Time for Religious Seminary Mills to end...

I'll say what almost everyone else is thinking; shady, unaccredited religious schools have given us some of the best entertainment over the years. I'd hate to see us deprived of that in the future.

 

Here are a few reasons that make entities such as those described above problematic:

1. If a "small potato" religious entity wants to offer religious training of some type, all well and good. Why must the end product be called a "degree?" Numerous types of training can be offered with the end result being a "certificate" or "diploma." When this is the training paradigm, I for one would have absolutely no problem with any religious organization having an unaccredited arm of the ministry offering training and awarding certificates/diplomas.

2. When one speaks of an academic degree, there are specific academic norms or givens in regard to what constitutes a program of study leading to a particular degree (e.g., a BA involves completing approximately 120 semester hours of study; an academic doctorate involves completing a dissertation that follows the scientific method and meets very specific and regimented norms; etc.). When an individual touts a particular degree, the person is saying to all who listen that he/she has completed a program of study that meets the given norms for said degree. Case in point, if I place on a business card "John Doe, PhD," and have not completed a program of study that followed the given norms for said degree, I am absolutely being fraudulent.

 

That quote is from Neuhaus, not me.

 

You're correct. No idea how that happened.

 

Hey b4cz28, I notice you've noted "DEAC" in your sig for Nations. I've never seen anyone note the accreditor before. I'm curious, what prompted you to do it?

 

That's wholly irrelevant to the fact that there are legitimate seminaries, associated with mainstream denominations (and otherwise), that issue perfectly "legitimate" though unaccredited degrees.

To do away with the system entirely because there are abusers of the system, to the detriment of those who operate properly and in good faith, is, as Steve says, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

Let me flip that around, why should a "small potato" school be required to operate differently than every other seminary just because they refuse, or are unable to obtain, third party accreditation from a private entity in a legal landscape where said third party accreditation has always been held to be "voluntary?"

If I start the First Church of Neuhaus and then open Joseph Neuhaus Seminary for the training of clergy for service in the First Church of Neuhaus, exactly how does it impact you if JNS awards its graduates a Master of Divinity rather than a "Diploma of Divinity." Please spare me the abstract toddler stomping of how it denigrates your "legitimate" degree. I want a real, tangible example of how this impacts you, or anyone, in any appreciable manner.

The fact is, even in your example of "academic degrees" you opted for two degrees which are typically not considered "religious" degrees. OK, I see how a B.A. might ruffle your feathers. I get how a Ph.D. might cause some stares. But please, tell me how a Bachelor of Divinity or a Doctor of Divinity impacts your ability to function as an academic.

Because here's the reality, every example you've given of why St. Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary should absolutely not be permitted to award the M.A. that they award to graduates (who all serve the Ukrainian Orthodox Church), has been based on some issue you have with Louisiana Baptist University. You've reduced the entire question of unaccredited degrees to Louisiana Baptist University. Even though the only thing LBU and St. Sophia's has in common is that they are unaccredited, you seem content to treat St. Sophia's as though they do the exact same sort of thing as LBU as if every unaccredited school is like LBU. Doesn't that really seem like a reasonable assertion?

And for all of the LBU hating, we've shown how their PhDs are proudly featured at Liberty University programs, at least one person gained admission to another evangelical law school and countless other examples of how their religious affiliation matters more than their lack of accreditation. And I would bet that we can find an equal number of St. Sophia grads, with their unaccredited masters degrees proudly displayed, teaching and lecturing at St. Vladimir's, St. Tikhon's and Holy Cross (all three accredited).

What I'm suggesting is that you're letting one school color your entire view of a very broad field. And worse, you'd use that tainted view to govern policy and deprive small schools of their freedom to operate in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Why should small religious groups insist on awarding degrees? Simple. Because since the founding of this country they've been allowed to do so. To tell School A that they can no longer do it because School C is a bad operator is a bit dumb. Punish school C. Make some rules that prevent School C from operating while allowing School A to operate unmolested. Otherwise, lobby congress to approve a Buddhist, a liberal Jewish (the only faith based accreditor for Jewish seminaries is very, very Orthodox and doesn't accredit Reform or Conservative schools though those movements constitute the bulk of the U.S. Jewish community), an interfaith and a liberal Christian accreditor for these bodies to pursue affordable accreditation through and possibly we'd be on the same page.

Canada does a lot of things right. Religious freedom, however, is not one of those things.

 

I've seen it here, usually when someone has a mix of degrees with difference accreditation. Nations is fairly new to the accredited ranks, and some predicted that they wouldn't achieve it, so the designation could be helpful for those who don't know.

 

That, or it was thrown in there to drive Steve Levicoff crazy. :biggrin:

 

I think that in a few cases there are good reasons for the existence of non-accredited religious schools, such as lack of suitable accreditors. Neuhaus already spoke to that.

I know of one religious school in particular, which I happen to like. It isn't Christian, so TRACS, ABHE and ATS aren't applicable. It doesn't offer any DL and it isn't a 'career' school.

It's currently in talks with WASC and has been deemed by WASC to qualify for 'eligibility' to apply for candidacy, which I hope is coming. I know that this school's finances have been iffy at best, but its parent religious organization has agreed to cover some of its budget, to make it more solvent. (They aren't made out of money either.) It's brought in outside accountants to examine everything. Its administration is tiny, with many administrators doubling as professors, but WASC has indicated it's ok with that, given the school's small size. WASC indicated that they are pleased by the quality of the school's faculty. They were also impressed with the quality of the submissions supporting the application for eligibity.

WASC has indicated concern about its independence from its parent denomination and said that the current situation where more than half the school's trustees also sit on the denomination's board will have to change. An issue earlier was the school offering too many degree programs relative to its small size, but it's currently teaching out most of them and intends to settle on one bachelors and one masters program.

A more fundamental issue was that the bachelors programs have long sought to combine a Western style academic approach with a traditional Eastern monastic approach. I think that's entirely justifiable in this instance, in fact it was why the school was initially created several decades ago. It was the source of the school's uniqueness, its reason for being. But WASC indicated at some point that they couldn't accredit something like that, so the school is moving to a more conventional syllabus with kind of an East-West great-books slant.

My impression is that WASC is trying to be more accommodating to small and unusual schools these days. They have recently accredited Zaytuna College, a Muslim school which despite the religious differences isn't unlike the school that I like in size and resources, along with a number of small Christian seminaries, acupuncture schools and similar special purpose schools. So there's hope.

Right now, the place I like is operating on a California religious exemption, I guess. But I would personally consider its degrees to be as academically credible as degrees from many California RA schools.

That's the thing. If a school isn't accredited, and if a student is earning a degree as a token of education-received in hopes that employers and professional peers will recognize it, then those other people will have to already be familiar with the school. And that suggests that unaccredited degrees will work best in niche applications, such as a small and specialized profession, or a small religious community/denomination of some sort.

 

That was funny, so I have no problem with it. One should never argue with funny.

That said, perhaps there’s a bit of confusion regarding my position on Nations. I have no objection to what they do, and they do appear to have some solid programs.

So what is my problem, such as it is, with Nations? Simple: That it calls itself a university. With a solely online delivery system and the limited scope of its programs, to call itself a university is bullshit. Moreover, I have always held the positon that graduate programs in the helping professions (which includes pastoral ministry) should have a residency component. Any program that does not falls short of the professional accountability standards to which I subscribe.

Keep in mind that I’ve said the same thing about other so-called online universities, including some that are regionally accredited. Bottom line: I consider online university to be an oxymoron.

I was lucky enough to earn my degrees before the advent of online education. As discussed in other threads, the “university without walls” model that I was able to follow is pretty much dead thanks to online programs. Are online programs useful? Sure, but they are nowhere near as valuable as the model they replaced.

Finally, I have always called DEAC a mickey-mouse accreditor when compared with regional accreditation. Does that mean they’re totally worthless? Of course not. But they’re still mickey-mouse when compared with regional accreditation.

End of story.

 

Just noting that the degree I received was post accreditation with Deac.

 

Ah, I see.

 

Neuhaus, Sometimes I see a long and meandering post from you and lose interest. When I read this one I was impressed. Well written and good analysis. It was a more than sufficient challenge to RAMPhd 's assertions.

Well played!

 

Welcome back Steve! I think some schools are questioning the 100% online limited interaction model and trying to find ways to integrate practicums and interactive media. When online took off, initial skepticism gave way to over enthusiasm that is leading to understanding limitations and ways of adapting. A case in point is Walden's NP program. Licensure oriented with local practicum.

 

I don't buy into the idea that there needs to be in-person contact for most programs outside of the medical, mental health, engineering, and chemical professions where it's often mandated and should be. For other more basic programs, a lot of schools are injecting this as a way to extend completion time and therefore increase revenue because the educational value of it appears dubious at best.

As an aside (not directed at you, Garp), I don't understand why people who clearly aren't fans of online education even bother to show up to a place where online education is fully accepted and is a major focus. It would seem to me those people would be too busy churning butter and fixing that loose wooden wheel on their covered wagons...

 

A lot of people are just shifty liars who, like another poster said, don't want to pursue a real degree. They'll get a mill degree for $300 and no real work and then list themselves on their bios as "Dr. Denise Shirk, Ph.D" and their bio picture will be of them in full academic regalia holding a diploma. They're tacky, flakes, cheats, frauds, sociopaths, they have no clue that people with even a modicum of knowledge can see right through them. But in the crowds with which they run, the dupes and shills and tragically gullible, they can play a good game.

Unfortunately, many within religious institutions fit this profile, both the cons and the tools. And I make this observation is not as a skeptic, but an academic who is a full blooded Christian.

 

It has always seemed to me the true believers would never want to attend a school like Andersonville or Columbia Evangelical and etc.

What everyone here does not understand is that most church's have no idea the AIC is not a legit form of accreditation and people with legit bachelors/masters are getting passed over for people with fake PhDs. And people are receiving " Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor certification by the National Christian Counselor's Association" from Andersonville. That stuff crosses lines that transcends freedom of religion on many levels. These places can not just keep running unchecked under the ruse of religion.

 

I understand where you are coming from with regard to Andersonville Seminary but Columbia Evangelical Seminary enjoys a decent reputation for an unaccredited school. Steve L. does not think highly of it. On the other hand, Bill G. who has an accredited theological doctorate, speaks well of its rigor as do others. At one point the State of Oregon (hard on unaccredited schools) evaluated one of their doctorates (DTS) and said it was equivalent to an accredited doctorate and made it legal to use without disclaimer.