Visual of Several degrees including the Potchefstroom Doctoral Degree

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You just baselessly accused Rick Walston of misleading prospective students by calling his school Columbia, and now you're worried about how Bill's so-called exaggerated wording constitutes a personal attack against you? I mean, you're anonymous, for crying out loud. What, are you afraid the nick "starrmustgo" might lose prestige and name value?

As for what you think about seminaries: I don't believe anyone cares, really. Your distaste for evangelical Christianity is obvious, so your opinion of what should make up a theological education is worth about as much to me as Jerry Falwell's opinion of what should make up a gay studies curriculum.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

b

I've just been through this with P. French, but...a biblical scholar holding an MDiv degree will commonly speak and be qualified to teach ancient Greek and/or Hebrew, will be very well versed in ancient history and philosophy...and I haven't even gotten to the theology bit. Whereas you think biblical scholarship is lacking in "intellectual heft," in fact, the learning that I described above is just the foundation needed to begin serious scholarship. That is why MDivs require 90 graduate credits. Do the math; that is nearly three times the coursework required of my MS in Computer Science.

How do you imagine that ancient manuscripts written in Koine Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic are interpreted and translated into English? By chemists? Does the scholar not need to know the ancient language and culture intimately to do this? Does the scholar not need to know the ancient literary forms? Is an in-depth knowledge of literature of the period not needed to recognize literary references?

You're welcome to your opinion about this type of research, but I think I've shown that it compares favorably with history, literature and other fields in the humanities because of its multidisciplinary breadth and depth.

Regarding ATS accreditation: what you seem to be unaware of is that ATS is a professional accreditation (like ABET); and like ABET, it is usually accompanied by RA accreditation. Get it? It is (usually) a further accreditation atop RA.

As regards the rude statement to North that you attempted to dodge. Rudeness is like pornography: you know it when you see it; childish dodging will not help. The quote in my last post was directed at North, indicating (without merit) that his statement was comical. There was no hint of any rancor prior that post; thus, it was out-of-the-blue. (The comment that he hasn't directed any comments to you is irrelevant unless you are a puppet.)

 

I realize the subtleties of the English language can be quite trying, but you continue to accuse me of making "accusations." To repeat, my opening comment was "Having a school called 'Columbia Seminary' suggests a connection to Columbia University. Perhaps that's by design." If you can't understand what those sentences mean, I can't help you.

Regarding your further, fascinating opinions, "let me see if I understand you correctly": your opinion is that if you disagree with other people's opinions, you should endeavor in aggressively unpleasant argumentative messages to demean them and slight them rather than just trying to express your own opinion in a spirit of collegiality.

Oh, dear. We seem to be having more problems here with that troubling English language. I said "seminaries are not generally noted for their intellectual heft." I said nothing about biblical scholarship. I very much doubt that the average seminary graduate is a biblical scholar, or be an expert on Greek or Hebrew. If having been through the seminary mill qualifies one to teach Greek or Hebrew, well, at least they will know more (one hopes) than their students, who will enter knowing nothing of either language. Having a smattering of various topics and doing time in a seminary is not enough to qualify one as a "scholar." There are, of course, scholars in the area of the bible, Greek, Hebrew, ancient history, and philosphy. They spend decades studying these, and publish weighty tomes. I doubt the average seminary graduate is so accomplished. If you think 90 graduate credits compared to your 30 is so impressive, well, I think you're over-generous. I simply see a greater amount of time-serving and going through the motions.

Regarding the second paragraph of your message, beginning "how do you imagine," etc., you might note your argumentative tone throughout this paragraph. If you were to step back and not go into "attack" mode, the ugliness of this exchange would that be much less. You might give me credit (again) for having the brains to know something--that real scholars do real scholarship. Wow.

The "get it?" comment in your ATS paragraph is just so much more argumentativeness and snideness. Since the whole accreditation system in the United States is riven with flaws, I don't see that I should be impressed by any of it--regional, "professional," or whatever. You might note (again) what I actually said, "I find the idea of an 'ATS-accredited evangelical seminary that enjoys internationl [sic] respect' rather comical." Are their people walking up and down the streets of Paris, Rome, and London saying, "Oh, I respect ATS accreditation so very much!"? Are people in the liberated Kabul saying, "Oh, I hope to someday go to an ATS-accredited evangelical seminary!"? No. That is my point.

You might note that the point about ATS accreditation was made in response to a comment made by CLSeibel, and I don't see that he or anyone else should find my not thinking much of any school or accreditor personal insulting. And I doubt anyone else requires you to defend their honor.

Let's just look at some of the ugly phrasing in your last paragraph: "the rude statement," "attempted to dodge," "rudeness is like pornography," "childish dodging," "without merit," "unless you are a puppet." While you've repeatedly ignored what I've actually said, and various subtleties of tone and meaning, you seem to be a master at invective. I suppose it takes a great deal of practice to master that. Perhaps you're even a "scholar" in that field.

 

PhD students in theology or biblical studies don't take Greek 101. Prior knowledge of the languages is expected. Where do you suppose they get that training? The MDiv is a professional degree for ministers. They typically study Greek and Hebrew. That alone does not make them scholars. If they're interested in scholarship, they'll take their electives in the fields of interest and then continue with a ThM and/or PhD program and further strengthen their fields of interest. This is just one of several paths.

I looked at several curricula at seminaries; I didn't see any suggestions that the students should sit on your hands for sixty credits. Your bigotry is showing through loud and clear to suggest that 90 credits for those students is the same as 36 credits for students in other fields.

(Some of the message was left out due to a bug or limit of the "reply" button. The bit about the years of study required of scholars is missing: true, but new-grad PhDs are scholars...like any field, the more experience one has, the more gravitas one has. Scholars are students all their lives, so what is the point that you were trying to make?)

You threw the first handful of mud with your weird, uncalled-for attack on North (or CLSeibel). To my discredit, I answered in kind.

As far as ATS accreditation, if I understand your logic (now), is that all accreditation is meaningless. So why did you point out ATS accreditation in particular if all are meaningless? Are some more meaningless than others? (Can't be, by definition.) So, would you like to explain your meanderings of logic? (As Levicoff might say, "rhetorical question; I no longer care." )

Not much of a point. Neither are those people in Paris, Rome, etc. walking around saying, "I just LOVE parliamentary decrees and royal edicts that create universities! Oh, oh, oh."

Thank you, thank you!! It doesn't take practice; I'm just gifted in that area. However, I try only to use it as a defensive weapon. It just isn't fair to unleash it except when the peace is disturbed.

(I'm now retiring from this thread.)

 

If you were concerned about collegiality, you wouldn't have gone after Rick Walston in the first place.

That said: I see no reason why I should fight idiocy with more idiocy, so I'll call it a thread--assuming, of course, that you don't have more innuendo to share with the class.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

First you tell me that I'm against biblical scholars and go into a discussion about M.Div. students having ultra-impressive credentials. Now you go into some entirely beside-the-point talking about Ph.D. students in theology being scholars. You furthermore continue to miss and twist the points I am making. Where did I say that M.Div. students' 90 credits are "the same" as other students' 36 credits? I think there is an exceptional amount of time-serving and going through the motions in all fields. More credits, more pointlessness. True scholars are rare, and that probably goes for people who've earned their Ph.D. or any other degree. I think most professors and their Ph.D. or other followers are just so many careerist drudges.

That "scholars" are few and far between.

Thank you so much for referring to your "discredit." But what you call my "weird, uncalled-for attack" was a minor point about the fact--and it is a fact--that most people internationally do not care about whatever accreditation, and it's comical, humorous, ha-ha, to suggest that there is such a mighty amount of respect for it floating around internationally.

No, I wouldn't like to explain my "meanderings of logic," because you need to explain what those "meanderings" are. I don't care one whit about ATS accreditation or anything to do with it. I was simply making a point about the ridiculous or referring to the international acclaim it receives. The fact that you've never "got that" speaks to certain humorlessness on your part. (No, I don't expect anyone to laugh out loud, I was simply making what I think is a somewhat wry observation about the comical pretension and academic posturing in talking about the international acclaim accorded to ATS accreditation.

You refer to the slightness of the point about international acclaim. Gee, that's the point of what I've been saying about that point. That it's very minor. And here you've been harassing me and expending much air trying to teach me the error of my ways. How you can see the "peace" as having been "disturbed" by that or my other minor point about possible motives in naming a school Columbia such-and-such is beyond me.

!!! Why, you've spent so much effort excoriating me for what you see as my infractions. Are you sure you don't want to go on?

 

"Collegiality" applies to "colleagues," and I'm not aware that Mr. Walston has been contributing to this thread or any other. If he were contributing to this thread, I would probably ask about the matter in language just as muted as that which I used in my initial message.

I don't think you are following "idiocy with more idiocy" since I simply made a couple extremely minor points. It's certainly a waste of your time if you need to, like Mr. Highsmith, excoriate people (for paragraphs and paragraphs on end) for making minor points, into which you read all sorts of extreme motivations and prejudices.

Language such as your "gone after" only applies to such extreme things as "attacks." How you can twist such tentative phrasing as "perhaps that's by design" into a vicious attack that requires your going on the warpath is beyond me.

 

I'm glad you brought this up, because it brings to mind the question of how I'm supposed to built up a collegial relationship of any kind with someone who has chosen to post anonymously and avoid giving any details about his history. Seems to me that things are a bit one-sided here; you have my name, and Bill's, and you know our histories. As for your name and history, we're at a bit of a disadvantage. (And so, technically, is Rick Walston.)

Well, now I certainly am, and after promising I wouldn't bother, too. What can I say; this thread just has that certain je ne sais quoi.

Are you saying that you don't back up your friends when people spread innuendo about them in public forums?

No, it applies to "gone after."

I'm not on the warpath, dear; I just try not to let innuendo and unfair prejudices go unanswered if I can help it. You could have avoided this whole situation by admitting that you had no reason to think Rick Walston was tricking his prospective students, or clarifying your point on evangelicals so it didn't look like you were classifying most of our theologically-literate regulars as neanderthals. But because this whole discussion apparently has an intimate relationship with your testicles, neither concession was made, and here we are.

I'm certainly not angry, but there are times when I feel moved to raise an objection to something, and this was one of those times. If you can't understand that, I really don't know what else to tell you. Lawrie Miller used to tell me that I don't argue enough, so I suppose I can't please everyone.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

TomHead,

Whether or not people use pseudonyms--and I think it's highly advisable on the Web--you ought to assume that there are other people typing their own messages, and who don't deserve to be treated badly in message threads, something which I don't think you or others who use this site understand. While you go on about "anonymity," which you and others seem go to on about as your own constantly reiterated bit of innuendo, you nevertheless pursue highly personal and unpleasant exchanges in these threads. I believe in keeping a more distant tone and keeping out of things attacks on people's brains and their beliefs. I could go on and on and on about the flakiness and stupidity of certain beliefs of certain people, but I think we can agree that wouldn't be appropriate.

So, if I choose to wonder about something, or doubt the celebrity of obscure schools and accreditors, I don't deserve to be attacked. Other people in this thread have expressed their own beliefs without needing to go on the attack. "Backing up" someone does not require excoriation. It's also completely unnecessary because people in this thread who choose to use less heated diction have done a perfectly fine job of expressing their opinion that the naming of Columbia blah-blah-blah may have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If you don't understand the tone given by a phrase like "gone after," that just shows your insensitivity to the careful use of language.

You say:

"You could have avoided this whole situation by admitting that you had no reason to think Rick Walston was tricking his prospective students, or clarifying your point on evangelicals so it didn't look like you were classifying most of our theologically-literate regulars as neanderthals."

Given the general sleaziness and mediocrity of the distance-education field, I had and have every reason to suspect that the proprietors of hole-in-the-wall seminaries, colleges, and universities are using names in the wholehearted pursuit of deceiving prospective students, including "Columbia," "Cambridge," etc., in their names. And I'll continue to harbor suspicions about the seminary we have discussed, just as others do, which is why people posted on the Web pictures of its hole-in-the-wall "campus."

Your going on about "evangelicals" is very strange to me, since I never had any point to make in this thread about "evangelicals, nor does this thread have anything to do with "evangelicals" except insofar as you have chosen to bring that fascinating issue into the stew.

You make crude comments, and you think that I should have made "concessions." While you and others choose to accuse people of intolerance, you yourselves seem to be completely without any tolerance in your natures. Certainly, that seems hypocritical when people claim an interest in evangelical and various non-mainstream religious movements which one would expect to involve a belief in charity, Christian or otherwise.

I think the point of exchanges on this site is to express one's own beliefs or knowledge, without trying to shout down and impugn the brains or motives of someone because they have an opinion you disagree with. "Concessions" are not the point, and they're certainly not going to be delivered to you when the matters discussed are entirely matters of opinion.

 

Just to point out why it's a waste of time to argue with amateur slicksters who don't have the stamina to stand by their statements under scrutiny and defend them, preferring to redefine the meaning of "is" and delete the context. I use as an example, the bit about 90 credits. Your reply is both transparent and illogical:

And then you said:

The last statement is (marginally) slick because anyone can see from the context that your intent was to trash the work of the MDiv students. It is illogical because: if you assume it's true and both only do 50% real work (for example), then 36-credit degree seekers only have 18-credits of "real work" and 90-credit degree-seekers have only 45 credits of "real work." See, anonymous dude, with your slick logic, the result is exactly the same: a 3-to-1 ratio. If you try to slick out of this by applying some non-linear reducing function (logarithmic, for example), then you're returning back to the thing which you just denied: MDiv students' work is somehow less productive or of less value.

Just call me "slickmustgo"

 

If I may be so bold as to return to the original topic of this thread, which was about pictures of degrees...

Another recent thread discussed Capitol College. I was interested when I looked at Capitol's website to see a picture of two students holding their humungous diplomas. Which raises the age-old question...

 

Well, it has its advantages--especially if you spent a great deal of time spreading innuendo about people who don't use pseudonyms. (What are you supposed to be, Factwatcher's good twin?)

[]quote]While you go on about "anonymity," which you and others seem go to on about as your own constantly reiterated bit of innuendo, you nevertheless pursue highly personal and unpleasant exchanges in these threads. I believe in keeping a more distant tone and keeping out of things attacks on people's brains and their beliefs.[/quote]

...which is why you ridiculed the idea that any evangelical seminary could have broad international respect.

Actually, it would be nice to have your biases out in the open; here again, it's nowhere near as good as actually having your name and history out in the open, but it's a start.

You're free to "wonder" and "doubt" all you want, but if you do it in public, you had darned well better express some pretty good reasons for your "wonderings" and "doubts." What, I'm supposed to let you say "Perhaps Tom Head is a male prostitute, but I could be wrong"? Give me a break.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)