Accreditation

I tend to agree, as well. One of the things that TRACS does not have on its side is history. They are a relatively new accreditation board. I'm convinced that in time as they prove themselves, they will receive more recognition. Until then there are some risks involved with getting a degree from a school accredited only by TRACS. Interestingly, Bakke Graduate University (formerly Northwest Graduate School of Ministry), a TRACS school, has plans to apply for regional accreditation.

 

TRACS will always suffer disdain from academia at large because of the enmity of the world towards Christianity. I'm glad we have TRACS, and I wish them well. I'm also happy to see quality schools seek regional accreditation. Christian education should come behind no one in scholarship, though RA certainly does not guarantee that in and of itself. I'm fairly ambivalent about seeking ATS accreditation, however. I think TRACS and RA is sufficient, IMO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

IMHO, TRACS has improved some but it is still a little weak on the academic side. I would say that some of their schools are less than impressive. Also, they have fewer and generally smaller schools than the RA's. All this adds up to less clout in academia. They're somewhat the poor stepsister like DETC.

 

I must profess ignorance to the determination of academic strength when it comes to accreditation. I do agree that the academic credentials of the faculties of some TRACS schools are not as impressive as those of conservative, evangelical, RA schools. I vividly remember, however, taking MDiv courses from an SBC seminary extension in Georgia. These master-level courses were no more difficult than upper-level bachelor's courses I took at Georgia Southern. They were nowhere as rigorous as courses I took through SEBTS's extension in Georgia, as well as on-campus at SBTS.

I use this experience to note that this particular seminary is accredited by both SACS and ATS, but that did not translate into strong courses.

I do believe that accreditation is important, but it is only a minimum criterion in assessing a school.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Bill's last statement is correct.

Also, I think as someone said TRACS is relatively new and continuing to establish themselves. They have been adding more and more schools of high caliber like SES, BJU, TTU, Mars Hill and so on.

As was mentioned on the SES site there is large ignorance in general as to what accreditation is (and is not). TRACS has the same recognition as the Regional accreditors but not always the same utility.

Personally, I would like to see schools skip Regional Accreditation and continue to support and develop the Christian Accreditors. This avoids the compromise issue and also puts muscle behind the Christian schools. I cannot help feel that seeking RA is somewhat of a sell out.

Last comment is that there is no real proof of any lacking academics in TRACS schools anymore than there is in RA schools. Remember, University of Pheonix is Regionally accredited as are a number of other schools who academic rigour has been questioned (eg NCU at the doctoral level). Please understand that I am not questioning the rigour of these schools just rpeating what has been said elsewhere. I think in the case of NCU they moved to tighten up the problems.

Also, PBS had a program the other night noting problems in RA universitites in terms of students not really learning or developing. The study demonstrated large numbers of students who never cracked a book nor learned the material and yet had 3.4 (and higher GPA's). They learned to take the tests and there was an unwritten law among professors that "You don't bother me and I won't bothe ryou". Some students had hardly if ever had to write analytical papers. Instead they were taking multiple choice/true and false exams. One prfoessor commented that she could not really have class discussion on substantive topics within the course because the students had neither read nor learned the material. So although RA has a corner on the market, I would not necessarily tout their academic rigour.

North

PS I did not catch the end of the program so if anyone knows which PBS program it was I would like to know so I can obtain a transcript.

 

I agree that RA does not always signify rigor. I've looked through the TRACS policies and standards. They look really solid. I personally LIKE the idea of schools accredited with TRACS going for RA- -at least until TRACS is more established- -mainly for utility reasons. IMO At present secular universities and employers (especially for counseling-oriented degrees) will take these degrees more serious if they have TRACS and RA.

 

It is true that TRACS carries the same recognition as regional accreditation and that there is no technical differentiation in levels. Unfortunately, the world of academia does not bow to technicality, and the reality of leveling exists as clearly as the truth of equal recognition. Both history and size gives regional accreditation an edge whether we like it or not. I am a supporter of TRACS, but I think we need to be honest about its limitations and not allow marketing zeal to overlook the facts. The catalogs and websites of regionally accredited institutions usually cite the possession of "top-tiered" accreditation status. Technical acception can be taken with that claim, but it doesn't change the facts. The world of academia as a whole is not looking favorably on non-regional accreditation, and as more high-profile Christian institutions of a strongly conservative bent join, no matter how academically sound they are, I don't see that disfavor changing. That is the sad, but realistic, state of our world of academia. The school PatsFan cites above is just one example of TRACS-only institutions that have or are seeking regional accreditation because of difficulties. I'm just an advocate of laying out all the facts, and I disagree with allowing marketing concerns to keep us from fully and clearly divulging both the positive and negative realities (not the technicalities)that various non-accredited and accredited degrees carry in our culture.

 

Personally, I'll take the quality of the program over the accreditation. Bluntly, a degree from the most respected school in the country, if it's not orthodox, is a waste of my time and money. And I'm sure you'll have to agree, that just because someone may have a degree from Harvard or Princeton, and have all the academic respectability imaginable, doesn't make them qualified to exegete Romans. In fact, based on the strong liberal, unbiblical tendencies at the most worldly-respected schools, my advice is to look somewhere else.

If RA improves adademic rigor, great, I'm all for it. Christians should never settle for weak scholarship. If non-RA schools are indeed academically weaker, then don't go there. But it appears to me that in general, the more a school focuses on acheiving academic respectability, the greater the odds are that they'll bend to the latest scholarly fads, rather than sticking to historic orthodoxy. Look what happened to to the Ivy League divinity schools.

Personally, I don't give a flying flip about whether my school has respectability in the eyes of anybody, or what the name will get me later on in life. What I do care about is "is this the absolute best school to teach me to perform in my role in ministry?" If that means a big name, RA school, great. If it means Bubba University, great.


My advice is to be very careful about the tendency to be drawn into respectability. Don't trade respectability for orthodoxy, and don't avoid hard classes for easy ones.
IMHO.

 

Humblesmith, although I agree with the heart of everything you're saying, I do not agree with the wisdom of a statement "I don't give a flip about whether my school has respectability in the eyes of anybody." Considering the cost of education, stewardship should give us cause to weigh all the the facts before embarking on such an expense of time and money. In weighing those facts, one might very well discover that limited or even zero respectablility does not imbalance the decision to attend a certain school. I would be supportive of that decision, but I would not be supportive of that decision apart from the weighed facts. This is the reasoning behind my previous post in making an appeal for honest, not market-driven, appraisals of the accepted level of respectability of a degree.

I totally agree with looking at the quality of a program, especially if you are referring to the specific program within an institution. I have observed that very few discussions on academic excellence center on programs, rather they unfortunately center on entire schools. There are very few schools that are academically excellent across the board, and the less specialized the institution and the more majors they carry, the more this statement rings true. Some programs will be very strong, some will be far less. Again, for various reasons one might even enter a program that knowingly has weaknesses and still believe this is where God has directed them. I have no problem with that, as long as they were given the facts and not some uninformed praise that does not coincide with reality.

 

Whoops. You wrote a "a flying flip." I don't want to misquote you!

 

Department Chairman Mao recruits new graduate Suzy because Suzy graduated from Harvard, is female, and is non-white: a three-bagger! Although Chariman Mao isn't that impressed with Suzy, she's good enough and it makes the department look good to the Dean, the catalog, and the accrediting association. And if the department looks good, Chairman Mao looks good. He has respectability now and will soon land a new job back in California where he originally came from.

The department in California is playing the same game. They hire Mao because he makes them look good.

Talk to an individual involved in this process and he'll readily admit that he sees no correlation between most of the hiring criteria and the hiree's performance in the classroom. But he has to go by those criteria, because his own standing is based on similar criteria.

Unfortunately, hiring teachers is sort of like the caterpillars that follow one another around the rim of a can until they all die from exhaustion.

 

All of you are correct, of course. I was speaking just a teensy exaggeration to make a point. If your ministry is in a professional position (as is mine), then obviously you'll need the proper credentials. And no one wants to waste good time and money for an education. So I agree with you.

I guess what got me going was when I saw a couple of threads where people were focusing way too much on academic respectability and cutting edge thinking. One of the main reasons that the church is in the mess it's in now is that the seminary professors in the 1890's desired academic respectability, so they started teaching the liberal beliefs that were being taught at the best European universities. (we can't be thought of as bible thumpers, now can we?) It was slow at first, but a generation or so later, the denominations started the liberal/conservative splits.

So now, when I see any emphasis on achieving status, it rings a small warning bell in my mind.

Here's an excellent example of what I mean. Below is a quote (I think from another thread). This person desired to get a:

"Terminal degree with significant research in a theology-related field--this does not include necessarily investigation of minutiae or the study of some dead fellow’s system but it is a real pioneering advance of knowledge. Preferably, this would include study with some ground-breaking and imaginative scholar who has shown the ability to think creatively. A world-class scholar, as opposed to a hack with a doctorate, draws and outlines a new paradigm. The hack with a doctorate colors inside the lines someone else has drawn. Both have their functions."

I disagree with this whole-heartedly, and passionately. We have so many theological problems inside the church, that I'll take a school that colors inside the lines, thank you very much. New paradigms tend to end up as old heresies.

But I agree what Martin, FHG, and Pipedude have said above.