Walston's Potch Dissertation Online

Tom, my problem is two-fold:

(1) As you mentioned, and as we seem to agree, the abstract and dissertation itself are too incongruous.

(2) I think the dissertation is substandard across the board as a PhD dissertation in biblical studies or biblical theology. However, as I mentioned previously, it may be adequate for a DMin or other quasi-research degree. Its semi-technical nature may make it suitable for a PhD in practical theology, but its content nixes that option. The reason for that, as I stated in the previous post, is that the dissertation itself argues for specific interpretations of biblical passages and doesn't adequately support those interpretations with exegesis of the passages in question. In that respect, the dissertation kind of hangs itself when it comes to a pure reserach degree. I might be inclined to accept it as a survey for a popular audience (something well suited to the DMin), but that's not acceptable for the PhD.

 

Okay, Ed, I think we're both clear on this:

1. We both agree that the dissertation does not line up flawlessly with the research methodology outlined in the abstract. I consider this a common thing; you, apparently, do not.

2. I think that the dissertation is adequate for a Ph.D. in Theology; you feel that it is not, because you do not think that it satisfactorily addresses biblical issues brought up in the dissertation.

I think this is a rather nice place to stop, because you're not very well going to turn around and say "Yes, it is adequate," and I'm not very well going to turn around and say "No, it's not adequate." I think I've made it clear that I disagree with you, and I think I've made it clear why I disagree with you.

I think anyone reading this thread can tell that we both have personal issues relating to the topic. I'll tell you mine: I'm concerned that this discussion is an attack on Rick Walston, whom I consider a friend, and Potchefstroom University, which I consider a rare outlet for folks who want to earn a legitimate Ph.D. in theology on an entirely nonresident basis. You don't want me to speculate on yours; you seem to maintain that you have no personal stake in the discussion, and yet anyone reading your posts can tell that you do. Something about this makes you angry. I thought it was envy. If it isn't envy, I'd like to know what it is.

In any case, I second Bruce's second of my original question: What are you trying to accomplish by all this? What would you like to see happen? Would you like to see a considerable number of people suffer for this? Lose jobs? Lose limbs? What, exactly, is it that you want? Do you want Potch to take the Ph.D. back? Do you want Rick to write another dissertation? Do you want his entire supervisory team to resign? Or are you just trying to discourage people from signing on with GST/Potch in the future? If so, why?


Cheers,

 

Here's my take on what has happened in this thread.

Ed set out his critique as if it were a chip on his shoulder, daring one of us to knock it off. The issues were defined precisely where he wanted them to be, in his own area of expertise. Paradoxically, we were simultaneously told to rise to the challenge and informed that we couldn't.

The unspoken implication of that is that we accept Ed as the theological authority and accept what he tells us on faith. Ed, after all, speaks for his entire profession:

OK, if we are unable to speak about technical issues outside our own areas of expertise, we will have to either accept an answer on the basis of authority or else defer judgement.

In this case, I pointed out that on one side we have a few graduate students on an obscure internet discussion board. They make what seem to be superficially persuasive arguments, but the arguments are technical and we are laymen, so how could we really be sure? On the other hand we have the theology faculty of the well-known university that granted the degree.

So if the appeal is to authority, then I think that Ed loses.

Personally, I am resistant to bowing to authority. So I was willing to withhold judgement. In fact I was willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that Ed was right about Walston's dissertation. The question then became what the implications of that were.

At that point I tried to engage Ed on turf of my choosing. I pointed out that academic criticisms could be directed at many, if not most, universities. I pointedly said that criticisms could be made of Dallas Theological Seminary itself. And I referred to contemporary "cultural studies" as an area that often harbors shoddy scholarship. My question was whether all these other universities, about which at least superficially credible criticisms could be made, should be denounced just as he was denouncing Potchefstroom.

Ed definitely wasn't going here:

But of course, that was *precisely* what he was demanding that all the rest of us here on Degreeinfo do:

Sure, if we were all conservative Biblical theologians.

But Ed knows perfectly well that we aren't:

The problem for Ed Komoszewski is that he can't decide whether we are all his theological colleagues, or whether we are just ignorant laymen that he can browbeat. He seems to want it both ways.

The bottom line seems to be:

1. There is no reason for us to have to respond to a technical argument outside our own fields, particularly since Ed himself has suggested that we shouldn't.

2. If we are unable to assess the technical issues ourselves, then we must either defer to authority or defer making a judgement entirely. But there is little reason that we should defer to Ed Komoszewski.

 

I agree, Tom: we've reached a terminal point in our discussion.

As for my passion about this subject, I think I've said many times what motivates it. As a person who can lose sleep over a movement that he cares deeply about, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I would make my case aggressively in an online forum. I honestly have nothing personal to gain; in fact, I've lost considerable time. I continued to respond because the issue is so important and I felt obligated to make myself clear.

What eventually angered me was the flurry of red herrings and subjective evaluations of motives that entered the discussion. We could have arrived at this point with many, many fewer posts. I believe my first post was quite cordial and mannerly; I was objective in noting what I considered to be problematic and my words were not harsh. Now, I can see how Steve's reaction may have set a few people off, and I think it changed the whole tone of the discussion. But I was left to defend my concrete objections in the emotional storm that ensued.

What do I want to see happen to Rick? Nothing. In all sincerity, I wish him the very best. I don't think his dissertation is up to snuff for a PhD, but I think he worked hard on something of value in another arena. I've said that many times before.

What do I want to see happen at Potchefstroom? I'd like to see a tightening up of academic standards. I'm not asking people to steer clear of Potchefstroom, though they should know its credential won't likely land them a teaching position at a regionally and/or professionally accredited college or seminary in the US. I do, however, realize there are many out there without such aspirations, and merely looking for the chance to apply themselves to a worthy learning objective. I hope that those who choose Potchefstroom will get the highest quality of supervision, and I hope subsequent dissertations in the field of biblical or theological studies will quell the concerns raised in this thread. I hope I've motivated some here to help make that a reality.

If standards aren't raised, the few non-traditional options that exist for those with genuine limitations will force people to settle for second best, robbing both them and those whom they serve.

I'm not trying to take anything away from people. I'm trying to make sure nothing is taken from them.

In my view, that's worth fighting for.

 

Originally posted by BillDayson
Ed set out his critique as if it were a chip on his shoulder, daring one of us to knock it off.

Everyone who reads this post can go back and read my very first comments in this thread. I was quite cautious in my language and exhibited a professional tone. Where was the chip? Where was the dare? I'll let the reader judge yet another caricature from Bill.

The issues were defined precisely where he wanted them to be, in his own area of expertise. Paradoxically, we were simultaneously told to rise to the challenge and informed that we couldn't.

Yes, I said no one could respond unless they were familiar with the field. But though that definitely includes you and self-admittedly included Tom, there are a number of people with MAs MDivs, ThMs, and PhDs in the fields of biblical and theological studies on this board that could respond. In fact, a number of them have written to me privately. Keep in mind, Bill, that this thread was never about you, and none of my comments were aimed solely at you. This fact nullifies the rest of the hunting and gathering you did on this matter.

The unspoken implication of that is that we accept Ed as the theological authority and accept what he tells us on faith. Ed, after all, speaks for his entire profession.

For a representative cross-section, I do. And they've confirmed that to me in private correspondence. One even offered his comments for the thread. Interestingly, no one had a thing to say about his comments, just some erroneous statements about DTS and charges that I had assembled my faculty input strategically in advance. More red herrings.

In this case, I pointed out that on one side we have a few graduate students on an obscure Internet discussion board. They make what seem to be superficially persuasive arguments, but the arguments are technical and we are laymen, so how could we really be sure? On the other hand we have the theology faculty of the well-known university that granted the degree. So if the appeal is to authority, then I think that Ed loses.

Again, I'm not alone in my assessment. It was never me vs. Potchefstroom, so there's nothing for me to lose. If you'd like, pick up a standard book with information on the topic: Quality Research Papers for Students of Religion and Theology, written by Nancy Jean Vyhmeister and published by Zondervan (2001). Read the chapter on theses and dissertations, and then read Walston's dissertation. You don't need to be a specialist to see the incongruities. As I've said numerous times, I do not hold an isolated opinion, and your attempts to make it appear so are in vain.

 

I was about to smile and nod and let this poor dead horse rest in peace, when I ran across yet another piece of bait:

Why should they know this? Do you have any empirical evidence that suggests that folks with Potchefstroom Ph.D.'s in theology have particular trouble landing a teaching gig? My understanding is that there are some general issues about earning nonresident foreign doctorates, but that Potchefstroom would be no less acceptable (in principle) than, say, the Open University or the University of Zululand. Please do clarify.



Cheers,

 

Originally posted by Tom Head
Why should they know this? Do you have any empirical evidence that suggests that folks with Potchefstroom Ph.D.'s in theology have particular trouble landing a teaching gig? My understanding is that there are some issues about earning nonresident foreign doctorates, but that Potchefstroom would be no less acceptable (in principle) than, say, the Open University or the University of Zululand.

Empirical evidence, no. Anecdotal evidence, yes. I've talked to faculty at a number of the schools with which I regularly work. Two years ago I even wrote letters to and received written responses from prominent biblical scholars who were guest lecturers at PUCHE. One very well known NT scholar who spent considerable time at the school said the degree would be worthwhile for folks in the pastorate, but it would not likely open any doors to academia in the US.

 

Interesting; this is the first time I've ever heard anything along those lines about Potch. All I've heard so far has been positive, particularly from the Reformed community (due in large part to the strong associations between Potch and Cornelius Van Til).


Cheers,

 

Out of curiosity, why did you write letters to PUCHE 2 years ago regarding the program? Were you exploring the program at one point?

North

 

Gert, amen and amen.

Well, some things are for certain

* No one apart from someone who has a desire to hung out to dry publicly, would ever select Ed as a mentor or supervisor.

* We are graced with someone who although not a PhD holder, can adversely critique one, damn a university of world renown, and at the smae time convince himself that this has no bearing on the PhD awardee.

* Another is that maybe the holier they are the more wickedly they fight.

* And finally anyone who puts his thesis on line is a true wanker.


Maybe we don't understand their brand of "Christianity"

 

I began methodically researching educational institutions and accrediting agencies as part of a class I was taking at DTS in 1999 (referred to in the following AED post: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=komoszewski+group:alt.education.distance.*&hl=en&safe=off&selm=36dadb9c.0%40news.integrityonline2.com&rnum=6). Since that time I've extensively researched both traditional and nontraditional theological schools. I have third-party letters regarding numerous institutions, and first-hand information from several hundred schools in my files. I guess you could say that researching Christian higher education is kind of a hobby of mine.

 

Substandard according to what standards? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, I just honestly don't know what standards you're using in criticizing Walston's dissertation. If you want people to accept your opinon that the dissertation is substandard, you really need to tell everyone what those standards are.

And....I ask once again, what is the purpose of this? Those that disapprove of Walston's dissertation have made their objections clear. Those that defend him have done the same. It seems fairly obvious that no one is going to change their mind.

What is next?


Bruce

 

Bruce, I believe I answered this rather clearly in my very first post to this thread. A PhD dissertation in biblical studies or biblical theology is expected to interact with appropriate biblical languages and modern research languages. Both are lacking in Walston's dissertation. Several standard works universally recognized as applicable to his topic are completely missing. When a dissertation on a topic identical to part of your work was written at Cambridge University and subsequently published, and the guy who wrote it is generally considered a foremost authority on that topic, you simply can't ignore it. When numerous sources cited as support are better suited to a Sunday school class, it raises serious doubts about the quality of a PhD dissertation. I've said this. A professor from DTS said this. Bill Grover (who also possesses advanced degrees in biblical and theological studies) said this. Our objections really couldn't be any clearer, Bruce.

I don't intend to take this any farther. I began by posting a brief critique of a DL dissertation and it escalated into an all-out war on what constitutes adequacy at the PhD level. I've defended my position that the dissertation in question is inadequate (on the grounds given above). Tom Head (the only one who really interacted regarding the dissertation itself) disagreed. We reached a stalemate, summed things up, and agreed to disagree. Readers have enough information to decide for themselves and we can move on to other things.

By way of closing, this topic is very pertinent to this forum, since the acceptability of non-traditional programs stands to suffer if those of us objecting to the dissertation are right and similar work continues to make the grade. Dissertations from these schools will be read, and they'll go a long way toward making or breaking the acceptability of non-traditional terminal degrees in conventional circles.

 

Enough is enough

Unfortunately Ed, talking to you is a bit like talking to a revolving door - no one ever gets any where and you have an answer ready for every question and every person. It would appear that the only opinion you really contenance is your own.

We have now 4 pages of your version of what is right. The fact that this directly criticises a person who has had his fair share of adverse criticism in the past doesn't matter to you. The fact that you haven't had the courtesy of contacting him about this also doesn't matter to you. The fact that a world renowned long established international accredited university which is respected in this forum is adversely criticised by you doesn't matter. The fact that you haven't evne made the grade to got a phD yourself, and therefore throw great doubt on your true ability to assess this situation, also doesn't matter to you.

We value this medium, and respect the rights of each other to express our opinions. We also expect outsiders to feel comfortable here and that the tenor of the group generally is welcoming and conducive to wise decisions being made.

In the past there has been criticism of our regard [or deemed lack of] for DETC institutions. Recently we have been stating the Oxford MA as it is.

However, I cannot find any other post that is so much in total disregard for the internal administration of a university - particularly one we respect.

As you suggested to another some many posts ago, maybe it is time for you to go home and watch your own television.

My humble opinion is that you have gone too far, and we run the danger of being rediculed. We don't need that form you, me or anyone else.

Goodnight most righteous one whose opinion is law.

 

Who is this Ed guy and why has he no life?

Fifty posts and he doesn't even have a dissertation of his own for others to tear apart.

I think Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Walston has proven himself four times. He has faced four challenges with progressive difficulty and conquered them.

I thumbed through my well worn 1992 Bear's guide and the author said that he was giving up on religious schools because, although a small part of his book, that is where most of his complaints came from.

Ed get a life or get a job. If you have a job, get back to it so I can too.

 

To be fair, Ed has referred us to an article he wrote. He does appear to be fairly well informed on research standards in the evangelical world.

Upon further reflection, however, I do not know that there is a requirement to go beyond what is necessary to be awarded a degree. Should we seek excellence in what we do? Undoubtedly.
But once the necessary is reached, what is the point of overdoing it? My undergraduate degree required 124 credits. Once that is achieved, the degree can be awarded. There is no moral reason to get 140 credits, or even to make A's. (By definition, relatively few people should graduate with A or B averages--most people should get C's). If you want to go on to graduate school, that is a different story.

For graduate work, a B average is necessary (and according to many sources I have read, rarely NOT given to those in graduate school). There is no moral reason to do more than required. If a school wants higher standards, then require straight A's. (I imagine we's see an amazing number of A's given at that point.)

While there may not be as great a variation in theses and dissertations at Dallas Seminary, I am sure the variation exists. Some would be minimal, I'm sure--the ones who see education as a necessary hoop and not an end in itself. Others likely go to extreme lengths--the hyperactive ones who will likely never get over their education. Then there is the happy medium or balance.
I believe most DL students would seek the balance.

It happens at Dallas, it happens at Harvard, and it happens at Potchefstroom. The challenge, as I see it, if one believes that Ric's thesis is substandard, is not to badmouth it in a public forum (while academic protocol may not require contacting an author before critiquing in a public forum, I could argue that Christian protocol does --see Matthew 18). The challenge is to do better ourselves. In that way, we raise the standards.

Before accusing Potchefstroom of having low standards, it would behoove us to look over the whole body of theses. If there is a pattern of substandard work, that is a problem. All we have here is anecdotal evidence and hearsay--not at all acceptable in academic work. Further, I should think that comparisons/contrasts be made with say, Unizul and Stellenbosch without resorting to "norming." I believe Potch will be found leaning toward the latter.

Again, I believe all this is a judgment call. In the realm of writing, most evaluations are. Even in the realm of scholarly writing, it often comes down to judgment calls. Ed overstates his case that objective standards overrule all. He also overstates his view that a PUCHE education is viewed with some concern. Likely, the case is more an anti-DL, and even anti-Dutch Reformed bias that exists in U.S. institutions that keep Potch grads from teaching positions.

Craig

 

Actually, you didn't. What I'm asking is what standards you're using to judge this dissertation. ATS standards?

If it's your personal standards you've developed from your own education, fine, just make that clear. When something is called substandard, I like to know by what standards.


Bruce