Researcher compares assets and enrollment of major fundamentalist educational institutions

[Dave Doran] Just to push my point, confirmed and shared by others here, a little farther…

In terms of telling what that site is about, the selection of information and the way in which that information is being framed are more significant than the numbers themselves. Why those numbers? Why frame them as he has? Why does he think this is important at this particular time? Add the fact that he has made a deliberate effort to draw attention to two agenda-driven sites does not suggest a neutral quest for and dissemination of information.

If this guy wants to spend his time doing this, so be it. If people read it and think it is some kind of objective, neutral zone of information, that’s sad. That this was chosen as newsworthy and something to be brought to the attention of people, that’s disappointing.

Dr. Doran, this is where I disagree. People need to see just how crazy these bashers are. It’s like they’re on a witch hunt. For a long time, I’ve felt like I was the only one who knew about all these bashers (I call them “Truthers”), and I feel like I am partially responsible for bringing this to light. I do agree that it would be good if he had put out less data. Why do I need to know what BJU pays people? I don’t! It’s their business, not mine. I know the data is out there if I ever wanted to see it, so why push it in our faces?

It seems that I have been mistaken about the identity of the author of the BJU Numbers blog. I am wrong. I’m sorry. Really, I am, Jim.

It is not my intention to misrepresent Karl Nashorn or anyone else. I don’t think I know Karl or the CEO of the Hidalgo Grain Company. I don’t really even have a dog in this fight. No bitterness on my part, Jeremy.

Karl did post a link to The Hidalgo Grain Company without a disclaimer. I honestly was led to believe that he is one and the same guy.

When he admits that he is not officially representing BJU or their “lackeys” he leads me to believe that he has a subversive agenda. If he’s not The Hidalgo Grain Company CEO, he leads me to believe that he is of the same mindset.

I agree with Dave Doran that his findings are in no way “objective” or “neutral.” This is not newsworthy stuff.

How many of us would like to have our financial records or enrollment figures posted publicly for all the world to see? How does this help the cause of Christ?

[Jim Peet]

[Dan Pelletier] How many of us would like to have our financial records or enrollment figures posted publicly for all the world to see? How does this help the cause of Christ?

There’s an answer to this

Here it is

http://www.ecfa.org

That’s an evangelical organization, and as I see it, they have no stock in fundamentalism.

JeremyM, for clarification, how do you identify these crazy “Truthers” on witch hunts? Do they make statements like this?

“I will eventually discredit him. This might not be the way, but I know there’s got to be something wrong with the data.”

[Charlie] JeremyM, for clarification, how do you identify these crazy “Truthers” on witch hunts? Do they make statements like this?

“I will eventually discredit him. This might not be the way, but I know there’s got to be something wrong with the data.”

Sorry, I could have probably put that better. In the first sentence, I was mainly just showing my commitment to not being taken in by his presentation (and also to help protect others from being caught up in putting too much belief in the site). I think the reasons for that have been made clear by other posters more qualified than I. In the second sentence, I was essentially trying to sum up what Dr. Doran said earlier.

Basically, you can see the sites these people operate on:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Truth-seeking-graduates-of-Bob-Jones/1523…] Truth Seeking “Graduates” of BJU

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Bob-Jo…] The Alternative Alumni Association (and I think you can see the homosexual agenda at play in this site)

There are other ones as well, but the hate it pretty seething.

[Dave Doran] Just to push my point, confirmed and shared by others here, a little farther…

In terms of telling what that site is about, the selection of information and the way in which that information is being framed are more significant than the numbers themselves. Why those numbers? Why frame them as he has? Why does he think this is important at this particular time? Add the fact that he has made a deliberate effort to draw attention to two agenda-driven sites does not suggest a neutral quest for and dissemination of information.

If this guy wants to spend his time doing this, so be it. If people read it and think it is some kind of objective, neutral zone of information, that’s sad. That this was chosen as newsworthy and something to be brought to the attention of people, that’s disappointing.

I agree that not everything out there is newsworthy, but I know many Joe Sixpacks and Suzy Homemakers that will probably get a forwarded email or see a post on Facebook linking to this information. It looks official, and how many of us know the ins and outs of accounting? Good night nurse- most people can’t balance their checkbooks, and when they see millions of dollars involved, their brains explode.

But when we bring our SI readers attention to it so that other perspectives (especially from experts) can be brought to bear on the quality and sources and methods used to weigh these numbers, people can learn how to evaluate, how to answer. It doesn’t really matter all that much, IMO, what the motives of the author are if the information is accurate. And maybe the information is correct, but was selected to encourage readers to draw unfavorable conclusions.

If so, learning how this is done is important. This kind of stuff is all over the blogosphere and social networks and message boards, and it’s no use pretending that it might go away if we close our eyes and ears. Sometimes we need to shine an even brighter light so that errors, regardless of whose errors they are, can be dealt with properly. Next time it might be our church, our college, our charitable organization, our mission board…

I’ve found the accounting information brought out here fascinating. Makes me want to turn on the radio and listen to Clark Howard.

Jim, the site to which the SI readership was directed is nothing like the EFCA. Organizations like the EFCA carry some heft precisely because they have standards and they have standard ways of doing their reporting and evaluation. They do not subjectively choose the information which they monitor and they do not lack the very transparency that people seem so concerned about. We know what the EFCA is and why it exists. That is not what that site is doing. There is no transparency on that site about methods, objectives, etc. It is bogus to draw a correlation between that site and the EFCA.

Susan, I agree that people will see things like this and it is good to have them be put under the light of examination as well. There are comment sections at that site where appropriate critique should take place. Anybody directed there would then see, in context, the concerns that have been raised about the data and they way it is being represented and used. Why help him get his message out? Why help him get his message out in a way that suggests that there is some credibility to what he is doing?

Objecting to that particular site (and the ones to which it linked) has nothing to do with cover-ups, etc. Partial information in the service of an agenda isn’t “the light of day” and I don’t think it should be aided. I’d think that even if it were a PCCNumbers site.

http://www.efca.org/

http://www.ecfa.org

I’m confused. I think Dave was talking about the ECFA….and if so, I agree with him. :tired:

Sorry about misspelling the acronym. I was referring to the same organization that Jim raised in a comment a few before mine.

BJU is under no obligation to respond to anything that site puts up. Just like I think SI shouldn’t have dignified it by pointing it out, they shouldn’t dignify it by responding to it. If someone has questions about the numbers from looking at the source documents, they can contact the institution and ask for answers. The operator of that site isn’t looking for answers. He’s making statements and offering opinions. And he’s skillfully done it so that others now have questions and seem to think BJU is somehow withholding information that it shouldn’t be.

Bravo for him. He’s played his hand well. In fact, I now run the risk of drawing more attention to him by complaining about you drawing attention to him, so I’ll stop.

Not sure how these number are worth much of anything. It just compares Christian colleges. Why not provide some additional perspective and include the top ‘x’ number of other private colleges. Perhaps Harvard, Yale, etc. That would provide some degree of perspective to these numbers.