Trinity College and Seminary
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk
Trinity College and Seminary claims that their degrees are accredited by
the Faculty of Arts, University of Liverpool. I quote from TC&S's website;
an identical statement appears on the website of the Faculty of Arts,
University of Liverpool (http://www.liv.ac.uk/~deanarts/faculty.html):
> "University of Liverpool endorses and accepts the degree programmes
> offered from 1 July 1997 by Trinity College and Seminary, Newburgh,
> Indiana. The Faculty of Arts has taken responsibilty for ensuring that
> these programmes are of high academic standard. Trinity College offers
> degrees (both in Theology and in Management) by Distance Learning."
John Bear (97/06/07) asked for a British opinion, so here's my tuppence
worth:
(1) The University of Liverpool does not have a Theology/Religion/Divinity
Department; nor does it offer management degrees from the Faculty of Arts.
(see for yourself -- there are links to the undergraduate and postgraduate
prospectuses from the URL above).
(2) The terminology is wrong for accreditation, which is a concept that
doesn't exist over here. A British University might validate another
institution's degrees -- to use my own instituion as an example, students
at St John's College, a Church of England college that trains C of E
priests, read for and are awarded Nottingham degrees, under the watchfull
eye of the Board for Validated Courses. This would imply that TC&S
students are reading for Liverpool theological degrees, except that
Liverpool doesn't offer any.
I'm not sure what arrangement TC&S has made with Liverpool, but I suspect
that Liverpool has simply accepted TC&S graduates into a Liverpool degree
programme. I also think that Liverpool would be somewhat surprised to the
extent their "endorsement" has been used by TC&S, as would the Higher
Education Funding Council, which oversees many aspects of British
university life.
====================
J. M. B. PORTER, PhD
Department of History
University of Nottingham
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk
The Rt Rev'd Colin James forwarded my reply to John Bear's query in this
newsgroup to Dr Lowe of Trinity College and Seminary; as his reply may be
of interest to members of this newsgroup, I have taken the liberty of
reproducing it below.
J. M. B. Porter
University of Nottingham
---
From: "Dr. Stephen D. Lowe" <7541...@CompuServe.COM>
To: "Rev. Colin James, III" <cja...@cec-services.com>
Cc: "Dr. John Bear" <john...@degree.net>,
"J.M.B. Porter, Ph.D." <ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: University of Liverpool accreditation of Trinity College &
Seminary
Message-ID: <970625214524_7...@CompuServe.COM>
X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
Rev. James,
A copy of your email addressed to our academic CompuServe address was
forwarded to my office for a response.
I take it that you captured the email text of J.M.B. Porter who was
responding to Dr. Bear and forwarded that along with your request that
Trinity respond to Porter's remarks. Correct me if I do not have it
straight.
Let me respond by numbered item as he listed them in his email remarks.
1. The University of Liverpool does not have a theology/religion
department but they do have Hope College which is a theological school
they validate. Hope College provides an external examiner in the person of
Dr. Ian Markham. Two other UK theological colleges also provide external
examiners of our theological programs on behalf of the University of
Liverpool. This is common practice in the UK.
2. The terminology is correct Dr. Porter is wrong. Although UK
institutions that have a charter from the British government can validate
other non-degree granting institutions, they can also accredit those that
do have the authority to grant degrees. Since Trinity does have authority
to grant degrees in the United States there was no need to validate us but
only accredit our degree programs. Also within the UK system, those
students who graduate from a validated institution, graduate with the
degree of the validating university. For instance, Hope College
graduates actually graduate with a degree from the University of Liverpool
not Hope College since Hope does not have the authority within the British
system to grant degrees. Exactly the same kind of arrangement alluded
to by Dr. Porter in regard to the relationship between St. John's and
the University of Nottingham. We are quite aware of the niceties of
academic language and the language of accreditation was chosen
specifically because that is the terminology that is understood in the
United States and because it accurately reflects the nature of the
relationship between our two institutions. So Dr. Porter's conclusions
about Trinity students reading for a University of Liverpool degree is
incorrect. Nor have our students been accepted into a University of
Liverpool degree program. What Dr. Porter should have done was to
get his facts straight before he decided to offer this "tuppence worth"
as he called it.
3. The University of Liverpool will not be surprised at anything we
claim about our relationship with them because all that we put out in any
form must be approved by the University prior to dispatch. When we
refer to our accreditation by the University we are quoting directly from
our Memorandum of Cooperation that governs and explains the
relationship between the two institutions. In fact, the parameters of
the agreement were made within the guidelines of the Higher Education
Funding Council and with the understanding that Trinity would participate
in on-site visits from members of that Council's team as part of their
ongoing review and audit of British universities and those institutions
that they validate and accredit.
Let me conclude by stating that our accreditation by the University of
Liverpool is a credible and valid form of recognition. The criteria used
to evaluate our programs, policies, and delivery are of the highest
academic standards within a British university system. Our programs have
been and will continue to be closely scrutinized by the University and by
its appointed external examiners. In fact, the ongoing review of our
programs is more rigorous than any that might be required of a regional
accrediting body in this country. We are confident that our relationship
with the University of Liverpool will only enhance our academic redibility
and improve our course offerings to our students whom we serve.
We readily admit that accreditation by a British university is atypical
but as a distance education provider, fighting an uphill accreditation
battle in the United States, we must do whatever we can to demonstrate our
academic credibility and the continued acceptance of our credits and
degree programs by more traditional institutions. Short of regional
accreditation, this seemed to be a logical interim step that would not
hurt us academically and would certainly prepare us for the scrutiny that
would come with regional accreditation, should we pursue and achieve it.
I hope this answers your concerns and puts to rest any disquiet you may
have had as a result of reading Dr. Porter's comments to Dr. Bear.
Cordially,
Stephen D. Lowe, Ph.D.
Vice President for Distributive Learning
Trinity Liaison to the University of Liverpool
Chair, Trinity Accreditation Committee
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk
Knowing this newsgroup's penchant for proofreading, please forgive spacing
errors and minor typos.
Dr. Stephen D. Lowe <7541...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:-
>Rev. James,
>A copy of your email addressed to our academic CompuServe address was
>forwarded to my office for a response.
I am curious why an academic institution has a single CompuServe account
for its entire staff (is this an electronic parallel to Levicoff's
warnings about PO boxes and suites?) and an URL ending .COM
>I take it that you captured the email text of J.M.B. Porter who was
>responding to Dr. Bear and forwarded that along with your request that
>Trinity respond to Porter's remarks. Correct me if I do not have it
>straight.
This is correct.
>Let me respond by numbered item as he listed them in his email remarks.
>1. The University of Liverpool does not have a theology/religion
>department but they do have Hope College which is a theological school
>they validate. Hope College provides an external examiner in the person
>of Dr. Ian Markham. Two other UK theological colleges also provide
>external examiners of our theological programs on behalf of the
>University of Liverpool. This is common practice in the UK.
I don't have a Liverpool Calendar (=academic regulations / handbook) to
hand, nor one from Hope. However, from Dr Lowe's statement (yes, Levicoff,
he is a real Dr -- I checked), we can deduce that Hope is independent of
the University of Liverpool, else Liverpool would not VALIDATE Hope
degrees. It concerns me that whilst the Liverpool arts faculty "accredits"
Trinity degrees, no one on their staff is part of this process, and it has
been delegated to an independent institution.
Dr Lowe is correct about external examiners, which are a vital part of
maintaining academic standards in UK universities. Who are Trinity's?
If Hope provides theological support for the Liverpool arts faculty in
their "accreditation," then who does so for Trinity's management degrees?
>2. The terminology is correct Dr. Porter is wrong.
Am I? Re-read Liverpool's statement.
> Although UK institutions that have a charter from the British government
can validate other non-degree granting institutions,
This is correct.
>they can also accredit those that do have the authority to grant
>degrees.
Exactly *where* in the Liverpool charter / statutes is the power of
accreditation of other institutions' degrees conferred? I can find no
mention of such authority, either in their charter and statutes or in the
statement from their VC (=President), Dr. Philip Love: "The University of
Liverpool accepts, and endorses, the degree programmes offered, from 1
July 1997, by Trinity College and Seminary, Newburgh, Indiana. The Faculty
of Arts has taken responsibility for ensuring that these programmes are of
high academic standard. Trinity College offers degrees (both in Theology
and in Management) by distance learning."
Nowhere in this statement is the magic word *accredit* uttered.
>Since Trinity does have authority to grant degrees in the United States
>there was no need to validate us but only accredit our degree programs.
Does Indiana have a religious exemption?
>Also within the UK system, those students who graduate from a validated
>institution, graduate with the degree of the validating university.
Quite so.
[text about Hope students getting Liverpool degrees deleted]
>We are quite aware of the niceties of academic language
"The University of Liverpool accepts, and endorses, the degree programmes
offered..." does not equal accreditation in the sense used by US
institutions. I believe that any claim of American-style "accreditation"
by Liverpool *on the basis of this statement* is misleading.
>and the language of accreditation was chosen specifically because that is
>the terminology that is understood in the United States
UK universities are not completely ignorant of American methods (we even
have [sort-of] transcripts now). If US-style accreditation was desired,
why was the agreement couched so vaguely, and why did it not simply say
"accreditation"? (My answer: because Liverpool does not have authority to
accredit degrees. Again, where in the Liverpool charter or statutes is the
power of accreditation of other institutions' degrees conferred?)
>and because it accurately reflects the nature of the relationship between
>our two institutions.
I am not convinced that this is so, nor are my colleagues here.
>So Dr. Porter's conclusions about Trinity students reading for a
>University of Liverpool degree is incorrect.
Then I am happy to withdraw it -- but in doing so, new questions about the
Liverpool / Trinity connection are raised.
>Nor have our students been accepted into a University of Liverpool degree
>program. What Dr. Porter should have done was to get his facts straight
>before he decided to offer this "tuppence worth" as he called it.
I checked Liverpool's charter and statutes: again, exactly *where* in the
Liverpool charter / statutes is the power of accreditation of degrees
conferred?
>3. The University of Liverpool will not be surprised at anything we
>claim about our relationship with them because all that we put out in any
>form must be approved by the University prior to dispatch. When we
>refer to our accreditation by the University we are quoting directly from
>our Memorandum of Cooperation that governs and explains the
>relationship between the two institutions. In fact, the parameters of
>the agreement were made within the guidelines of the Higher Education
>Funding Council and with the understanding that Trinity would participate
>in on-site visits from members of that Council's team as part of their
>ongoing review and audit of British universities and those institutions
>that they validate and accredit.
>Let me conclude by stating that our accreditation by the University of
>Liverpool is a credible and valid form of recognition.
If the same procedures of *validation* (i.e., Hope's validation by
Liverpool) are followed, then yes, of course. But that is not what
Liverpool is doing with Trinity, because then Trinity students would get
Liverpool degrees, not Trinity degrees.
>The criteria used to evaluate our programs, policies, and delivery are of
>the highest academic standards within a British university system. Our
>programs have been and will continue to be closely scrutinized by the
>University and by its appointed external examiners.
Am I alone in having problems with a University that does not offer
degrees in either Theology or Management "accrediting" degrees in those
fields via staff at a third institution?
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that Liverpool would accept a 45 page
doctoral dissertation in any subject, as that is rather less than the
normal minimum for a master's (usually 15 000 words, vs 100 000 words for
a PhD [mine was a bit short at 378 pp]).
>In fact, the ongoing review of our programs is more rigorous than any
>that might be required of a regional accrediting body in this country.
>We are confident that our relationship with the University of Liverpool
>will only enhance our academic credibility and improve our course
>offerings to our students whom we serve.
>We readily admit that accreditation by a British university is atypical
>but as a distance education provider, fighting an uphill accreditation
>battle in the United States, we must do whatever we can to demonstrate
>our academic credibility and the continued acceptance of our credits and
>degree programs by more traditional institutions.
I believe a traditional question in this newsgroup is which accredited
institutions have accepted Trinity credits and /or degrees?
>Short of regional accreditation, this seemed to be a logical interim step
>that would not hurt us academically and would certainly prepare us for
>the scrutiny that would come with regional accreditation, should we
>pursue and achieve it.
But why not try for regional accreditation? I repeat:
(1) Exactly *where* in the Liverpool charter and/or statutes is the power
of accreditation of other institutions' degrees conferred? I have found no
such authorisation, which (I believe) explains the vague statement from
Liverpool's VC.
(2) "The University of Liverpool accepts, and endorses, the degree
programmes offered..." does not equal accreditation in the sense used by
US institutions.
I hope, for the sake of Trinity's students, that I am being overly
cynical. I fear that I am not.
J. M. B. PORTER
University of Nottingham
efor...@adtech.net
In article <8674134...@dejanews.com>,
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
>
> I am curious why an academic institution has a single CompuServe account
> for its entire staff (is this an electronic parallel to Levicoff's
> warnings about PO boxes and suites?)
Where did you get the notion that TrinityÕs staff shared one Compuserve
account? You are plain wrong.
> and an URL ending .COM
Wrong again. TrinityÕs URL is http://www.trinitysem.edu.
efor...@adtech.net
> Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that Liverpool would accept a 45 page
> doctoral dissertation in any subject, as that is rather less than the
> normal minimum for a master's (usually 15 000 words, vs 100 000 words for
> a PhD [mine was a bit short at 378 pp]).
>
> J. M. B. PORTER
> University of Nottingham
Repeating a lie (the “45-page dissertation”) will not turn it into a
fact, and I am afraid that that’s precisely what you are trying to do.
Some of the better- regarded seminaries (Union TS and Princeton TS) have
a 200-page limit on dissertations, which makes me wonder about a person
who will take 378 pages to say something that can be said better in 200
pages or less.
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk
In article <8674648...@dejanews.com>,
efor...@adtech.net wrote:
>
> In article <8674134...@dejanews.com>,
> ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
> > doctoral dissertation in any subject, as that is rather less than the
> > normal minimum for a master's (usually 15 000 words, vs 100 000 words for
> > a PhD [mine was a bit short at 378 pp]).
>
> fact, and I am afraid that that’s precisely what you are trying to do.
> Some of the better- regarded seminaries (Union TS and Princeton TS) have
> a 200-page limit on dissertations, which makes me wonder about a person
> who will take 378 pages to say something that can be said better in 200
> pages or less.
The dissertation figure I used came from a previous post which has not
been challenged; if I am wrong, I should be happy to retract.
However, you have misunderstood my comparison. British PhDs are research
degrees, evaluated solely on the thesis -- which is why they are longer.
If Liverpool is placing its imprimatur on a Trinity PhD, then I should
expect British, not American, standards to apply, or else their
"accreditation" is without value. Even in the case of the few "taught"
doctorates in the UK (Medicine [yes, medicine, which is undergraduate
here, students graduating MB ChB {Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery}; an MD is awarded for post-qualification research], and,
increasingly, Education.]), a 60 000 word thesis is required. It's all
well and good Union & Princeton to insist on shorter dissertations, but
their degrees are awarded on the basis on coursework as well: British
PhDs are not.
ah...@arn1.arts.nottingham.ac.uk
I should like to thank efor...@adtech.net for drawing to my attention
two minor errors in my last post.
> Where did you get the notion that TrinityÕs staff shared one Compuserve
> account? You are plain wrong.
Yes, I am. I misread my notes, and I hope that Trinity will accept my
apologies for my unintentional error.
> > and an URL ending .COM
>
> Wrong again. TrinityÕs URL is http://www.trinitysem.edu.
Well, yes and no. When I first searched for Trinity, Infoseek gave me
http://www.trinitysem.ORG (not .COM, but not .EDU, either). eforster's
post was the first intimation of Trinity's site at
http://www.trinitysem.edu, which appears to be identical to the .ORG site
I first found.
The substance of my argument remains unaffected by these errors:
(1) Trinity is not regionally accreditated by a body recognised by the US
Department of Education.
(2) I have not found any indication in the University of Liverpool's
charter and statutes that they are authorised to accredit other
institutions' degrees.
(3) That "the University of Liverpool accepts, and endorses, the degree
programmes offered..." is not the same as US accreditation.
I forwarded my last post to Dr Stephen D. Lowe of Trinity College and
Seminary; his reply did not address the three points above (note to
Levicoff: he really doesn't like you very much...). I have written to the
University of Liverpool and am awaiting their response.