Reasons WHY a Legit School would NOT be Accredited

I cannot think of any reason why any institution meeting the above criteria would shun accreditation, especially with TRACS on the scene. Consequently, a school which does shun legitimate accreditation (regional, TRACS, AABC) invites doubts concerning its quality.

BTW, examine the source of the degrees of administrators and faculty members of schools not accredited either regionally or by TRACS or AABC. Most of them, at least their masters and doctorates, are from the questionable institution at which they serve or from other questionable institutions. Of course, there are some exceptions, but exceptions don't make the rule.

Bill

 

Yeah, and I think I know what you're picking. And, I think I may agree with you. Methinks the competition is heating up! Let's see. Who's accredited now? TTU, MBBC, CCC, etc. Since none of the predicted bad things have happened to them, what's the rational for non-accreditation? And, there was the internal pressure for accreditation. Times are a changing. Shore nuff!

In the early days of Fundamentalism, accreditation was a different ball game. Libraries, degrees, salaries, facilities, etc. figured prominently into the picture. Even though Fundamentalist schools were turning out a good product, they were short in some of the areas that accrediting committees measured (e.g. salaries, libraries, facilities). Accreditation has moved away from some of these things with the coming of DE.

Furthermore, there was a time when academic freedom (interpret as faculty being able to deviate from doctrinal standards) was a big question in accreditation (Remember the Seminex fracas?). No one wanted to risk being accredited and then losing it over doctrinal matters. Now, accreditation has changed lots. Some regional accreditors were not as friendly to doctrinaire religious schools as others (e.g. Southern Association was not friendly whereas North Central was).

The bottom line is that many schools simply did not meet the accreditors’ standards. I simply don’t believe the myth that the Southern Association begged BJU to accept their accreditation. Did BJU have high academic standards? Absolutely! Did they produce a product that excelled? Yes! Did they meet Southern Association standards? Probably not.

The kicker to this whole business is that the Fundamentalist Christian schools are twenty years late in pursuing accreditation. Accreditation, itself, is in question today. It has been turned on its head by DE. One cannot evaluate DE by salaries, libraries, and buildings.

 

What is DE?

Andy

 

I have been throught the accreditation process. It brings out a lot of things that people know and sometimes tolerate and puts it on paper for all to see. Some people don't like it when they want to be a good politician and hide things.

The accreditation process hold everyone accountable. It is very good. I would never go to teach at a school without asking to see their accreditation report first.

 

DE = distance education

 

Yeah? My fundamental question is: "Is accreditation valid (valid used as a statistical concept)?" In other words, does it measure what it purports to measure? How do you know?

[ December 14, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

Interesting, and, unfortunately, an accurate observation.

 

The key word here is process. Accreditation is a process but it does NOT, as Dr. Bob pointed out, guarantee the final product. The final product is a highly individualized matter with many factors producing both a success and failure rate. A minority Yale JD, who was assistant editor of the law review, ended up as a street person even though he was highly recruited by NY law firms. This had to do with the individual, not Yale Law School. However, a statistical review of standardized test scores of seniors or graduates can speak to the quality of the educational process at the school.

Unaccredited BJU’s School of Education excelled beyond it’s accredited peers in SC for many years. When 25% of SC PS teachers did not have class A certification because they could not pass the NTE, BJU boasted 100% of its education grads, who were required to take the test, passing with an average 200 points above their closest accredited SC competitor. So, to parody Paul, accreditation means nothing and non-accreditation means nothing.

 

Sounds as though you have not personally been through the process of accreditation. I think most who have would find it rather grueling. The process is only as good as the people on the committee. When I was teaching and the accreditation committee came into my class they asked my students to answer some questions. Those questions were based on the state standards for the subject I was teaching. Now they could have lied but I didn't find that they did.

I have a hunch the man you talked about was probably hidden from being scrutinized. It is the school that is accredited not a particular teacher or professor anyway.

I would be very comfortable in saying that if the churches in America had to be accredited according to what Jesus commanded His disciples, the majority would seriously fail. If only 10 percent in any public school could meet the standards we would be screaming. But not the church. We in the church should be satisfied with no less than 100 percent who make disciples.

 

Sounds as though you have not personally been through the process of accreditation. I think most who have would find it rather grueling. The process is only as good as the people on the committee. When I was teaching and the accreditation committee came into my class they asked my students to answer some questions. Those questions were based on the state standards for the subject I was teaching. Now they could have lied but I didn't find that they did.

I have a hunch the man you talked about was probably hidden from being scrutinized. It is the school that is accredited not a particular teacher or professor anyway.

I would be very comfortable in saying that if the churches in America had to be accredited according to what Jesus commanded His disciples, the majority would seriously fail. If only 10 percent in any public school could meet the standards we would be screaming. But not the church. We in the church should be satisfied with no less than 100 percent who make disciples. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't buy it! This reasoning parallels the idea that you can't counsel homosexuals unless you have been one! WRONG! I don't have to experience the sin to know that it's sin. We reason from principles--experience is not the ultimate determiner of truth.

 

Since I went to MBBC post-accreditation, and had the opportunity to travel promoting the school, I had a little training in the area of accreditation. It seems that the biggest question people in churches ask of any Maranatha rep is the accreditation question. Dr. Jaspers, the current president told us that if they were ever forced to compromise in order to maintain accreditation, they would drop accreditation like a bad habit. He told us that it would cost them nothing. With that perspective, I can't see a bad side to accreditation, which gives 3rd party validity to my education.

 

I just started at Calvary this past September.

 

How is accreditation sin? What a comparison between accreditation and homosexuality!

How much research have you done on accreditation to know what is involved?

If all schools are bad how many teachers and professors have children that are in trouble? I would be willing to bet that a much higher percentage of preachers kids have more trouble in society than teachers and professors kids.

 

Nice post! I also went to an accredited college: Clearwater Christian College. CCC got its accreditation back in 1986; I graduated in 1994. Dr. Youstra, who was the college president back then, said the same thing about accreditation and compromise; if CCC was forced to compromise, then it would drop accreditation like a hot potato.

P.S.-- I also went to Calvary Baptist Seminary back in the mid-90's; I didn't graduate, but you will find yourself a very good education there. Unfortunately, I'm too 'calvinist' for them!

 

How is accreditation sin? What a comparison between accreditation and homosexuality!

How much research have you done on accreditation to know what is involved?

If all schools are bad how many teachers and professors have children that are in trouble? I would be willing to bet that a much higher percentage of preachers kids have more trouble in society than teachers and professors kids. </font>[/QUOTE]Go back and read my post again and again until you comprehend it. From your questions, you obviously didn’t understand. My point was that you don’t have to experience something to know about it. Nothing more!

I never said or intimated that accreditation was sin. IMHO, it is much ado about nothing. I challenge its validity (speaking in the sense of the statistical definition—i.e. measuring what it purports to measure). I argue that accreditation of itself does not insure a quality education.

What do I know about accreditation? Quite a bit! I don’t think too much of it. It is a concept whose time has passed. New issues, new instructional delivery models, etc. have made the old methods obsolete. Even though it’s not popular, I still believe in test based models for assessing quality.

Finally, your rambling discourse about teachers’, professors’, and preachers’ kids just doesn’t make much sense. Do you have any sources on this information or is it just your impression? Prejudice? What are you saying?

 

What about when George said accreditation was taboo? (i.e. BJU years--Principal @ BJA & prof/student teaching supervisor @ BJU) Did you change his mind? Why?

 

Sorry for the long delay in response.....

I wasn't aware of Dr. Youstra's statements before he came aboard at Clearwater. I was at CCC from 1991-1994, and his statements about accreditation were consistent, even while I was in seminary at Calvary Baptist in Lansdale, PA in the mid 1990's. If Dr. Youstra made comments to the contrary before I was at CCC, then he obviously changed his mind!