The Truth About “Education” and “Accreditation”

Is it any surprise that sin has messed up society so much that we don’t even remember why we go to school? What is the purpose for each level of education, college to doctoral? And, what is “accreditation,” and what is it really worth?

Below is a black and white, systematic answer to these questions that will hopefully help us gain our bearings as thinking Christians.

The Obvious Reason

Why does one get an “education”?

One could provide a variety of answers (see next section below). But among them is an answer that may be legitimate and applicable for nearly any type or degree of education: the personal desire to learn about God and His creation, and somehow use that knowledge to further His Kingdom. Of course, this is more or less the core foundation for all other reasons to get a formal education and, indeed, for all other intellectual pursuits: we seek to learn about God to glorify God.

Education is not an end in itself. God’s glory is the end, and the means to that end has variety (i.e. building of God’s people in public ministry, raising godly children, speaking/book publishing/debating, etc.) Indeed, the ways knowledge and truth benefit ourselves and society are too innumerable to calculate.

But, since a person may get a formal education for this general purpose and not have a formal means of pursuing such God-glorification in mind (i.e. career, etc.), it may be appropriate for our purposes to let this reason for education stand on its own as “the simple desire to learn.” Here, then, are “other” reasons to get and not to get a formal education.

Reasons to (and not to) Obtain a Formal Education

College: If not for the simple desire to learn, a person goes to college (generally) to (a) get a job or (b) prepare for further studies, which may hopefully lead to a job. A person should never go to college purely because (a) they want to find a spouse (“Mrs.” degree), (b) their friends from high school went there, (c) they don’t know what else to do, (d) they want to make their parents happy, etc. (I had a friend in college who majored in theology “because it was the easiest degree the college offered”!) Completing college (should) demonstrate that a person is ready to either pursue further studies (i.e. seminary) or enter the profession they’ve prepared for (i.e. engineer).

Seminary: A person should go to seminary for (a) training for ministry/teaching/leadership roles (i.e. job as elder, teacher, etc.), and (b) to prepare themselves for further education. A person should not go to seminary because (a) “I don’t know what else to do,” (b) “people told me I should go into ministry,” (c) “My dad did it, so I guess I will,” (d) “I want to challenge my theology, so I’m going to go to a liberal seminary,” etc. Completing seminary (should) demonstrate  that a person is ready to pursue further studies (i.e. doctoral), can do genuine research and scholarship, and is prepared to take Christian ministry (i.e. elder, teacher, etc.) seriously and lead God’s people.

Doctoral: A person should get a doctoral degree for (a) training for ministry/teaching/leadership roles (i.e. job as researcher, apologist, professor, etc.), especially those in the academic and scholarship world. A person should not get a doctoral degree because (a) “I don’t know what else to do,” (b) “I want to be called “Dr.”, (c) “I want to be accepted in the academic community,” etc. Completing doctoral studies demonstrates (should) that a person is capable of being a scholar through demonstrating scholarship in one particular area, and demonstrates that a person is prepared to take Christian ministry (i.e. elder, professor, apologist, etc.) seriously.

Accreditation

If a person gets, for example, a doctoral degree from an institution, this means (if the above assertions are true) that the person has demonstrated himself/herself to be a scholar in a certain area, and thus, is (hopefully) capable of being a scholar in almost any area. Doing so requires nothing more than that: a demonstration.

If a person or group of people decided to recognize some degrees as being “real” and others “not real” for reasons other than this demonstration, it obviously has nothing to do with the doctoral degree – the demonstration of being a scholar. Indeed, the “degree” has everything to do with reaching a certain degree - getting to a point where one can earn the letters (BA, MA, Ph.D, etc.) indicating such accomplishment. A person can obviously have the knowledge of a degree without actually formally earning the degree and having it recognized; just because a man has never demonstrated that he can life 40lbs doesn’t mean he can’t lift 40lbs. Likewise, an athlete is no more competent a runner after he has obtained a running reward than before he received such formal recognition.

Thus, to “demonstrate” what one must demonstrate in any particular degree, is to earn “the degree.” So, for example, in a doctoral program, demonstrating scholarship = degree; the “degree” = demonstrating scholarship. The role of the institution, then, is for both preparation and formal acknowledgment that a person has reached a certain mental capacity. But, as I mentioned before, just because a person doesn’t have the formal degree doesn’t mean that person can’t have the same abilities and knowledge. A cheeseburger is no more and no less a cheeseburger if the packaging paper is one color or another. In fact, absolutely nothing about the cheeseburger (i.e. origin, taste, nutritional value, physical weight, smell etc.) would change if every single CEO, manager, and cook of every restaurant in the world endorsed the cheeseburger through paper packaging, labels, and formal institutional recognition.

So it is with educational degrees. Accreditation is supposed to mean something, but it can often mean nothing – at least when it comes to getting to a certain degree of academic ability and accomplishment.

Since some people have created degree-mills which give the recognition (i.e. Ph.D) without the actual demonstration of reaching a degree of ability and accomplishment, the academic world has come together to establish standards for what a “true” degree is and what it is not.

However, the ongoing process of accreditation has added standards that have no actual relevance to the degree – that is, no relevance to the actual demonstration of being a scholar.

For example, on page 2 of the ATS (Association of Theological School’s (the highest accreditation available for seminaries/divinity schools) “General Institution Standards,” it says:

Wherever appropriate, published institutional documents shall employ gender inclusive language with reference to persons.

Clearly, if an institution fails to comply in this accreditation requirement, this has no effect upon a doctoral degree. How could the mere public use of language of an institutional document alter the validity, quality, or content of the research presented by, for example, a Ph.D candidate in the presence of an oral exam with three professors? Clearly, accreditation with some agencies involves far more standards than those relating to the quality of the degree (or are we really to believe that we can make a cheeseburger taste better by changing the color of its package?).

Therefore, if an accreditation agency has failed to make rules directly effecting one’s degree/demonstration, the agency has failed altogether in its purpose: to weed out fake education from real education. The purpose of accreditation should be to do just that: to associate a degree with an actual demonstration, not to make unnecessary rules that have no effect upon the actual education and quality thereof.

A doctoral degree at, for example, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, is not accredited by any agency. There is no golden stamp on the outside of the cheeseburger bag. But, if one compares the fruit of the doctoral degree (the actual demonstration of scholarship) with that of an accredited institution and there is is no difference, then simply put, there is no difference in the degree – except the packaging, of course.

If we are willing to assert the opposite and say, “but the academic world says its not real, so it’s not,” we are only fooling ourselves. We are saying the cheeseburger isn’t real until an organization says it’s real. We’re saying a man who can lift 40lbs really can’t lift 40lbs until he has formally done so in the presence of an approving body.

This forces us to stop and think: Who is determining the value of the accreditation institution anyway? If one institution can validate another, what makes accreditation institutions exempt? If there are “degree-mills,” why not “accreditation-mills”? What is to prevent their false education, except yet another, higher accreditation institution?

In conclusion, high standards of accreditation does not always mean high standards of education. The fruit of one’s labor is the true test of academic success, not the letters after one’s name. If that’s true, then term “scholar” should be more broadly used.

Further Information

For the record, there are generally two types of accreditation (at least, geographically):

1. National Accreditation – This is the highest accreditation possible for seminaries/divinity schools. An example would be like the American/Canadian agency cited above (ATS). A list of their schools can be found here (Westminster and RTS qualify). Europe has something similar called the British Accreditation Council, whose member schools can be found here. (Countless schools in London, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. are listed. The solid Reformed institution offering distance Ph.Ds, Whales Evangelical School of  Theology, also qualifies.)
2. Regional Accreditation – This is a second-level recognition of educational accreditation. Liberty Seminary and University, for example, fall under this category, being accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

Some of the non-accredited institutions that offer demonstrated superior education (at a fraction of the cost) include Columbia Evangelical Seminary, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, the Midwest Center for Theological Studies, and Reformed Baptist Seminary. I’ve also been informed about an exciting new project in Wisconsin called “Wisconsin Bible Institute,” which is definitely worth checking out.