Louisiana Baptist University's ASIC Accreditation Noted on Website

Most people want a degree they can use, and most people want a return on their investment. That applies to accredited and unaccredited schools. There are accredited universities where the average graduate sees zero or negative ROI. If this is understandable when it comes to unaccredited colleges, then it should be understandable when it comes to accredited colleges.

https://freopp.org/whitepapers/is-college-worth-it-a-comprehensive-return-on-investment-analysis/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/12/the-top-10-most-regretted-college-majors.html

 

My assumption would be that someone earning an unaccredited degree is not expecting to get much return on investment and is doing it more to get the degree and learn whatever subject it is. I say that in terms of the few unaccredited schools that actually provide some sort of standard education.

There are of course diploma mills out there where people are simply trying to get a degree from them and sometimes the title with little expectation of actually doing much work. I have read people justifying a little amount of work (including supposedly religious people).

Having said all of that, I do periodically see people that complete unaccredited degrees and then are disappointed that they can't get into accredited schools or use them like an accredited degree. That is baffling and almost like they expected somehow it would magically all work out.

 

I suspect that most people who get a PhD from schools like lbu are not naive enough to believe they will graduate and then go get a job as a professor at an accredited seminary or other college. It is simply a way to meet a life goal, enhance their prestige with a doctorate, and at some sort of reasonable cost. They get the experience of the classes and dissertation and graduation without a massive amount of debt.

Of course in many cases you get what you pay for. I have no idea whether lbu is up to par with accredited PHD programs. I suspect it is not. Perhaps somewhat close like a TEMU version. And there is always the possibility that using the degree will bring some level of derision. But honestly I have seen the derision with University of Phoenix degrees including one case where somebody was earning a doctorate and people were snickering behind his back.

 

This is likely true for many LBU graduates. However, claiming useless accreditation is just misleading. It is trying to deceive to enroll students that don’t know any better. That puts LBU into the misleading bogus dishonest category.

 

I’ve just looked up the current tuition rate at two existing schools that you mentioned in your original thought experiment. From a strictly financial perspective, I really don’t see any reason to choose them over accredited doctoral program alternatives. If someone did choose them (at this particular point in time) based on the cost advantage, he evidently made a mistake. And let’s not forget that the individuals will end up with an unaccredited doctorate, which is largely worthless. And that’s also assuming that the quality of the received doctoral education is better than at most unaccredited schools, which is yet to be established.

Louisiana Baptist University has a tuition rate of $249 per credit at the doctoral level. They also have additional fees like enrollment ($495) and graduation fees ($280). Let’s take their 60-credit PhD program as an example. The tuition alone reaches $14,940 USD. When you add the other fees, you end up paying $15,715 USD or more.

Graduate Theological Foundation gives you the estimated cost of their PhD, while noting that it may differ based on the concentration. This degree costs $25,170 USD.

I am confident that you can find accredited doctorates (academic or professional-oriented at institutions from around the world) for this amount of money.

 

Yes, there is a minority of students who don't care whether they'll be able to use their degree for a job or whether they'll make back the money spent. That is true for accredited and unaccredited colleges. To me, personally, it does not make sense to pay for a degree that is likely to have negative ROI because there is usually a better alternative.

 

LBU, Andersonville, and Forge all claim relatively meaningless accreditation. It can be confusing to potential students but what I have noticed in more than one case the students themselves participate and are self deluding about it because they see value in being able to say "my degree/school is accredited but for ethical and high sounding biblical reasons they aren't/won't be accredited by agencies with government recognition".

 

Excellent point!

I think we've had our share of that type individual running around this very board on occasion!

 

And in three cases I can think of there were schools that had high sounding statements and even pamphlets explaining why they would not even accept a US Department of Education/CHEA recognized religious accreditor. And Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, and West Coast Baptist College (not to be confused with West Coast Bible College) ALL BECAME accredited by US Department of Education/CHEA recognized accreditors. They rationalized the switch when it met their need/ability for whatever reason.

There is both a credibility and utility gap between accredited and unaccredited schools. Also, an issue of stewardship. Schools that get accredited by unrecognized accreditors know this.

 

It doesn't really bother me when institutions of higher education have their anti-government stances; I just dislike when institutions mislead prospective students or display hypocrisy.

1. Claiming unrecognized accreditation is misleading. I have more respect for schools that remain unaccredited and don't claim accreditation from unrecognized agencies.

2. ASIC is involved with a government, so the anti-government argument doesn't hold here.

3. Setting up articulation agreements with properly accredited colleges goes against the anti-government philosophy. It also signals to your students that the unaccredited degree doesn't hold any value on its own.

4. One unaccredited seminary I looked into has professors and leadership currently seeking degrees at accredited institutions and foreign public institutions.

 

To your point number four I have seen that too. I think what happens is that people want a doctorate and sometimes want a more affordable route and perhaps one with no travel involved. They get the doctorate and then either realize that there isn't the utility in it or sometimes that they even did a commensurate amount of work but without the accredited degree. And also I think in some cases there's a funny feeling that you have accepted the title of doctor and have a doctorate but you don't have a real one and so they go back and add on an accredited doctorate of some kind. It provides a sense of legitimacy and eliminates the feeling of dissonance.

 

What does that say to the students, though? They've explained on their websites why they are not seeking accreditation to convince prospective students to apply and pay their tuition. But, the professors and administration don't even think the unaccredited degrees are good enough, so they're seeking degrees from government-regulated institutions.

I can understand earning a degree from an accredited institution and changing one's mind later, but selling unaccredited degrees to others on some moral objection while simultaneously earning an accredited degree yourself is a different story.

 

I think in Michael's case whatever political, theological, or personal differences one may have with him, he is obviously quite bright and with multiple accredited graduate degrees and relative youth on his side it would behoove him to earn an accredited doctorate. He not only has plans for one but two.

By earning either or both he adds credibility to the Forge venture (which appears earnest about providing credible theological education).

 

Isn't the argument that government regulation doesn't and shouldn't add credibility? This sounds like an indirect way of receiving government validation.

 

My general feeling is that most schools that aren't in a position to get accredited (financial or other qualitative or quantitative issues) concoct the governmental justification. It is nonsense in general as evidenced by those of higher quality that flip when they can or are suffering due to a lack of accreditation.

 

Fyi. Here is LBU's accreditation statement. I believe it just went up today.

"Accreditation
We are proudly accredited by ASIC, a prestigious global accreditation firm. Additionally, LBU is registered with the Louisiana Board of Regents, authorized to grant degrees, and subjected to an annual review. Beyond these credentials, LBU undergoes rigorous peer reviews with partner institutions, consistently maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and excellence. Join us, and you will be proud to become an alum of LBU!

LBU is registered with the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), an organization accrediting schools across the USA and foreign countries."

 

I'm looking at the LBU website, and I don't see an explanation for why they, as an American institution, do not have American accreditation. That is deceptive. Their Wikipedia page also does not explain why they are not properly accredited. ASIC's wiki entry says that they are approved by the UK government to accredit private UK institutions for visa purposes.

Below in italics is from the ASIC website. This is just another way of saying that, outside of the UK, they're like a consulting firm. Their website has a lot of language around collaboration and consulting for quality improvement. If ASIC is on par with government-recognized accreditors in the U.S. or government regulators in other countries, then these institutions should be able to obtain recognition in their own countries after meeting ASIC standards. ASIC doesn't appear to be much cheaper than DEAC.

ASIC began as an independent regulatory body providing quality assurance for the international education sector on behalf of the UK Government. In the beginning, overseas institutions approached us for consultancy; to help develop their internal QA processes in line with best pedagogical practices globally. We were quick to recognise the demand for our services and the need for an international benchmark, drawing upon the expertise and heritage of the UK education sector whilst remaining open to learning from best-practice in other countries. Over time our remit and global footprint have grown. Our accreditation is now recognised worldwide as a benchmark of the highest quality.

 

To prevent the hypocrisy of which sanantone speaks, I think that unaccredited religious schools should drop the pretense of offering any types of academic or university-comparable degree credentials, as these programs normally require the presence/hiring of faculty with strong academic backgrounds at Master’s and PhD level, preferably from accredited universities, if a school wants to show forth its high standards in the absence of accreditation. This then naturally leads to the situation where you have unaccredited seminary presidents and faculty extolling the virtues of unaccredited education, while being simultaneously enrolled in programs at accredited-only institutions, a “good for thee but not for me” type of situation.


I’d much rather see U.S. religious-exempt institutions grant qualifications (professional religious degrees/diplomas?) with a strong connection to ministry. These institutions could even be run by a single pastor or an elder team with a non-academic background. The university-like academic faculty at a U.S. religious exempt school wouldn’t be the norm under this proposal, which might prevent the race for legitimizing degrees from accredited institutions.


Personally, I think that degrees like PhDs in Biblical Studies or Theology earned at quasi-academic religious exempt, unaccredited colleges are close to worthless. I would like to see them banned. Religious exempt colleges are not part of the academic world. If you want to grant academic degrees as a seminary, you should meet much higher standards and normal accreditation requirements, just like any other academic institution. I don’t see why theology should be exempt from these high standards. In many European countries, theological faculties are part of regular, secular universities. Theological schools likewise have to meet certain standards to grant academic degrees in the field.

 

Yes, Michael is obviously quite bright. Very bright people can still be wrong. He is no expert on educational accreditation yet it's a topic than he seems to love to pontificate on.

 

I suspect he pontificates for the purpose of pontificating or wishful thinking BUT he knows better.