Mdivs

[StefanM]

I like Whitefield's programs and theology... but I would have to recommend Liberty over them... perhaps it is because I am a Liberty grad

When it comes to ATS I am totally at a loss as to why so many conservatives tout them as any kind of standard when they also credential the Starr King School of Ministry, Union Theological Seminary, Chicago Theological Seminary, and other radically theologically liberal schools... Don't get that AT ALL. I'd rather USE MY BIBLE in a meaningful way at an unaccredited or "lesser" accredited (whatever that means) school...

I am in agreement on the ATS issue. I think conservative institutions should pull out. They could form a conservative alternative, or they could stick with the remaining organizations.

 

[paidagogos]

Remember Simex!

The point that this thread seems to be missing is the political nature of accreditation. Yes, sports fans, accreditation does have a biggggggggg political component, which has little or nothing to do with the quality of education. Remember Simex a couple of decades ago. At times, accrediting agencies, whether RA or ATS, do try to enforce political correctness. This is usually from a way left of center position, which creates a real problem for conservative, Bible-believing students.

Long ago, during the Fundamentalist-Modernist wars, many Bible-believing students were unable to finish their degrees at the Modernist-Liberal, accredited seminaries. This accounts for the present-day skepticism toward accreditation within hard-core Fundamentalist circles as well as the rise of independent and unaccredited schools.

One factor against accreditation is that it is a very costly and time-consuming process for small schools with limited capital. Thus, many choose to remain unaccredited and slug it out on a philosophical basis. On the other hand, there are some that are just simply substandard and could not possibly meet accreditation standards without hiring a new faculty, revising their curriculium and losing most of their students. Some claim high standards without really aspiring or making a credible effort to produce quality. So, they hide behind the philosophical arguments against accreditation. Most of these are simply diploma mills.

 

[paidagogos]

Potential governmental control?

If you want to see what government can do to encroach upon private, Christian education, read the link below:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69997

Encroachment, such as this, is the residual phobia of accreditation within some Bible-believing communities today. They reason that if accreditation is required, as some advocate, then it could be denied much in the same way that CA is refusing to recognize credits from Christian high schools. Thus, the accrediting agencies, and the government indirectly, could exert influence and control over their doctrinal beliefs and religious content. In other words, they fear entanglement with secular agencies, which may be unsympathetic to their religious beliefs and conscience. One can find a strong historical antecedent in John Leland and the Virginia Baptists.

What do you think?

 

[Havensdad]

The point that this thread seems to be missing is the political nature of accreditation. Yes, sports fans, accreditation does have a biggggggggg political component, which has little or nothing to do with the quality of education. Remember Simex a couple of decades ago. At times, accrediting agencies, whether RA or ATS, do try to enforce political correctness. This is usually from a way left of center position, which creates a real problem for conservative, Bible-believing students.

Long ago, during the Fundamentalist-Modernist wars, many Bible-believing students were unable to finish their degrees at the Modernist-Liberal, accredited seminaries. This accounts for the present-day skepticism toward accreditation within hard-core Fundamentalist circles as well as the rise of independent and unaccredited schools.

One factor against accreditation is that it is a very costly and time-consuming process for small schools with limited capital. Thus, many choose to remain unaccredited and slug it out on a philosophical basis. On the other hand, there are some that are just simply substandard and could not possibly meet accreditation standards without hiring a new faculty, revising their curriculium and losing most of their students. Some claim high standards without really aspiring or making a credible effort to produce quality. So, they hide behind the philosophical arguments against accreditation. Most of these are simply diploma mills.

:thumbs: Preach it!

I am beginning to like you.

 

[Havensdad]

If you want to see what government can do to encroach upon private, Christian education, read the link below:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69997

Encroachment, such as this, is the residual phobia of accreditation within some Bible-believing communities today. They reason that if accreditation is required, as some advocate, then it could be denied much in the same way that CA is refusing to recognize credits from Christian high schools. Thus, the accrediting agencies, and the government indirectly, could exert influence and control over their doctrinal beliefs and religious content. In other words, they fear entanglement with secular agencies, which may be unsympathetic to their religious beliefs and conscience. One can find a strong historical antecedent in John Leland and the Virginia Baptists.

What do you think?

Bro,

When I brought this type of thing up earlier, I was told this was a "red herring".

 

[Havensdad]

For example, why do other institutions look down on DETC accreditation, even though most of their standards are if anything, stricter? Because DETC is cheaper, by far, and if the other organizations start taking them seriously, they will lose a lot of business...

 

[TomVols]

Tom, even high school accreditation is not necessarily that important. Literally thousands of home-schooled and Christian school kids go to the best of colleges without graduating from an accredited high school. Two families in my church had sons within the past two years graduate from West Point and the Air Force Academy, one from an unaccredited Christian school and the other homeschooled respectively. These are two very competitive admission programs.

The MAs have their own standards. I don't believe that UA Christian schools or homeschooled kids should lose one step if they meet all other standards (SATs/ACTs, etc.). That said, try getting into state schools or most private schools at all, let alone on the same level as a grad from an accredited school. I know some KY kids who, even though they graduated from accredited Christian schools, had to make up hours or have hours added to their degrees because their HS wasn't SACS accredited. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

 

[Havensdad]

The MAs have their own standards. I don't believe that UA Christian schools or homeschooled kids should lose one step if they meet all other standards (SATs/ACTs, etc.). That said, try getting into state schools or most private schools at all, let alone on the same level as a grad from an accredited school. I know some KY kids who, even though they graduated from accredited Christian schools, had to make up hours or have hours added to their degrees because their HS wasn't SACS accredited. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

In the State of Texas, as well as several other states, the Law requires those completing Homeschooling or private schools, to be treated equally to those graduating from public High School. Anyone who discriminates, can lose state funding, grants, etc.

 

[paidagogos]

[double post deleted]

 

[paidagogos]

The MAs have their own standards. I don't believe that UA Christian schools or homeschooled kids should lose one step if they meet all other standards (SATs/ACTs, etc.). That said, try getting into state schools or most private schools at all, let alone on the same level as a grad from an accredited school. I know some KY kids who, even though they graduated from accredited Christian schools, had to make up hours or have hours added to their degrees because their HS wasn't SACS accredited. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

Of course, there are always exceptions and sometimes it's other factors, not the fact that they graduated from an unaccredited Christian school. I personally can attested to hundreds of Christian kids making it into the best public universities, as well as private, without any problems. On the other hand, if a question did arise, it was speedily resolved by a letter from the administrator (headmaster) explaining the curriculum and rigor. My experience has been with good Christian schools although there are some poor schools for which I cannot attest. Some of the self-paced curricula are viewed with a somewhat jaundiced eye by college officials. On the other hand, there are many graduates from self-paced programs in major accredited universities with full-ride scholarships. It's a highly individualized process.

A unaccredited Christian school can establish its academic credibility by means other than accreditation. For example, I was head of a school for ten years that averaged at the 90%ile or above on the group norms of the nationally standardized Standford Achievement Test. The group norms compare schools with schools, not individual performance. We tested every student every year. When presented with our school's test-based performance, a very selective admissions program waived its class rank requirement, due to small class size, for one of our graduates. In fact, I've had this happen several times with scholarship programs because of our rigorous expectations and small class size.

There's more here than meets the eye. Graduation from an accredited school is only one factor in the admission decision. Sometimes, I think we hide individual weaknesses behind a screen of generalizations.

 

[TomVols]

You cannot discriminate and keep people out necessarily. But you can require extra coursework (like those who have improper credentials, credits, test scores) and that's what occurs. It is what it is.

 

[Havensdad]

You cannot discriminate and keep people out necessarily. But you can require extra coursework (like those who have improper credentials, credits, test scores) and that's what occurs. It is what it is.

You CANNOT do this, in many states. "Requiring extra course work" is discriminating, under these statutes. You cannot require anything more than is required of other students

 

[TomVols]

So schools are violating the law when they require kids who score less than 19 on their ACTs to take extra maths in the form of remedials? I'd be curious to see the state statues that supposedly preclude this. Do you have a Westlaw or Lex/Nex for these? Or a number that I can look up myself?

I know as a former admissions officer that people who score below a certain level must take more prereqs and some UA HSers must be provisionals and meet certain criteria before full admission. Sometimes those provisional criteria can take the form of remedials, extra coursework, etc.

 

[Havensdad]

So schools are violating the law when they require kids who score less than 19 on their ACTs to take extra maths in the form of remedials? I'd be curious to see the state statues that supposedly preclude this. Do you have a Westlaw or Lex/Nex for these? Or a number that I can look up myself?

I know as a former admissions officer that people who score below a certain level must take more prereqs and some UA HSers must be provisionals and meet certain criteria before full admission. Sometimes those provisional criteria can take the form of remedials, extra coursework, etc.

You can require the same test scores across the board. You can require the same extra course work across the board. You CANNOT say "You were home schooled, so you are only provisionally accepted", or "You attended a private Christian School, so we are going to need extra coursework." YES that is illegal, in most states.

And YES, I can give you the code, at least for Texas...I am not going to look up each individual state for you, though...

Texas Education Code, Chapter 51, Subchapter Z, Section 51.9241 In addition to other protections, they must be treated "as if they graduated from a public High School".

 

[Havensdad]

BTW,

If you did this in one of the protected states, then YES, you were breaking the law, and you are darn lucky those Kids did not know there rights, or they would have sued your everloving patooty off.

 

[TomVols]

I just typed up a lengthy response with many site quotes, then accidentally hit the "back" arrow on the wrong page :BangHead:

You CANNOT do this, in many states. "Requiring extra course work" is discriminating

So Architecture majors who have to have 160 hours as opposed to Finance majors who have to have 128 hours are victims of discrimination? Same principle applies. The former has to have more HS credits in some areas than the others. It is what it is.

Counseled a student who didn't score high enough on her ACT to go right into Calculus. She has to start with a lesser math. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but she isn't being discriminated against.

I appreciate the Texas ref. I thought you had more since you were claiming to cite multiple states. I'll look up the Texas code. See below.

And I didn't do anything to warrant a lawsuit. The regents, academic officers, and trustees set admissions policies. All were consistent with the law.

Oregon has no set STAT scores for accredited grads. They do have minimums for UAs. Missouri's higher ed body has a caution on their website about those who would seek admission from UA districts about the "obstacles" they will likely face.

I just googled several universities. All had different policies for admission for A and UA grads. Two were in Texas.

I think you're arguing against a caricature rather than what is factually and realistically accurate. No one is saying UAs cannot get into college. But it is sheer folly to say that there are not differences in the paths UAs and A grades take to get there. It's just plain false.

Have a good weekend, all. :thumbs: