Talk:Trinity College and Seminary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Info on accreditation 1.1 Reply to 72.4.74.21 1.2 Reply from 72.4.74.21 1.3 Reply from 72.4.74.21 1.4 Using the unaccredited template 2 Good Call Orlady

[edit] Info on accreditation

Before this becomes an edit war, I'd like to state my reasons for deleting some generic information on accreditation, while retaining other such information. The material I deleted was essentially philosophical commentary on the significance of accreditation within the greater scheme of the education universe. I see that as more appropriate for Educational accreditation. The material I wish to retain is factual information on the specific legal and practical meaning of being unaccredited; that same wording is in almost every article about an unaccredited school. --orlady 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that the changes made to this article by 72.4.74.21 not only deleted the source citation but actually garble the statement, making it incorrect. Currently the article says:

The NAPNSC, which accredits distance education institutions, is not one of the higher education accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and therefore does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.).

That is incorrect (and borders on meaningless gibberish). The issue is not whether or not the NAPNSC qualifies for federal funding. Accordingly, I am going to restore the previous text, which clearly explained that the institution (i.e., Trinity) is considered to be unaccredited and that this means that Trinity's students do not qualify for government funding.--orlady 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of simply reverting one another's edits on Trinity College and Seminary, please let's talk. I have tried to explain my reasoning at Talk:Trinity College and Seminary. ADDED: Discussion should occur there (not here, and not in the edit summaries). --orlady 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your attempt at following Wiki's rules. I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's Second Pillar, as well as the Three-revert rule.

While I didn't write the statement:

The NAPNSC, which accredits distance education institutions, is not one of the higher education accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and therefore does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.).

I must say that it IS still grammatically correct, so "meaningless gibberish" it is not, and it IS a true statement.

Now on to my point:

I understand the reasoning, but it still isn't correct. Your statement that you removed "philosophical commentary" is inaccurate, in that it was factual commentary with reference. You removed it because, although it came from an actual US Government source, it diminished some of the sway in your statements. You need to snap out of your mindset. If not already, possibly take an advanced course in Ethics from an Accredited School. The right of "free speech" and even Wikipedia's wonderful Utopian Wikiquette is abused when over-clarification occurs to the point of manipulation. For example:

"Your reasoning is flawed." Were I professional and unbiased, I would go on to explain what I believe is wrong with your reasoning.

Here is your version, as applied from your history on the Trinity College and Seminary Wiki entry (and many other entries that we're researching).

"Your reasoning is flawed. Per Merriam-Webster, the definition of "flaw" is found as:

1 a : a defect in physical structure or form <a diamond with a flaw> b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness <vanity was the flaw in his character> <a flaw in the book's plot> 2 obsolete : FRAGMENT

A few synonyms are: 'defect, deformity, disfigurement, fault, imperfection, mark, pockmark, scar Related words: fallible; blemished, broken, damaged, defaced, disfigured, impaired, injured, marred, spoiled; deficient, inadequate, incomplete, insufficient, wanting' ... Accordingly, your reasoning is impaired. Recently, NASA has suffered great embarrassment at the news that two astronauts were impaired just before launch."

Or a better example:

"Streetcars are designed to operate on highways. The survival rate for armadillos is significantly lowered when crossing busy highways, therefore highways are considered to be extremely dangerous to armadillos. Streetcars come as passenger cars, utility vehicles, mopeds..."

I hope you can see the point.

And not to defend degree mills, but the word "Accreditation" is used in the United States for institutions meeting standard requirements upon thorough evaluation from PRIVATE bodies. CHEA is private. The HLC/NCA is private. TRACS is private. NAPNSC is private. It's disputed whether or not any two of these "recognized" institutions are on the same level with each other, or if they meet legitimate educational standards. (I know some Graduate students from certain "Regionally Accredited" institutions are no more educated than the average Starbucks employee.) What you're reaching at is not called "Accreditation". What you're trying to show is whether or not the US Government recognizes a school. And because the US Government blindly has NOT mandated specific STANDARDS OF ACCREDITATION, then it cannot be assumed that a standard has or has not been reached. Therefore, I DO agree with you that a link should be created between this article's "Accreditation" information, and what is considered to be the Government-recognized standards in the US, however I DON'T agree that the standards themselves are rightly defined in such inappropriate detail as that which you're attempting.

The problem with "Accreditation Defenders" such as yourself is that you don't have a standard to defend. Point of reference: the United Kingdom HAS established government standards for Accreditation, Validation, and Endorsement. Thus, the reasoning could be (as stated later in the Trinity College and Seminary article) that Trinity College and Seminary has reached HIGHER standards than those of the privately-monitored American institutions that you call Accredited, simply because it apparently meets those standards established in the United Kingdom.

I have little doubt that you'd wonder why someone would pursue something like this with such determination. It's because I believe that if more people understand that Accreditation in the United States has become devalued to the point that it doesn't have a clear definition, then maybe the United States will act to establish government-regulated Accreditation Standards. So until such standards are built in the United States outside of the private arena, unfortunately neither you nor I nor any other elitist crusader has the right to assume that such standards exist.

So, I understand the reasoning, but it still isn't correct. It's based on privately regulated standards with a shaky foundation, and I don't know how you manage to think that's acceptable.

Sincerely,

72.4.74.21 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to 72.4.74.21

Thanks for explaining my motives, 72.4.74.21. Without your help, I would not have known that I am a zealous "Accreditation Defender." Here I thought that I was trying to help Wikipedia by developing/maintaining articles that are accurate, objective, and readable. I will assume good faith and assume that you have the same goal, so I will not use your edit history as a basis for making other conclusions about your motives.

You say the following is grammatically correct and a true statement:

The NAPNSC, which accredits distance education institutions, is not one of the higher education accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and therefore does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.).

I agree that it is a grammatically correct sentence, but it is nonsense. What it says (what's left after you take out the comma-delimited clauses) is "The NAPNSC does not qualify for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.)." It is true that an accreditation agency (recognized or not) does not qualify for student loans, but it is nonsensical for Wikipedia to make that statement.

I have repaired that text to restore its original meaning, which is to the effect that a school accredited by a nonrecognized accreditor is deemed to be unaccredited, and its students therefore are ineligible for Title IV government funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, etc.) I hope you will agree that this is an objective statement and that nothing in that statement alleges that the school is substandard. Additionally, I created an article about the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges, containing sourced information about this organization.

Your insertion that "In contrast, however, one cannot gauge the quality of unrecognized accreditation against that which is considered to be recognized" does not appear to me to be an objective statement, but rather a bit of "spin" offered in justification of the status of Trinity College and Seminary. Accordingly, I have marked this "neutrality disputed." --orlady 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from 72.4.74.21

Your statement that my direct interpretation of a factual statement is a "spin" is yet another example of why I must question your own motives. The quote is from one of the references upon which you heavily rely. In fact, it is offered in NULLIFICATION of the contrasts assumed between accreditation and non-accreditation. Simply because you believe something to go against your own perception (or wish, as it appears) does NOT make that statement inaccurate. It is a factual statement from the US Government. It stands without dispute; but due to your apparent unwillingness to perceive that, I'll compromise by leaving it in. Having a statement unnecessarily disputed, I assume, is better than not having the statement at all.

My claim that you are an "Accreditation Defender" comes from your own User page. You specifically address content related to "controversial educational institutions". I've looked at your work. Most of it is very well-spoken, well-researched work. But your emphasis on institutions of controversy stands out, and you seem to pay "special" attention to religious institutions. If you should ask Steven Levicoff or John Bear to explain what institutions they consider "controversial", then you'll hear only about Accreditation or the lack thereof.

While I'm glad you offered at least a weak compromise of your own, I still have a problem with your contradiction. You begin by allowing the statement that the school achieved accreditation by NAPNSC. You then state that the school is considered to be unaccredited, while proceeding to make the truthful claim about the government funding, etc. You're finding no argument from me with the factual statement. The argument I'm providing is against the statement that the school is not accredited. According to the rest of the section and supported by the government's own statements, the school IS accredited. It's just not accredited by a government-recognized body, and therefore it doesn't qualify for government funding. Thus, I am editing the page to remove your statement that the Trinity College is unaccredited.

I do appreciate that you created the article about the NAPNSC. THAT particular article is clear and easy to understand. This Trinity article has had many misleading edits throughout its existence. While I believe that the NAPNSC article should also reference the USDE statement on recognized/unrecognized bodies, I'll save that for another time (and another IP).

Despite the obvious truth I've included in this particular article, I'm sure you'll be obligated to come back. Let's make a deal. If you can refute these arguments, then I'll call it even, but you have to actually refute them, or find real evidence supporting otherwise, before I'll leave it alone. That does not include labeling things as "disputed", either. You have to explain why something is disputed, rather than just applying the label because the wind is southerly.

Otherwise, you really are a very good editor. Have a wonderful evening.

72.4.74.21 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - You could say that it's "Regionally Unaccredited". I'd buy that. - 72.4.74.21

I like your last change to that passage, saying "Accordingly...may not be accepted" but deleting the "unaccredited" part. Good move! However, the sentence about the recognition/approval process for accrediting agencies still reads like an opinion, and it's not really germane to the article, so I deleted it (again).--orlady 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As for my interest in controversial educational institutions, it's purely a hobby. My first involvement in that area was in trying to separate truth from fiction (including hype by the operators and attacks by an array of critics) in articles about institutions for "troubled teens". Then this post on my talk page , which attacked a legitimate accrediting agency (albeit one limited to primary and secondary schools, and thus unrecognized by USDE or CHEA), got me interested in the problem of telling truth from fiction in the general area of accreditation.--orlady 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from 72.4.74.21

Now we're on the same page. The reasoning behind posting the statement from the referenced USDE website was to counteract the apparent misuse of the term "unaccredited". Now that we're stating that the institution is accredited by an unrecognized accreditation body, rather than claiming that it's not accredited at all, it sounds fair without the USDE reference. You were right to remove it. I believe its current form is impartial and honest, in that it states the truth from every perspective [that I'm aware of].

On a personal note: I think that your greater pursuits are justified, and I'm a little disgusted that any primary and secondary level accrediting agency could make a claim for accreditation without state authorization. I had a hope that eventually the same level of importance would be applied at the higher levels, as in this article; but now I'm seeing that it has a much longer road ahead of it. Now that Romney's been mentioned, I have a feeling that the WWASPS program is going to receive much more scrutiny. Good luck there. I'll be keeping an eye out for more of your handiwork in the future. --Gone-- 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using the unaccredited template

Orlady, maybe you can explain why you feel that the standard wording in the unaccredited template is dangerous and does not reflect the situation in this case. It seems pretty NPOV to me. --Gromit7859 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All too often, Template:unaccredited (which you did not actually insert in this article) inadvertently causes articles to end up containing repetitive nonsense like "Foobar University is unaccredited. Foobar University is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country."

In the current article, the deliberately nonspecific statements from the template language are repetitive of the more specific statements in the same paragraph, with the result that the statements reduce the coherency of the article. It is far more informative to say "In January 1992, Trinity achieved accreditation with the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC)" and "the NAPNSC, which accredits distance education institutions, is not one of the higher education accreditation agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation" than it is to say "Trinity is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country." I see no encyclopedic value from following specific and definitive statements with vague negative statements intended to make the same point(such as "Foobar University is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country"). --orlady 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is clear, and I like your wording in your last edit. It seems like an article like this should clearly state the accreditation status of an institution. This school's website, btw, does muddy the waters a little with the large-font statement here (http://www.trinitysem.edu/AboutTrinity/Accreditation.html)"Your Trinity Degree is Accredited". Which, at the vary least, might be confusing to a person unfamiliar with the US peer-review system.--Gromit7859 06:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Call Orlady

Those changes were more than a bit gratuitous, weren't they? 81.149.190.174 also took it upon himself (or herself) to edit the local Evansville, Indiana page's Higher Education listing. I suspect that 81.149.190.174's relationship with TC&S is a little more than observation. If in fact he or she IS a representative of the school, it is my great hope that he or she does not represent the typical spelling capability of the its "accademic proffesionals".--72.4.74.21 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)