There seems to be some misunderstanding out there amongst the throngs. So let me say as clearly and pointedly as possible- I am not opposed to education nor am I a fan of amateurism or dilettantism. Education is immensely important. Terribly necessary. And utterly desirable.
I am opposed, however, to the false belief that accreditation is capable of guaranteeing scholarship and I am asserting that the accreditation industry is purely self serving and driven by money and not a real concern for academics or students.
A good education doesn’t depend on a greed driven self serving industry. An industry, no one seems to be recalling, that is a scant 30 or so years old. It is infuriatingly maddening to see it defended as though it had always been around and it is absurdly parochial to believe that only people presently graduating from ‘accredited’ schools are intelligent, gifted, and articulate. Just as absurd, I’ll add, as asserting that persons graduating from ‘accredited’ schools are all smart. Some of them are real idiots. And some who teach them are real idiots too.
I hope this clarifies matters. I’ll close with this- I know I’m an iconoclast and I don’t care if anyone likes it. I would be a spineless coward to change my view just because it annoyed people or made them uncomfortable or, best of all, made them think for half a second or more. If I have to cut a few heads off along the way, I’m ok with that.
I think the concern is that you keep saying that it ‘guarantees’ something. Accreditation doesn’t, to my knowledge, make such a claim. It only professes that the individual who is accredited is proficient in the level of education that particular school offered. Is there a clause I am unaware of? If so, then accredited institutions could be penalized for making false or unrealistic claims.
the problem is that the word ‘accreditation’ itself implies the bestowal of believability. when someone says they are ‘believable’ because someone else says they are, doesn’t that imply a guarantee of sorts?
i think you may be overlooking the simple fact that by using the word ‘accredited’ the accrediting agencies are claiming that they grant a stamp of believability.
So your contention is not really with accrediting agencies, but with the way society uses language to justify things? Your issue is really not about accreditation at all (because, technically, there is nothing wrong with it–it does what it exists to do). The variable that needs to be changes is the interpretation of language by people, society. The issue is that people have a skewed perspective of language that makes it possible for them to believe that “accredited” = “guarantee.” It permits individuals to equate one having been accredited with one being believable in the same way that ‘perfect’ is equatable to an individuals perception of ‘awesome’. It might be awesome, but its far from perfect.
‘changes’ should read ‘changed’.
dont put words in my mouth. i’ve said what i’ve said and it really is so plain it doesn’t need convoluting explanation.
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I’m trying to figure out where your argument is. What you are arguing makes sense, but not against accreditation. It makes sense that people convolute words and make them fit into their own definitions on how they think the world works. Accreditation does what it means to do, that is, it provides its graduates with the understanding that a degree bearing its mark will mean they are proficient in the level of education that a University of College provides. It does not mean anything more than that. Perfect means what it is defined to mean. However, in both instances, society–i.e., people–will find a vernacular definition that they will apply to the language. In this instance, society has chosen to equate ‘accredited’ with ‘believable.’ I am unaware of any such accrediting body who makes such a claim. If they did, they would be accountable for every instance where an individual made an unbelievable claim. They would be subject to hundreds of lawsuits. They legally can’t make that claim, so they don’t. It is the media who perpetuates this equation.
Now, can accrediting bodies do more to explain the difference? Can they do more to express that the two are not necessarily equatable? Yes, they can. But they don’t. That is where the fault lies with them. But they make no promises about the believability of the claims of their graduates; only that they have met the minimum (hopefully better) standard of requirement to graduate–meaning they are proficient in the education that an institution supplies. There is nothing more to it than that. How else would we be able to judge proficiency?
You write
How else would we be able to judge proficiency?
Just exactly how proficiency was judged before the invention of the accreditation scam. how on earth do you think proficiency was judged before the 1960′s? do you really not know that this scam is new on the scene?
Do you really want me to answer this Jim? Would you like me to explain why scholarship is better today than it was before the 1960′s? Do I really need to bring up all the corruption and ideologues and the Biblicists which were a larger, more accepted part of academia before the institution of accreditation entered the field? Would you really like me to bring up all the cases where, prior to this process, the field was plagued with hyperbole–worse, hyperbole which was often passed off as fact or as evidence unto itself? Since accreditation, you see the formation of method, you see the formation of data collection, the formation of proper citation, of standardization–the field has become a science and as a result it is more stable, more open to correction, more open to self-inquiry. Before the 1960′s, scholarship was plagued by thieves (quite literally, stealing from museums), evangelicals, and worse. It was not until the 1960′s where you start to see critical scholars challenging dogmatic church laws, openly questioning the authorship of the Gospels, the dating of the Gospels, and so forth. This was only widely acceptable during this transitional period. People were becoming accountable.
Now, will there be exceptions to this? Yes. But certainly the exceptions (i.e. Bultmann, Harnack, etc…) are not the rule. I can pick up a copy of Lightfoot, of Bousset, and find good, but I also find a lot of bad that would not make it into modern journals–such hyperbole and polemics would be caught before it made it to print. Accreditation didn’t spawn overnight either. It had been a growing trend since the formation of the Redaction History schools in Germany–it had come out of the Enlightenment, stemming from the Revolutions in both France and America, and from the development of the Humanities in Germany (i.e. Psychology, Sociology) and the development of Literary Theory in France. All of this wove together the quilt which, upon completion, required a final thread–accreditation. I’m not saying it is perfect, but it certainly is not evil. It is a necessity; it is a way for the academe to know who has completed the very standard, the very basic level of education required to be considered an expert and not an amateur. Previously, there had been no standard level of education in Universities, no means to know if what you were being taught was full of ideology or hyperbole rather than evidence and fact-based information. With accreditation, you know that what you were taught at its most basic level is just the same that everyone else was–you can take that basic level and improve upon it, but with an accredited degree, you’ll never fall below the standard. There is only one way to go: up. This is the value that I see with accreditation.
According to the website:
“The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met.”
http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
With this we know the difference between a diploma mill and an accredited university. An accredited school will have met standards that are universally accepted. A diploma mill, which is not accredited, will not. Chances are those that are not do not meet the standards because they have a substandard educational program. But without accreditation, how would you know?
it’s an american thing which means nothing in the rest of the world, except that it’s well known and demonstrated that accreditation guarantees no notable difference in ability. For example, prospective american doctoral candidates are judged on their abilities, not on their current institution.
personally i think you’re just delusional if you think there are scholars today of the caliber of von rad or bultmann. there are great scholars- but none of them graduated from ‘accredited’ universities with doctoral degrees. all the greats predate that nonsense.
your perception is far too narrow and your grasp of the history of the field of biblical studies seems to be limited to the last 20 years, which is really quite sad. furthermore, your understanding is limited to americans only and believe it or not, non-americans are the bulk of good biblical scholars.
so, all in all, you seem hell bent on defending a scam.
you write
An accredited school will have met standards that are universally accepted. A diploma mill, which is not accredited, will not. Chances are those that are not do not meet the standards because they have a substandard educational program. But without accreditation, how would you know?
an accredited school will have met no such thing. it will have paid a fee and primed the accrediting committee. it may or may not have excellent programs with excellent professors. but chances are just as good that they are teaching pure crap.
accreditation simply doesnt work in the real world the way the accrediting agencies wish you to believe it does. you need to visit with people who actually have experienced the process instead of visiting government and accrediting websites- which clearly have an agenda.
you of all people, mr young skeptic, owe it to your quest for truth to look at the issue honestly instead of buying into the scam just because it suits you.
Accreditation does nothing except measure how many books there are in the library (ignoring whether the books are out of date and the types of books, the facilities and the ratio of faculty to students (ignoring whether these people actually teach or leave most the educating to grad students). I hear “he went to an accredited school” or “that program has its accreditation pulled” like it was gospel. How about “we don’t guarantee the results of your education” or “your professor may be a dingbat”. But these accreditation groups won’t say that because, the jig would be up and people would start slowly wondering why we are paying good money for this.
You may all be right. For me the verdict is still out. I see its value, but Jim, don’t assume I am supporting it in its current state. It is just the closest thing I know of to measure proficiency in an area of expertise. Accreditation doesn’t just go towards Humanities; it works the same way in the medical field–a doctor needs to show proficiency in the basics or he cannot practice.
Throwing out accreditation entire is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You need something very close to it; does it need to be modified? Probably. Is there money involved? Oh yes, there is. Is that an issue? Of course it is. So find a way to make it better. But removing it completely will open the doors to all sorts of quacks and loons and people with agendas who have no training or education whatsoever in the field. I see it as the end of critical scholarship.
Bah…brain is working faster than my fingers today. “Entire” should read “entirely”
Jim, I’m sure you’ve noted this before, but accreditation only came to U.S. colleges by means of financial aid. It was a method to determine which schools would be able to get government money.
Why yes, when speaking about such things that hold the life of a person in play, such as a medical field, I would sorta insist on accreditation, but I have to wonder if accreditation hasn’t stymied other educational pursuits such as theology and biblical studies.
again- accreditation is quite recent and quite driven by financial interests. it’s all about the money. academics and academic institutions managed quite well without it before its invention. it’s just a giant ponzi scheme- in every field, not just theology. it’s a ‘service’ that provides no real service at all. and its defenders defend it, i am convinced, because they simply have tunnel vision.
But, I think, all professional occupations require some sort of competency exam and continuing educational requirements. That is apart from the accredited school. I think the competency exams are a much better means to protect the public. Of course, no competency exam is going to be able to test for taking the correct course of treatment, or the correct decision or not ripping off your client.
competency exams and continuing education are much better if the real goal is ensuring ability. and both can be achieved without the charade of ‘accreditation’.
It would seem that the body of work produced by an individual should suffice for competency, in most areas. Again, I do want a government saying so when it comes to medicine, etc… not sure I want them saying what passes in areas of theology and the such.
I think competency exams are a good guide for a professional. CPA have to both take exams (not administered by the govt – its by the industry) and have some type of internship. Doctors have to regularly take Continued Medical Education requirements (not based on any govt standard). In the case of medicine, the MD or DO groups have set the number of credits needed to have and whether they can be just reading or live lectures. In addition, a specialty can also require a certain number of requirements. Who sets this number, both the state medical board and the various doctor’s organizations. So, really all the state is doing when they give out a license, is saying that this doctor has paid the fee, graduated from an accredited medical school, did a residency, person of good moral character (read: criminal background check), and have some kind of oral test with the board (although, I am not sure its done, certainly not after you are licensed and are seeking renewal). So, the next time you see your medical professional, remember, the state only rubber stamped the license, assume nothing else. Law, dentistry, and most other professionals, accreditation does nothing. It is the self governing boards of the professions who are at least provide some rational link to the person and competency. My rant is over.
I just want to point out, that in the american Humanities, whatever the criteria are which are needed to meet the standards which american accreditation agencies presume will be “universally accepted”, they aren’t universally acceptable at all. That’s why individuals are judged according to scholarship, publications and potential ability.
now you sound like some kind of sane person who isnt persuaded by monetarily driven organizations or agendas. what’s wrong with you!
I’m a Kiwi – grew up on fresh clean air. And we’re independent minded enough not to get sucked in.
Right on Steph.