Terminal Non-RA Religious Degrees

www.adventistchaplains.org/pdf/finding.pdf

In his article Finding Your Way Through the Maze of Education and Accreditation Dr. Martin Feldbush states that for those who already have the accredited credentials they need for certification in their area of ministry, further study at a good unaccredited school might be OK.

There seems to be a trend among some in this direction, i.e., earning RA undergrad, grad and even D.Min. & Ed.D. degrees, then going with a substantive unaccredited Ph.D. The D.Min., Ed.D. or other professional doctorates provide all that is needed for their career goals/objectives, and they go the unaccredited Ph.D. route. The Ph.D. is not essential as a degree for certification or to gain a faculty position, but is for their own continuing education. Seeking a substantive unaccredited program (and there are a few) for these individuals appears to be a viable option. At least they think so.

 

I know of a few people in my field (Social Work) who have done essentially the same thing. They've earned their RA MSW and have subsequently become licensed in whatever state they live/work. They then go out and ?earn a non-RA doctoral degree of some sort. Because the MSW is a terminal professional degree (I guess) they don't need a doctoral degree to get hired or do private practice. Their PhDs are sometimes in completely different fields - perhaps they're just pursuing another interest. Sometimes they put the "PhD" after their names (usually preceded by the "MSW") and sometimes they don't. Does it work for them? I don't know. I've never heard any horror stories. Is it a good idea? Well, I wouldn't do it but there are at least a couple of programs that seem geared toward this group so I'm guessing that it must be a reasonably popular route to follow.
Jack

 

Vladika Russell: I see your point. However, if I'm going to do the work for a doctorate (not necessary for me professionally at all), I sure want the thing accredited, whether RA, NA, or legit overseas (SA, Australia, UK, or other real arena). After all, careers sometimes change in unexpected ways, and what was purely for private benefit might become a usable career credential. If the work is real either way--and I know you aren't for a moment suggesting anything where that's not the case--why not go with the accredited option?
I'm not saying there's no rationale for non-accredited options, but I don't know what it would be. Your source mentions a few such worthwhile options. What are they, and what is the rationale for taking the non-accredited route?

 

If the goal is continuing education, why bother to earn a Ph.D. at all? Why not just take additional graduate coursework or something? It seems to be that the *degree title* is often the object here.

I think that a lot of people who do this, clergymen, counselors and so on, use the title as a marketing tool. The intention is to raise one's profile by capitalizing on the general public's respect for education.

But if a degree is such that it would not earn the respect and acceptance of informed professional peers, is it really ethical to use it to impress the uninformed general public?

 

I think that we probably should differentiate between unaccredited contiuing education and unaccredited degrees.

Choosing an unaccredited educational option might be motivated by anything from attraction to a unique program, through desire to study with a particular individual, through a desire to kill boredom.

Using a nonaccredited degree is more of a problem.

I can see it in getting admitted to the CA bar exam.

I can see it in a narrow sectarian context. The national seminary of the Buddhist Church of America (Jodo Shinshu) is CA-approved. If you want to be a clergyman in that denomination, that's where you go.

I can see it in a small number of narrow professional contexts. The National Test Pilot School is CA-approved, but is the only civilian school that offers graduate degrees in flight test and evaluation. (You can get an RA degree in the subject from the Naval Postgraduate School if you are military.) The NTPS school is well known in its industry and teaches contract courses for everyone from the American FAA to the Australian RAAF.

There may be subcultures that reognize certain non-accredited schools as adaquate or even prestigious. Bob Jones University, the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality or Hsi Lai University are three *very* different examples of that. All of them have their own constituencies.

If a student's interests are seriously non-traditional, a seriously non-traditional school might be most appropriate. If you are a parapsychologist, the dean of the CA-approved University of Philosophical Research is Jeffrey Mishlove, the only guy ever to earn a Ph.D. in parapsychology from UC Berkeley. (It was an interdisciplinary self-designed major.) I'd expect that groups such as Ufologists don't worry a whole lot about accreditation.

I think that non-accredited degrees work best where there are additional certifying examinations such as the bar exam, where the program fills a particular need in a restricted context that's already predisposed to accept it, or where the program is unique in some way.

 

---------------------------------------


Suppose there are a few rigorous non accredited docs in Religion. Bill D. and Unk make good points:


If one must put forth the same effort to do an unaccredited DL program, but is qualified to do an accredited one DL, which is suggested by the circumstances you describe of having lesser accredited degrees, why not complete the accredited as Unk recommends?? Given the availability of UK, Aus, and SA DL programs , some very inexpensive, one wonders what the drawing powers of the non accredited program might be. Perhaps the convenient enrollment? Perhaps the confusion over accreditation? Perhaps the perception that the accredited program would in fact entail more diligence with a higher bar to get over? Then we have the issue of future needs.

Who knows the future? This pastor? How does he/she know what opprtunities may be available to him in the future with an accredited doc. How does the pastor know what utility he will need? We see how unaccredited programs have impaired the ministry of some. If that one is so accurate in prediction, I've got a horserace for which I could use the aid of those psychic powers. But if utility is no concern then why is a doc needed?

But perhaps as Bill D. suggests, some may wish the title not the learning. One needs no PhD to maintain ministerial skills, and one with an MDiv should be able to design his own learning experiences.

 

"might be okay"

Good points made above, and I especially like the points made by Bill Dayson. Let me put two statements together:

and:

Indeed, it seems that if the "PhD" being used by the minister, counselor, etc. is not pursued for these kinds of reasons it's a degree intended to be used for marketing ministerial respect by diluting traditionally sweat-earned credentials.

Can't we usually tell which is which just by the subject matter of the degree? That is, if the N/A doc. is in an area that is widely studied (counseling, ministry, biblical studies, etc) than it is not a "unique program." If it is a desire to study under a particular individual, this can be done with more graduate work that is not terminal. Furthermore, if one wants to kill boredom, there are trillions of ways to do this without "terminating" one's education.

In other words, in my humble opinion, it is very easy to tell the difference between those in ministerial circles who want to use a degree to sell something and those who earned it. And none of these reasons are listed on the link above as justifications for a N/A degree. In fact, the link lists no particular reasons at all for earning one. One "might be okay."

In my opinion, a N/A degree requires an adequate reason besides sheer ignorance (my personal reason for earning a N/A degree). If it is higher than a B.A., I think ignorance becomes much less of an excuse. In that case, one needn't reassure someone he/she will "be okay." Even if they desire to gain returns from it, they should not be expecting it. That is, assuming all such non-ignorant doctoral students are, in fact, aware they are being borderline deceptive.

???

Chris

 

Re: "might be okay"

I would like to suggest that we establish a standard for using intials. N/A above means non acredited. Others use N/A to mean Nationally Accredited.

May I suggest:

U/A for Unaccredited
N/A for Nationally Accredited

Incidentally, I agree with those who have an issue with earning an unaccredited degree for the purposes of using it professionally for status. With so many accredited options available (RA/NA/Foreign) I do not see the need for an unaccredited doctorate. I have a great deal of respect for Russell's opinion but am not sure about this area. Most people get a doctorate and intend to use the intials even if the primary purpose was love of learning. I intend to use the initials but personally have no interest in being called 'Dr.". For counselors and clergy the doctorate can be professionally important and because this is the case I would stick with Regionally Accredited/Nationally Accredited/Foreign Equivalent. Just my opinion.

North

 

maybe i should have said something on that too. i have seen it used, i suppose, both ways. maybe i just misused the "N/A" and with great zeal decided to change the definition. i hereby pronounce all of Chris Green's N/A degrees to be "U/A"

!

 

Re: "might be okay"

.......................................................


I think that given my year of lapsarian learning in that accreditationally speaking inutile Indiana institution, I can rightfully make some observations:

(1) there are some unaccredited schools where one in fact does do a fair amount of work to graduate, and therefore one does 'earn' the degree and can be proud of the genuine learning that can occur. This becomes less likely as the degree becomes more advanced. I would not disvalue all (just practically all) non accred programs ,and I'm sure Chris is not doing this either. But even were equal rigor expended in the nonaccred program does not mean its worth translates into anything worthwhile in academe or that it will be accepted by those in the know. In fact, it could become a millstone around the neck diverting all attention from any other more noble academic successes of the one now bowed by its weight! So why do it?

(2) postings on the discussion forum of that referenced school regularly evinces that many with grad RA degrees still know little about accreditation. Just before I was booted off said forum a ThM from Dallas was asking if he should enroll

(3) it is a fact that American aspirants of advanced degrees often know little about DL opportunities, particularly those outside the USA , in higher Christian Ed. We need a voice , like Russell's, crying in the wilderness the virtues and availability of such opportunities ; instead he fishes for minnows in the mudpool of unaccredited PhDs.

 

Re: Re: "might be okay"

If one reads the original post very carefully one finds that I did not recommend the virtues of unaccredited terminal degrees, rather, I commented on the article and on what I have seen among some.

 

Re: Re: "might be okay"

 

Re: Re: Re: "might be okay"

-----------------------

Admitted! But Russell I know of your history of defending these on this very board.

 

Bill, you aren't talking about my myriad posts regarding a certain school in Newburgh are you?

 

As for the use of a non-accredited PhD for marketing in the area of psychology/counseling, it is unethical and possibly illegal to use a PhD that is not RA and relevant to the area of licensure if you practice in Alabama. This is for both the Licensed Counselor and Psychologist. Further, you cannot advertise yourself as Dr. You must use, John Doe, Ph.D.

 

Well, there's always Evansville...

 

As in MDS?

 

--------------------------

I was sort of teasing and half sincere too. But if I've misapplied or misinterpreted your past comments on such as Bethany, then I'm at fault. But you know, sometimes, old pal, as in this thread, you do not make your opinions clear..at least it seems so to me. But sorry.

 

Bill,

My position has always been that not all unaccredited schools are degree mills. There are some which offer substantive academic programs. I have openly stated along with Bear, Baker, Walston, etc. that in some scenarios an unaccredited [religious/theological] degree may be acceptable and meet one's need. One must enter the ballpark with an understanding the the unaccredited degree will be limited in its utility. Just a few observations:

1. With the myriad undergrad opportunities which are RA I would not encourage one to take the unaccredited route at this level.

2. At the graduate level, e.g., if an unaccredited M.Div. is accepted by one's denomination for ordination, then this might be a viable option. Even Baker takes this position.

3. At the doctoral level, there may be those who have RA undergrad/grad degrees who choose an unaccredited doctorate, and it may indeed meet their objectives. Examples of this are very successful pastors such as Charles Stanley, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has a Luther Rice doctorate. Another Luther Rice doctorate holder is the wife of Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Seminary. She is listed as faculty at SBS with a Luther Rice doctorate. Both Patterson and Stanley earned the LRS doctorate before LRS was TRACS accredited. Neither individual is commiting fraud, practicing immoral ethics or deceiving their peers. They earned what they earned--an unaccredited doctorate. Will they teach at Harvard with these degrees? No! But my hunch is they would not want to. I'm sure they are aware of the limited utility of their degree, but they use it.

Ultimately, my position is that RA is the route to take as it is the most advantageous and has the most utility.

Russell, whose

BA is RA.
MA is RA/ATS.
D.Min. is RA/ATS.
Clinical Pastoral Education is ACPE.
Certified Ministerial Training is denominationally approved.
Teaching has been only at RA schools.

And who is a pragmatist--taking the position that RA is the best route to take; but who is also a realist--knowing that for a limited few, non-RA has sometimes met the need.

 

................................

Bill- I also am a realist and wonder why gamble or even mess with something requiring such qualifiers as : "limited", "few", "sometimes" ?