Reasons WHY a Legit School would NOT be Accredited

I don't think it is anti-accred. as much as it is distain for eductation. I suggested to a Bible Institute once, that would have nothing to do with accred., that they might look at the standards required and improve the school along those lines, and all present bristled and someone suddenly became a black sheep in the crowd.

Many look up their noses at the educated as the educated often look down their noses at the uneducated and both are arrogant judging how God has directed others in their education.

Just my observation of those I've rubbed the wrong way with my elbow

 

My hunch is that a few of the smaller schools that have solid faculty and an adequate facility, lack in the third "F," Dr. Bob. Obtaining regional accreditation is a costly path, something these schools do not have in abundance. I speak here of substantive unaccredited schools (the few that exist), not degree mills.

 

My question: For those who still have no use or disdain for accreditation, WHY would a legitimate school NOT be accredited, proving it has legit faculty, facility, finances, etc?
-------------------------------------------------
Definitions are in order here I believe.
Who gets to determine what a legitimate school is?
Who gets to determine what a legitimate faculty is?
Who gets to determine what a legitimate facility is?

I have no disdain for accreditation per se.
My main beef with it is the spirit which it tends to produce, i.e. arrogance on the part of said schools graduates.
I also agree that non-accredited schools tend to the other end of the pendulum, i.e. foolish fellows with but three years of Bible, tromping off to inflict harm to the body of Christ w/o sufficient training.

But to say that only accreditation remedies the latter problem is simply not true.

Answer my first three questions and I would be better able to honestly answer the OP question.

In His service;
Jim

 

The arrogant attract the arrogant and continues to perpetuate arrogance. Arrogance will not thrive in humility. Nor will the humble be attracted to arrogance.

You cannot make a race car from chicken manure.

I found seminary helped me a lot to be more humble and to also teach me about things I thought I knew, but didn't. It was a humbling experience for me.

 

It seems to me there is a legitimate concern about demands that accreditation can make on the institution.

I do think there is a difference in BJU's mind between regional accreditation and TRACS. In TRACS, you have theological schools providing the peer review. In regional accreditation, you have non theological schools involved. I think that is a major difference.

There is a point perhaps of relevance drawn from the ministry of Christ and Paul. I was thinking of last week in prep for last night's message. When Paul was preaching in Philippi, there was a demon-possessed girl who was telling the truth about Paul and his message. Yet Paul, like Christ in similar situations, rejected the affirmation of the girl because of the source from which it came. It was a nuisance to his ministry, and provided affirmation from an illegitimate source. I think thinking out loud here about how that applies to other situations in our ministries today. Do we accept approval and affirmation from places that are so diametrically opposed to what we believe? How does that help or hinder the mission for which we exist? (Just thinking here ... not arguing for particular application or point.)

 

It seems to me there is a legitimate concern about demands that accreditation can make on the institution.
--------------------------------------------------

Pastor Larry;
This is the point I was getting to, I just haven't been that far around the bush yet! I got a couple rabbits I would like to chase first.

In His service;
Jim

 

I agree that there are legitimate concerns about accreditation. There is a ditch to avoid on either side of this issue. On the one hand is the traditional "boogey-man" thinking of many fundamentalists that sees accreditation as an absolute compromise. But it seems to me that those who see not even a possibility that that accreditation could ever under any circumstance lead to a compromise of any kind are being unwise. There is always a danger of being so separate from the world that we become irrelevant (think of the Amish here). There is also always a danger that we might compromise truth and rationalize that compromise in order to justify it. In short, I don't think that accreditation is an issue of right or wrong, it is an issue of being wise or unwise. If it can be done without compromise, great! We fundamentalists, for better or for worse, have bought into an academic model for leadership training, so let's be accountable to the academic community so that we can say that we are giving true and valuable education. But, let's not be naive, the secular academic community and even the religious academic community is ultimately no friend to the fundamentals of the faith. One of these days they may apply pressure to one of our institutions to compromise the truth. When that day comes (and it probably will), will we hold accreditation so dear that we will compromise the truth rather than lose accreditation? Beware!

 

Bob, with all due respect, I think you are wrong on this. In the past, their stated objection was to unbelievers sitting in review. Unfortunately, their site is apparently new and some links aren't working, but as I recall there was a pamphlet about that on the website. I have seen the pamphlet before but don't have it now.

That is probably part of hte issue, if true (and I am not disputing the truth; I simply don't know). BJU is not a Bible college. It is a four year liberal arts college and "like schools" are places like Clemson, USC, etc. I can't imagine that Bible colleges are the "peer review" group for that kind of institution. That is one thing that sets BJU apart from MBBC (and above MBBC IMO). They are a liberal arts college and a liberal arts education is the best kind of education to have.

BTW, for those who say that you have to have accreditation, I was browsing some pages looking for some info on this this morning and was reminded of this exchange on Larry King Live:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/03/lklw.00.html

Many have also claimed that BJU never said they were wrong in their racial policies. From the same page:

 

Dr. Bob says, "1. In order to be a college, schools must offer a core curriculum in keeping with state regs (each state differs slightly, but no state wants to authorize a school to offer a BA or MA or such without some oversight) "

Thanks bro. Now we have a point of discussion. (IMO) Many of the terms used in this discussion thread (IMO) have needed to be clarified. This you have done nicely thanks.

I think we need to determine if the said "degree" is religious or not.
In matters of the church, the state has no business poking its nose into determining what is a legit degree or not. Where said student wishes to go on into some "non-church" field, I concede that students need to be degreed at an institution which meets certain standards as laid down by the states, (severally).
This is my bone of contention. Dr. Bob, you did say this in a different manner than I but I think we can find a point of agreement here. The state has no business determining what is required for a Masters degree or Doctors, as far as it pertains to the church. Nor for that matter a Bachelors. The whole point of a Bible college, (IMO) is to equip men to plant New Testament churches. Men who are qualified to teach other men, who will teach other men, etc. In one way, this is how the Great Commission is carried out.
Now if we are talking about an institution whose purpose is to train Christian men in a quasi-christian environment with a goal of sending those degreed men into the non-church world; then I do agree we are talking about a different egg basket. In this situation, the state can and does have a certain interest. While the state (or accrediting agency) cannot (or should not) dictate the "religous" standards of that institution, it can and should dictate the educational standards.
These are just my thoughts on this issue.
The "fear" many preachers whom I know have, is that in seeking accreditation, often times the "college" has compromised itself. This is why we oppose accreditation, per se.
I think the two purposes can and should be kept strictly seperate. When mingling (sp) the two purposes, inevitably the "religious" purposes get compromised. And eventually weakened to the point of being anti-New Testament. I haven't looked into it lately, but to illustrate my point; does a Th.D from Princeton turn out Fundamentalists or Liberals? This, I think, is what is being opposed when some cry out against accreditation. For inevitably it weakens doctrine.

In His service;
Jim

 

I also think that some religious colleges may be good even if not accredited by TRACS or ATS. I attend LBU and I belive it offers a solid Christian education. They get reviewed by other educational institutions such as Louisiana State University in an attempt to better themselves academically each year. Accreditation is a costly endeavor. Those costs can be covered if there is the money available to do so. Otherwise, those costs must come from increased tuition and administrative fees.

 

Our college was not accreditted, and it ook me a year and 1/2 to realize I was being jipped. I did not learn anything, including simple hard work. It was laughable! The classes were shamfully designed too easy...honestly, I was 18 and could have taught the classes on what I was taught from basic Bible study. Not saying I have a big head or anything, just that, education should be that ..education. I was at a we hope to turn out 100 preachers who mimic our every preaching style, no need to learn greek & Hebrew...after all, we have the kjv.
How was I so silly?
Sigh... we all make mistakes.
My pastor used to say that if you invite the government in...then they can make all the rules, instead of the church, and that was his problem with it.
Just my experience,
Peggy

 

accreditation is not the government, in spite of what many who are unfamiliar with it claim. That is a common myth perpetrated to try and discredit those who want to have not only a Biblical foundation for their school, but also academics that cannot be faulted.

Clearly the school you attended had neither.

 

I feel that another related issue to this discussion ought to be the validity of some of the accrediting agencies themselves.

Most of the postings I've read that do specifically mention an accrediting agency have cited ones such as TRACS or ATS. I believe there is also one known as the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges (AABC). All three of these are legitimate ones that are listed with the Dept. of Education and/or the Council on Postsecondary Education.

On the other hand, there are some schools that claim to be accredited, but are not accedited by an legitimate accrediting agency. So you STILL need to be careful about assuming that if a school advertises itself as "accredited," its "accreditation" is valid.

This can be an issue especially if you're trying to transfer credits from one college to another.

Accreditation by itself doesn't automatically "guarantee" that every graduate is
necessarily a well-educated person any more than the mere possession of a drivers license guarantees that its possessor is always going to be a safe driver. On the other hand, I might have some questions about how good of an education a person actually did receive from a non-accredited school, just as I would the safety and reliability of a non-licensed driver