BJU Board Approves Pursuit of Application Process for Regional Accreditation
Regional accredidation is a necessity and I appreciate this decision from the leadership at BJU.
I understand why institutions do this (funding of all types, including student loans, etc., and to some extent, recognition of legitimacy). However, I believe that doing such is bowing to Baal.
Accreditation is not a necessity (it is not Biblically mandated), and it only puts a school under the thumb of the government, and makes a school dependent upon the government.
I believe that such educational institutions have done good, but ultimately they have removed the leader training functions from the church itself. Long-term, they have harmed, not helped, the local church. The local church has been reduced to a store front for para-church vendors, instead of being the disciple-making entity it was intended to be.
Dr. Bauder wrote a piece less than a year ago on this, explaining how the battle for accreditation is pretty much lost already from a federal level. (http://sharperiron.org/article/federal-intervention-higher-education) Seems odd to pursue this knowing that the ship is already going down (unless this decision is reversed on the federal level).
Accreditation is not a necessity (it is not Biblically mandated), and it only puts a school under the thumb of the government, and makes a school dependent upon the government.
I believe that such educational institutions have done good, but ultimately they have removed the leader training functions from the church itself. Long-term, they have harmed, not helped, the local church. The local church has been reduced to a store front for para-church vendors, instead of being the disciple-making entity it was intended to be.
Dr. Bauder wrote a piece less than a year ago on this, explaining how the battle for accreditation is pretty much lost already from a federal level. (http://sharperiron.org/article/federal-intervention-higher-education) Seems odd to pursue this knowing that the ship is already going down (unless this decision is reversed on the federal level).
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
I wasn’t going to comment on this thread, but because I work as a consultant with colleges and have served on multiple boards, I’d like to offer another perspective. I’ve worked with regional accreditation agencies — SACCS included — for secondary schools and have worked with colleges seeking other forms of accreditation. For convenience, I’ll use points…
1. Today’s students are far more sophisticated and one of the very first questions they ask is about accreditation. We are constantly losing students from our Christian colleges and universities over this issue.
2. Accreditation rarely intersects with or conflicts with a school’s mission and philosophy. The DOE standards used as the foundation for accreditation standards are very objective and there are myriad institutions with pecular and unusual missions or philosophies that achieve accreditation without interference. All that is required is that the school knows and articulates their mission/philosophy and gives evidence that they are integrating that philosophy throughout their program.
3. A University can “exempt” any of their schools from the accreditation process in many associations, thus if there becomes a conflict, it is possible to “work around” the issue and still achieve or maintain accreditation.
4. Once full-accreditation is granted, it is usually retroactively applied to previous graduates for 10 years and it is in place for 10 years with only annual reports required. It is not a constant issue.
5. With the proliferation of “for-profit” colleges and internet-based learning systems, accreditation of the undergraduate degree is being required by more and more graduate schools. An absence of accreditation can severely limit which graduate schools will consider you for acceptance into their programs.
6. This is not actual government oversight. It is oversight by accrediting agencies that have gained recognition by the USDOE.
7. Accreditation for a Bible college is less of a need than for a Liberal Arts program which is the case with BJU and others. I would be more cautious of pursuing regional accreditation if a college was a direct ministry and shared the same umbrella of incorporation or exemption with a local church.
8. Accreditation can be voluntarily surrendered at any time by the institution for any reason.
9. Accredited schools do not (and should not, imo) accept any form of federal aid which puts them under a different set of restrictions potentially. Students can have access to student loan programs and other financial benefits as individuals if they enrolled at accredited schools and this, at this time, does not constitute federal aid to the school.
10. Regional accreditation does challenge the schools to think through their degree programs, CONSTANTLY evaluate those programs (“institutional assessment” is a HOT-BUTTON topic for accreditation right now), sharpen their standards and push towards improvement. Things like having non- or under-credentialed faculty are addressed, faculty inbreeding is discouraged, technology as part of the learning delivery system is encouraged, etc… are also addressed.
I’ll stop with 10 thoughts, but there are additional reasons this is good news. As someone who has been very public over the years with my thoughts on Christian Colleges (I took down a series of articles I wrote for my blog on the topic several years ago, but many will remember them) and their need to address some deficiencies, I am most encouraged to see the schools align with TRACS and now regional associations. I personally think it would be wise to maintain accreditation with BOTH TRACS and SACS as buffer should SACS standards ever change. I have no time at all for governmental interference with an institution’s mission or philosophy, but in most cases, the arguments against accreditation have been “straw men” and have left a lot of very frustrated graduates holding often near-worthless degrees.
Yes, secular people will be visiting the campuses of Christian colleges and what a great opportunity for them to get a good dose of salt and light! Indeed, some of the administration and faculty from Christian colleges will be on the campuses of secular schools as well and that’s a good thing.
Again…I see a difference between Bible colleges seeking regional accreditation and liberal arts programs whose graduates integrate into the general work force and take more traditional career paths. The degrees from those schools should be a blessing and benefit, not a reminder that they are constantly viewed as “not fully educated”.
Kudos to BJU for this reversal and bold step!
1. Today’s students are far more sophisticated and one of the very first questions they ask is about accreditation. We are constantly losing students from our Christian colleges and universities over this issue.
2. Accreditation rarely intersects with or conflicts with a school’s mission and philosophy. The DOE standards used as the foundation for accreditation standards are very objective and there are myriad institutions with pecular and unusual missions or philosophies that achieve accreditation without interference. All that is required is that the school knows and articulates their mission/philosophy and gives evidence that they are integrating that philosophy throughout their program.
3. A University can “exempt” any of their schools from the accreditation process in many associations, thus if there becomes a conflict, it is possible to “work around” the issue and still achieve or maintain accreditation.
4. Once full-accreditation is granted, it is usually retroactively applied to previous graduates for 10 years and it is in place for 10 years with only annual reports required. It is not a constant issue.
5. With the proliferation of “for-profit” colleges and internet-based learning systems, accreditation of the undergraduate degree is being required by more and more graduate schools. An absence of accreditation can severely limit which graduate schools will consider you for acceptance into their programs.
6. This is not actual government oversight. It is oversight by accrediting agencies that have gained recognition by the USDOE.
7. Accreditation for a Bible college is less of a need than for a Liberal Arts program which is the case with BJU and others. I would be more cautious of pursuing regional accreditation if a college was a direct ministry and shared the same umbrella of incorporation or exemption with a local church.
8. Accreditation can be voluntarily surrendered at any time by the institution for any reason.
9. Accredited schools do not (and should not, imo) accept any form of federal aid which puts them under a different set of restrictions potentially. Students can have access to student loan programs and other financial benefits as individuals if they enrolled at accredited schools and this, at this time, does not constitute federal aid to the school.
10. Regional accreditation does challenge the schools to think through their degree programs, CONSTANTLY evaluate those programs (“institutional assessment” is a HOT-BUTTON topic for accreditation right now), sharpen their standards and push towards improvement. Things like having non- or under-credentialed faculty are addressed, faculty inbreeding is discouraged, technology as part of the learning delivery system is encouraged, etc… are also addressed.
I’ll stop with 10 thoughts, but there are additional reasons this is good news. As someone who has been very public over the years with my thoughts on Christian Colleges (I took down a series of articles I wrote for my blog on the topic several years ago, but many will remember them) and their need to address some deficiencies, I am most encouraged to see the schools align with TRACS and now regional associations. I personally think it would be wise to maintain accreditation with BOTH TRACS and SACS as buffer should SACS standards ever change. I have no time at all for governmental interference with an institution’s mission or philosophy, but in most cases, the arguments against accreditation have been “straw men” and have left a lot of very frustrated graduates holding often near-worthless degrees.
Yes, secular people will be visiting the campuses of Christian colleges and what a great opportunity for them to get a good dose of salt and light! Indeed, some of the administration and faculty from Christian colleges will be on the campuses of secular schools as well and that’s a good thing.
Again…I see a difference between Bible colleges seeking regional accreditation and liberal arts programs whose graduates integrate into the general work force and take more traditional career paths. The degrees from those schools should be a blessing and benefit, not a reminder that they are constantly viewed as “not fully educated”.
Kudos to BJU for this reversal and bold step!
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
While I generally agree with Dan’s post, I would like to clarify add to a couple of points.
While the accrediting agencies may recognize retroactive accreditation, no one else seems to. I personally ran into this problem just this year with the state teacher certification department who would not recognize my undergraduate degree because it was granted 3 years before the school achieved full accreditation.
I am currently working on my doctorate. I have not found a single public institution that would accept my course work into either a master’s or doctoral program with even national accreditation, let alone unaccredited work. The reality is that one must have a regionally accredited degree to go on to higher education.
I agree with this. I find BJ’s reported reasoning for pursuing this now unconvincing. It smacks of a change of heart without a desire to admit a change of heart. Contrary to the statement, there has been no substantive change in the regional accreditation requirements that suddenly makes it less intrusive to the institution.
4. Once full-accreditation is granted, it is usually retroactively applied to previous graduates for 10 years and it is in place for 10 years with only annual reports required. It is not a constant issue.
While the accrediting agencies may recognize retroactive accreditation, no one else seems to. I personally ran into this problem just this year with the state teacher certification department who would not recognize my undergraduate degree because it was granted 3 years before the school achieved full accreditation.
5. With the proliferation of “for-profit” colleges and internet-based learning systems, accreditation of the undergraduate degree is being required by more and more graduate schools. An absence of accreditation can severely limit which graduate schools will consider you for acceptance into their programs.
I am currently working on my doctorate. I have not found a single public institution that would accept my course work into either a master’s or doctoral program with even national accreditation, let alone unaccredited work. The reality is that one must have a regionally accredited degree to go on to higher education.
I have no time at all for governmental interference with an institution’s mission or philosophy, but in most cases, the arguments against accreditation have been “straw men” and have left a lot of very frustrated graduates holding often near-worthless degrees.
I agree with this. I find BJ’s reported reasoning for pursuing this now unconvincing. It smacks of a change of heart without a desire to admit a change of heart. Contrary to the statement, there has been no substantive change in the regional accreditation requirements that suddenly makes it less intrusive to the institution.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Technically, Dan has nailed the situation on the head in post #3.
I understand all that, but philosophically I am probably closer to Kevin in post #2.
The involvement of the federal government in higher education is an unconstitutional and unmitigated disaster.
As I stated in response to Dr. Bauder’s article, which Kevin referenced in post #2:
“A visionary response — such as has been offered by http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&mont…] Hillsdale College — was required decades ago. This would have led to an entirely different model of Christian higher education…”
I understand all that, but philosophically I am probably closer to Kevin in post #2.
The involvement of the federal government in higher education is an unconstitutional and unmitigated disaster.
As I stated in response to Dr. Bauder’s article, which Kevin referenced in post #2:
“A visionary response — such as has been offered by http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&mont…] Hillsdale College — was required decades ago. This would have led to an entirely different model of Christian higher education…”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I understand the reasons WHY schools would want to pursue accreditation. From a business and education standpoint, it makes perfect sense. However, it totally removes the training from the local church, something I do not think is even hinted at in the Word.
Though BJU is a liberal arts college, it also is first and foremost a Christian institution. That makes all the difference.
It also creates a dependency upon government funding indirectly, and government control indirectly and/or directly. Just wait and see. (When my Bible college sought accreditation, it made a big difference on its course structure. It also could not exist without the Pell and state tuition grants which students get, which are only available to accredited institutions.)
Institutions of higher learning, at least the bible colleges and seminaries, really have no business subjecting themselves to non-believing judgment. Would you want someone coming in and certifying your pastor’s preaching or your Sunday school?
Bringing discipleship and the training of church leaders back into the church is biblical and safe.
Though BJU is a liberal arts college, it also is first and foremost a Christian institution. That makes all the difference.
It also creates a dependency upon government funding indirectly, and government control indirectly and/or directly. Just wait and see. (When my Bible college sought accreditation, it made a big difference on its course structure. It also could not exist without the Pell and state tuition grants which students get, which are only available to accredited institutions.)
Institutions of higher learning, at least the bible colleges and seminaries, really have no business subjecting themselves to non-believing judgment. Would you want someone coming in and certifying your pastor’s preaching or your Sunday school?
Bringing discipleship and the training of church leaders back into the church is biblical and safe.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Has anyone installed any seismic sensors on the Rodeheaver Auditorium end of the fountains? Has any underground activity been detected?
Forgive my tongue-in-cheek tone. My matriculation at BJU was in the late 70’s - early 80’s. It seems like all of the issues that were “hills to die on” back then (accreditation, interracial dating, absolute aliumni loyalty, even avoiding intercollegiate activities) are now “…no longer an issue.” (I *think* that was the exact phrase spoken by BJIII to Larry King immediately before he announced that the ban on interracial dating had been eliminated.)
Amazing to see how much The University has changed since my dear wife (class of ‘80) and I were last enrolled as students.
My wife says she wants a refund! (Also spoken tongue-in-cheek.)
Forgive my tongue-in-cheek tone. My matriculation at BJU was in the late 70’s - early 80’s. It seems like all of the issues that were “hills to die on” back then (accreditation, interracial dating, absolute aliumni loyalty, even avoiding intercollegiate activities) are now “…no longer an issue.” (I *think* that was the exact phrase spoken by BJIII to Larry King immediately before he announced that the ban on interracial dating had been eliminated.)
Amazing to see how much The University has changed since my dear wife (class of ‘80) and I were last enrolled as students.
My wife says she wants a refund! (Also spoken tongue-in-cheek.)
Regional accreditation is hardly more than a government approved shake down. It has practically nothing to do with advancing quality education (I’m sure that the powers that be in regional accreditation would dispute that, but they’re wrong about practically everything else, too). That being said, as our dear brethren who function in neighborhoods where shake down rackets are routine can likely testify, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.
Lee
Gentlemen,
Dr. Phil Smith has been intricately involved in the accreditation issue for the last 50 years. Over those years it was his recommendation to the BJU administration not to seek regional accreditation. However, in 2008 the Department of Education changed its emphasis from “standards” to “criteria” to “mission” regarding the six regional accrediting agencies. The North Central group had already operated on that basis, thus making MBBC’s regional accreditation workable. It has definitely helped that school academically. With the relatively recent change in the DOE, Dr. Phil Smith recommended to the administration at BJU that the university can legitimately meet the missional requirement without violating their ability to dismiss faculty for cause and discipline their students according to biblical values. If during the 5-7 year process they discover that they cannot fulfill their missional requirements according to SEACS, then they will simply keep the national accreditation status already procured for the next 10 years through TRACS. The portability of credits and degrees has become one of the most important issues in recent years. The problem is getting worse year by year and it threatens the very existence of a liberal-arts university (vis-a-vis Bible College or Seminary).
Dr. Phil Smith has been intricately involved in the accreditation issue for the last 50 years. Over those years it was his recommendation to the BJU administration not to seek regional accreditation. However, in 2008 the Department of Education changed its emphasis from “standards” to “criteria” to “mission” regarding the six regional accrediting agencies. The North Central group had already operated on that basis, thus making MBBC’s regional accreditation workable. It has definitely helped that school academically. With the relatively recent change in the DOE, Dr. Phil Smith recommended to the administration at BJU that the university can legitimately meet the missional requirement without violating their ability to dismiss faculty for cause and discipline their students according to biblical values. If during the 5-7 year process they discover that they cannot fulfill their missional requirements according to SEACS, then they will simply keep the national accreditation status already procured for the next 10 years through TRACS. The portability of credits and degrees has become one of the most important issues in recent years. The problem is getting worse year by year and it threatens the very existence of a liberal-arts university (vis-a-vis Bible College or Seminary).
Pastor Mike Harding
So will BJU actually gain accreditation? They are merely applying
About the involvement of the churches - I believe that most churches would support BJU’s decision to pursue regional accredidation. Other fundamentalist schools that have regional accredidation are supported by churches and these schools highly value the influence of the churches on their schools.
Interestingly, more and more churches are requiring prospective pastor’s to have accredited degrees.
Interestingly, more and more churches are requiring prospective pastor’s to have accredited degrees.
Discussion