Ph.D.'s, CA-approved schools really seem to be the only U.S. options many of us have.


Cheers,

 

Tom i had the same experience when i was looking at going to Trinity (Newburgh) I am still not conviced they are a degree mill but ACCS which is TRACS accredited seemed to be a better choise. I personally hope Trinity gets better accreditation but right now i would not invest in them.

 

Trinity (IN) is persuing accreditation by a USDOE recognized accreditor, but that may/may not develop. Given the two choices, IMO, you made the better one. Best wishes in your ACCS degree program.