Educational Credential, Ministers, & Fraud

Rhet

I pray that it is a little less messy than it sometimes is.



:1_grouphug:

Wayne

 

I don't think that accreditation will make a hill of beans difference if someone is going to flat out lie on his/her resume.

 

It is doubtful that he will have the chance to do that again with any church.

 

he won't, but how many unethical pastors do we have out there that would list degrees and/or colleges that they don't have or didn't attend. Accreditation isn't the issue with this breed.

 

==In this case that is certainly true. Mr Flockhart's problem is not accreditation rather his problem is the truth of Revelation 21:8. :tear:

 

==The story is beating the same drum I, and others on this board, have been beating for a long, long time. Maybe now that it is coming from more "offical" sources better attention will be paid to it.

 

Bad cadence

Martin, you are offbeat. You give credence because it's official—I don’t! I say, "HOGWASH!" I am a confirmed skeptic of official proclamations. I don't share your faith in accreditation and officialdom. Accreditation is a rubber stamp that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Accreditation may be an indicator of quality but it is only one indicator of many. Without the other attending marks, accreditation means nothing. Accreditation alone does not insure high standards or superiority. There are too many political aspects of accreditation and too many ways to cut corners for it to be the sole criterion. Accreditation is not synonymous with excellence. Folks who put their trust solely in accreditation are accepting a lower standard. These are the ones who admire the emperor’s new clothes.

I have nothing but distain for Dukes’ establishmentarian and official pabulum but I do respect Owens’ thoughtful and insightful view on accreditation. Dukes spouts the official line whereas Owens thinks through the issues. BTW, you will notice Owens’ firsthand involvement with accreditation issues.

I suppose that I fail of being a true believer in the cult of accreditation.

 

==Actually I know exactly what accreditation means and what it does not mean. As the article pointed out, and as I have pointed out, accreditation is not the sole issue a person should consider when looking at a school (mainly a seminary) for graduate studies. However it is important to make the point that accreditation does matter. It shows that the school has a minimum level of academic quality. It also shows that the credits/degrees earned at that school are more likely to be accepted by other Universities, Seminaries, and Colleges. If someone earns an unaccredited graduate degree, mainly if it is earned online, they run the risk of not being able to transfer their credits into another program, or not being able to advance to the next degree level (at an accredited school) and therefore having to repeat the degree. Earning a graduate degree from an accredited institution (online or oncampus) is smart because it can save time and money, and because you don't have to worry whether or not other schools or businesses will honor those credits/degrees a person has worked so hard to earn.

==It does, however, assure a certainly level of academic quality. It also helps insure that other schools will honor the credits or degrees earned. The future for those who earn unaccredited degrees, mainly in the areas of business and education, is not bright. Businesses, schools, churches, and governmental agencies are started to require accredited degrees and they are starting to check up on that accreditation. If a person wants to earn a graduate degree they can actually use they are better off earning that degree from an accredited school. That need only doubles with the rise of online education.

==While politics can be a factor that does not disqualify the need for real accreditation. Politics is a factor in many things and I seriously doubt we can discount everything politics is involved in. I do, however, know as a fact that many "major" universities have been threatened with the loss of accreditation by major accrediting bodies. My father, before he retired, has done team visits (etc) with SACS and a major state university was issued a warning and had to have at least one re-visit (I don't recall the details). A major community college in this area was also given a very harsh warning and required several follow-ups. Now that community college is probably the toughest in the area. Admissions standards, grading standards, employment standards, graduation standards, etc. So any politics that is present is not so controlling that accreditation means nothing. Accrediting bodies still hold school's feet to the fire.

==I have never said that accreditation is the sole issue. There are several factors a person must take into account when considering graduate school (online or oncampus). Accreditation is just one part of that but it is a very important part.

My arguments for accreditation are more practical (ie...how the degree can be used).

 

Things are not as they appear

Well, if this is what you think it means, then you don’t know. Contrary to popular belief, accreditation does not assure a minimal level of academic quality. It simply means that a process has been implemented and completed which an outside agency has overseen with resulting indicators thought to be comparable with a minimal level of academic quality. Because academic quality is not a directly observable and quantifiable entity, it can only be judged indirectly by factors thought to accompany it. In other words, academic standards and results are qualitative, not quantitative. Accreditation is more about process than results or content. It is assumed that if the process is implemented then the desired results follow.

Accreditation is a validation procedure based on process theory. There are alternative views but true-believers have probably never considered them. For example, a statistical comparison of alumni success in graduate school, the job market, professional recognition, etc. would be more results oriented and a better estimation of quality than trusting process.

 

==Actually it "does" assure a minimal level of academic quality. To say it does is simply denying the purpose of accreditation.

"In the United States, accreditation is a major way that students, families, government officials, and the press know that an institution or program provides a quality education." -Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)

==Well you need an accredited degree to get into most graduate/doctoral programs. You also need an accredited degree for many jobs and almost all government jobs (teaching, etc). Btw, those "alternative" standards you mention are part of the over-all picture that one must take into account when choosing a graduate school. That is why those type stats are usually listed somewhere in the catalog or is offered to the public in another way. I believe, btw, that accreditation does look at job placement (etc). I know as a fact that SACS does in its accreditation of community colleges. So you are wrong when you say that such "alternative" measures are not considered by those who acknowledge the need for "real" accreditation in higher education.

 

If you avoid accreditation you don't have anybody questioning your decisions to keep interracial couples from dating each other. :BangHead:

It seems most of these accreditation oppnents seem steadfast in their efforts to justify their own schools reluctance to adhere to anyone else's standards. That's perfectly fine as long as their graduates are the ones having to pay the price in the marketplace.

 

Burr in the saddle

Brer Foxx, you seem to have a burr in your saddle or an itch that you can't reach. I see you slinging stones but I don't see any real target. Now, how's that for mixing metaphors?

 

Where is your substantiation? Where are your reasons? I'm not interested in exchanging banter. Address the issue. How do you know the process works? Of course, CHEA is going to toot their own horn because they have a vested interest. Also, I'm not debating job placement, grad school admission or public acceptance. It's whether accreditation works (i.e. produces the guarantee of a quality academic education). If it does, as you say, then why do we have substandard accredited schools? Do you remember Parsons back in the 60's. What about the easy celeb Ed.D.'s at UMass Amherst? What about Jones International University that literally bought their way into accreditation? Also, do you really believe all those accredited online degrees from Capella, University of Phoenix, et. al. are really up to snuff? Wake up and think for yourself. I don't trust it just because it's rubberstamped. USDA-approved spinach with E. Coli will still make you sick--yukkkkkkkkkkkk.

 

==I gave at least one example in my earlier reply about a local community college. Also keep in mind that I am more practical. Earning a MA from a non-accredited school closes doors. This, again, I have said all along.

==They said that accreditation's purpose, in part, is to assure a certain level of academic quality. That was my point, that you said was wrong and a misunderstanding of the purpose of accreditation. My quotation from CHEA is simply there to show that what I said indeed is the purpose of accreditation. Now some may wonder if it works, but that is the purpose.

==Without any of that there would be little need to worry about accreditation. As I have said, it is about the practical side for me. Employeers, Universities, and Seminaries look to accreditation to assure that a student is coming from a school that meets certain academic critera. It is a level of assurance. Apart from those matters there would be no need for accreditation.

==So we throw the baby out with the bath water? There are problems with most any "human" system, accreditation is no exception. For every failure you point out I can point out success stories.

==I have no way of knowing (since I have not taken courses from those schools nor do I personally know anyone who has). If they are accredited then they do meet some level of academic expectation. Employers will accept degrees from those schools because of their accreditation so someone who graduates from those schools can use their degree to get a job (something that cannot be done w/ a unaccredited graduate degree). I suppose if an employer hires people from those schools and discovers that few of them are truly qualified then that employer might stop hiring people with degrees from those schools. As I have said, accreditation is not the sole issue here. That is true for the perspective graduate student, the University/Seminary, and the employer.

I do know that Phoenix has regular campuses. I am not sure that their programs are viewed any different than NC State's online programs, ECU's online programs, or Liberty's online programs.

==I am very much awake to the reality of education and the job market. An unaccredited graduate degree will close doors, an accredited graduate degree will open doors. That is reality. Maybe the system will change over time, maybe it will not. Either way we need to deal with the situation as it is and not as we want it to be.

 

Is accreditation a guarantee of quality?

Martin,

My whole argument is against the naïve acceptance of accreditation as the defining standard of quality in education. I am not opposed to accreditation per se but I am opposed to the idea that all schools must be accredited or that accreditation necessarily means quality. I think we must be more discerning than that. Accreditation is not necessarily the mark of excellence and non-accreditation is not necessarily a mark of inferiority. I think we both can agree on this.

I will admit that the accreditation process usually improves the quality of an institution. If an institution really desires to improve its program, then accreditation can be a very beneficial process. On the other hand, if a school just wants the stamp to enhance its reputation, it can find ways to slide by the guidelines and committee without much improvement. It is analogous to whether a student goes to college for a degree or to learn.

Bitsy mentioned that she has served on several accreditation committees; then she ought to be familiar with the changing face of accreditation. I have some experience in consulting on accreditation standards too. At one time, accreditation focused on facilities, volumes in the library, etc. but distance education, computers and the Internet has made many of these factors negligible with regard to quality. The emphasis is now on process and improvement. Rather than fixed rigid standards (e.g. number of books by subject in library per student), accreditation looks at the institution’s processes and specifically for processes facilitating improvement.

The current thinking on quality in accreditation is similar to the thinking behind the ISO 9000 certification in industry. For example, ISO 9000 certification requires that you have a procurement policy for each item. So, my procurement policy is that I buy all of my nuts and bolts from my brother-in-law. Is this assuring quality or is it simply saying that I followed a process. Whereas a prescribed process may more likely produce quality than an uncontrolled process, it does not assure quality. Does it?