# -



## jw (Dec 9, 2005)

-


----------



## JOwen (Dec 9, 2005)

In addition to Whitefield College, another good distance college is RIC (Reformation International College). Here is their catalog link http://www.refcm.org/education/ricweb/ricat.pdf.
Consider also, Haddington House Divinity School in PEI (www.haddingtonhouse.org), tell then Jerrold Lewis sent you.


Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
Pastor- APC
Vancouver


----------



## JOwen (Dec 9, 2005)

my pleasure.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2005)

I believe Greenville Theological Seminary offers a bachelor's degree.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2005)

Oh, I thought they did do distance. Hubby is going to be bummed.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 9, 2005)

Look on page 75 of their catalog for information about their Distance program. While _some_ on-campus hours are still required, it seems the vast majority may indeed be done through other means.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 9, 2005)

I believe that the BD is exactly the same program as the MDiv, but for seminary students who do not already have a BA.

It is a seminary program, not college.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 10, 2005)

There is much to be said for getting a strong liberal arts education before going on to seminary. 

Most seminaries cannot teach you Latin (well, we can!), they cannot teach you German, they cannot teach you general/Western history, the history of philosophy, the sciences, English/literature, the classics, an appreciation of the arts and music, basic logic, the "greats," but all these things are important to becoming an intelligent reader, a good writer and these skills are necessary for seminary. 

I am quite aware that many (most) brick and mortar colleges are not doing everything listed above. We do far more remedial work at seminary now than we once did and more than we should have to do. Nevertheless, there are still good colleges (e.g., we've had some excellent students from Grove City and other Christian colleges) where one can gain a good liberal arts education.

I guess this is no surprise -- and I'm quite sure that Jerrold and others will dissent -- to regular readers of this department, but I doubt whether one can really get by distance the sort of educational foundation one needs to be well educated. 

I understand that my criticism of distance ed is not popular here, but someone needs to question the notion that because we have the ability to communicate at a distance that therefore it is a sound way to convey a formal education. 

rsc


----------



## JOwen (Dec 10, 2005)

Nothing wrong with a good disagreement Scott! 

In fact I agree with everything you said up to the criticism. A liberal education is a very important element for any man who wishes to enter the ministry. I for instance took my B.A in Bible which put me light years ahead in seminary when compared to those who had an undergraduate in some other discipline. If you can strengthen the foundation of your seminary training by beginning with a B.A in Bible (not history or science), you will be that much further ahead when you get to seminary. While others are only beginning their theological studies, you will be able to move to more advanced materials simply because you have already covered the basics. Remember, that the first year (perhaps 2), of Seminary is simply laying the foundation of what an undergraduate degree in Bible or Theology has already covered. 

Of course there is a certain element of question begging when one says that a brick and mortar undergraduate degree is better than a distance degree. From someone who has done both, I can say from experience that it all depends on the student, the school, and the degree. Some people simply do not have the discipline to learn properly at home and therefore need the structure of the classroom. Others can't afford to move and do not wish to go to a local college just because it is local. There is a certain amount of pragmatism in the thought that any liberal education (from a middling local college caught in the updraft of atheistic postmodernism) is better than a solid distance degree from a Reformed college. It simply does not follow. Even the so called "œgood" colleges like Dordt, Calvin, Reformed Bible College, and Geneva College, have drifted miles away from their once godly roots embracing whatever is nessisary to get accreditation and kowtow to the demigods of certification. Uniformity, truth, and Christ-centeredness are far more important that polemics and enfranchisement. 

I can assure you that Whitefield College teaches everything you listed above in each of their B.A programs (general/Western history, the history of philosophy, the sciences, English/literature, the classics, an appreciation of the arts and music, basic logic (as well as advanced), not to mention Greek and Hebrew!).

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm a lot happier with my decision to leave a private Christian college (Boyce in Louisville) for my B.A. and finish a B.A. in Philosophy at a secular state school. I'm learning German, a lot about the worldview of pagans (for critique purposes and learning how to witness better), and a great deal about secular Philosophy throughout the ages. Very helpful, especially when I go to Seminary in a couple years, Lord willing.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 10, 2005)

In my humble opinion that sounds like the best way to go. Whitefield is a great school. Tell Dr. Johnston I send greetings!

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## JOwen (Dec 10, 2005)

My pleasure


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 10, 2005)

Maybe we're operating with different definitions of what constitutes an excellent education? When I think of a great undergraduate education, I think of folk such as Dorothy Sayers and C S Lewis. Neither of them, btw, had a PhD. Both of them were scholars of amazing learning and skill. 

How was it that Sayers and Lewis were able to do what they did, i.e., change English literature (no small feat that!) and re-invigorate a couple of literary genres, write plays, novels, defend the faith, comment on medieval literature and mythology?

They were able to do it because they got a great education at very traditional "brick and mortar" (or stone and mortar, in their cases) institutions. Sayers learned Italian and became a leading scholar on Dante. Lewis had a fine prep school education and did well enough, on graduation, to become a fellow (tutor/teacher) in Oxford.

They were persuasive and influential because they had a classical liberal arts education. 

William F. Buckley is an example of someone who, for all his qualms about God and Man at Yale, got a fine undergraduate education and used that as a foundation for beginning a magazine and a movement. 

Is it possible to imagine that any of these writers could have got an education of the same quality at a distance, choosing what they wanted to read, when, and how? 

Education is a dialectical, personal, arduous, even tortuous (if not torturous) process it is not a cafeteria or a website. 

Consumerism is arguably good ecnomics, but it is not a good model for education.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Maybe we're operating with different definitions of what constitutes an excellent education? When I think of a great undergraduate education, I think of folk such as Dorothy Sayers and C S Lewis. Neither of them, btw, had a PhD. Both of them were scholars of amazing learning and skill.
> 
> How was it that Sayers and Lewis were able to do what they did, i.e., change English literature (no small feat that!) and re-invigorate a couple of literary genres, write plays, novels, defend the faith, comment on medieval literature and mythology?
> ...



Scott,

You do realize that for every Sayers and Lewis (and I think you much exaggerate Sayers' influence), one could give dozens of examples of men educated in a tutor setting that had many times the impact on their culture that Sayers and Lewis did?

Brick and mortar education is not a bad choice, but it is far from the "only" choice you present it to be. You keep trying to create some kind of dichotomy between a faceless, easy-degree, web based distance education and some wonderful, full brick and mortar education. Both are exagerations.

I say this as a man who has done some distance education, and who holds 3 degrees from brick and mortar institutions (BA, MA, and JD) and is almost done with another (MDiv). I have also done teaching assistant and teaching work at brick and mortar schools as well. I am not uninformed on that subject, nor that of a liberal arts education (with a History and Classics degree, having formally studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, enough French to pass an MA exam, with near minors in English (mostly Shakespeare) and Philosophy (mostly Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas)).

There have been many things that I would not change about my B&M educational experiences. I have attended some of the finest institutions in the nation (Uof Chicago, Michigan Law, RTS Jackson). There is much to be thankful for and to encourage others with. But there are also useless hoops to jump through, profs that are too busy to help, work that is "busy work" and other things that are a complete waste of time.

Balance is important here.

[Edited on 12/10/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## JOwen (Dec 10, 2005)

Perhaps an excellent education should be defined by the student being educated and not the process Scott. People learn well, differently. Men like John Bunyan, William Jay, and C.H. Spurgeon are every bit as eminent as Sayers and Lewis and became such in spite of traditional training. 



> Consumerism is arguably good ecnomics, but it is not a good model for education.



Of course the schools mentioned in this thread are "modeled" after the same principle as the one you attended; formal pedagogical forms based on lectures, written assignments, and examinations. To insist that a distance ed school is built on consumerism is, well, unfair. I'm not sure which schools you are talking about that allow one to chose "what they wanted to read, when, and how", but it is certainly not the institutions mentioned in this thread. 

I think you are asserting where you should be arguing brother.

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## historyb (Dec 10, 2005)

I goto a distance education College and I think I am getting a great education. I am not able to go to a B & M College and I don't think because it is Distance Ed that it's substandard


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 12, 2005)

[quote ...for every Sayers and Lewis (and I think you much exaggerate Sayers' influence), one could give dozens of examples of men educated in a tutor setting that had many times the impact on their culture that Sayers and Lewis did?[/quote]

Actually, Sayers and Lewis were educated in a tutorial setting. They almost certainly attended lectures only occasionally. I'm not advocating, necessarily, the American system. Oxford, however, is most certainly a "brick and mortar" institution. Of the three folks I cited, only WFB earned his BA in an American lecture dominated setting. 

As a student Lewis prepared his papers and did his reading and then met with his tutor, face to face. It is the most personal sort of education. It is the exact opposite of distance ed. 

It was this setting where Lewis was held to account for his work, where his tutor could correct him immediately upon hearing a misinterpretation of a text or some other error. 

Media are not indifferent. We should not be naive about the effect of media on education. The nature of the medium changes what can be taught and the way teaching is done. 

The turn to distance ed more or less assumes that education is the transmission of information from one to another. Education is much more than that. It is inculcation of a culture, a way of thinking, an ethos, things that are not transmissable via internet cable.

Distance ed via the web is only a high-speed version of the the DE program started by my alma mater (the University of Nebraska) for children of Americans overseas (diplomats, military etc). It worked for secondary ed but they never (to my knowledge) attempted it for undergraduate or graduate education. Instead of sending packets by postal mail we do it by the web. So the process is faster, but it still lacks the intangibles of a genuine education. 

Yes, there are flaws in the American (and English and German) systems. The American system is too bureaucratic -- but not at WSC!  . There are cultural-structural reasons for that. Education administrators are chiefly responsible. They find their reason for existence in paper work. They quantify everything. They do have to be kept in check. Poorly prepared students are another cause and they are the result of a mostly horrible primary and secondary educational system in this country.



> Brick and mortar education is not a bad choice...



Your argument seems to assume that distance ed is now the norm and personal, local (in the sense that both teacher and student are occupying the same space and time) education is now to be regarded as the exception. Is this what you intended to communicate?

My concern is that by making DE the norm we will necessarily accept lower standards. 

I realize that DE need not be "faceless" (there are video based programs via high-speed connection) but it often is. 

As to quality, what are the credentials of the folks offering DE? What sort ofd quality controls are in place? What sort of accountability is there? 

If we (as a brick and mortar institution) do not perform, we must answer to churches (GA's, Synods, Classes/Presbyteries etc) and to accrediting agencies with the ability to penalize us for failing to fulfill our promises to our students. 

We're obligated to keep a faculty with terminal degrees from reputable institutions. We're obligated to keep a library with up-to-date materials. How are these sorts of obligations fuflilled by DE colleges and/or seminaries?

If DE works so well for education, why are folk on this board so critical of distance worship? It has not been criticized on the basis of its violation of the RPW as much as for being inappropriate. That's just right. The web is not an appropriate substitute for the personal, coroporate gathering of a congregation to participate in the ministry of word and sacrament. 

Isn't the web just as inappropriate (i.e., not fitting, not proper to; out of accord with the nature of the thing) for education? 

That said, I've not argued that there's no place for DE. I argue that DE is most useful for continuing ed (and for having some sorts of discussions such as these) but not for providing foundational education provided by most traditional schools.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2005)

Scott,

I think you are missing my point. I am not arguing that a web based distance education ought to be the norm, or even a significant portion of education in general.

What I am saying is that we are fooling ourselves about 90% of formal college/seminary education being the best form of education. (I realize you dissent, but I would expect you to). The thought of paying upwards of $20,000 per year (and that is probably the average) for the "education" that is offered by most colleges is ridiculous. To say "We're obligated to keep a faculty with terminal degrees from reputable institutions." is to deny the self-perpetuating nature of that. If the institutions are bad, why would any one care that the institution has faculty from similar institutions?

Finally, to compare distance worship to education is completely off base (with all due respect). There is a monumental difference between corporate worship and education, so much so that it is not even worth entertaining the analogy.

Again, I am not saying that modern traditional educational model is inherently wrong, but I have seen enough of the rot on the inside (which I suspect is also present at WSC also, good school though it is) to say that it is essential to education.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 12, 2005)

> ...we are fooling ourselves about 90% of formal college/seminary education being the best form of education. (I realize you dissent, but I would expect you to).



This would seem to be a difficult claim to justify without a lot of research. 

For what it's worth, I don't think I would be where I am via distance ed. I recall my tutor making an off-hand comment that changed my research completely. I paid a good bit for that comment, I guess, but it was worth it. It could never have happened by distance.



> The thought of paying upwards of $20,000 per year (and that is probably the average) for the "education" that is offered by most colleges is ridiculous.



I agree. The reasons for the high costs are many, but the costs are not grounded in the "brick" or the "mortar" but in salaries, administrative overhead and fueled by market forces. College graduates make considerably more money than high school graduates. 

We're talking about college tuition here, not seminary. Seminary profs are not paid near what they're worth! 

The high cost isn't really an argument for distance ed on principal is it? 



> To say "We're obligated to keep a faculty with terminal degrees from reputable institutions." is to deny the self-perpetuating nature of that.



Well, you've been a student at a few schools, and I've taught at a few, including RTS Jackson. 

The truth is that a serious PhD, by that I mean an earned PhD from a reputable school, is a lot of hard work. It can be harrowing even.

The process is not self-perpetuating. The process (of earning a PhD) is actually designed to weed out those who are not able or qualified. America is a big country with lots of entrepeneurial types who will find a shortcut, but most PhD candidates fail. They fail because they're not capable of doing the level of scholarship required. 

The process is more than a 1000 years old. It's not as our educational process (at the post-secondary level) arose de novo in the 19th century.

A PhD is not a magic pill. It doesn't confer universal knowledge. It says that a person has shown the ability to do scholarship at the highest level. It indicates that a person understands something about how research and teaching work. (There is a surprising degree of emphasis on teaching in most American PhD programs, at least in the Arts). 

I don't accept the premise that most institutions are as "bad" as you suggest. I'm issuing neither a blanket condennation nor amnesty re higher ed in the USA. Because there are very unhappy things occuring in both Christian and secular higher ed doesn't give us warrant for overturning a millennium of educational wisdom in favor of attractive high tech solutions.

As I've pointed out before, even the Chronicles of Higher Education has carried stories in recent years on the rise and (to some degree) fall of distance ed at the university. Teacher have found that it doesn't produce the desired educational results. 

I'm arguing primarily, however, about process and theory. The theory of distance undergrad and graduate education is poor. The process is in appropriate. 

Are there reforms needed in American higher ed? Absolutely. Is DE the answer? No.



> Finally, to compare distance worship to education is completely off base (with all due respect). There is a monumental difference between corporate worship and education, so much so that it is not even worth entertaining the analogy.



Go ahead, humor me. Just for fun. Why exactly is the analogy so flawed? I realize that there are significant disanalogies, but both worship and education are corporate, formal functions in which information is conveyed verbally, by monologue to hearers. They involve community (or communion) by persons. Both require the information to be conveyed to the hearers (thinking mainly about the sermon) by qualified persons who've proven themselves in a rigorous educational setting by passing formal exams.

The idea of hearing a sermon by distance seems almost obscene, but the idea of listening to a lecture by distance is okay? I agree that the morality of each is distinct. I'm not suggesting that it's immoral to listen to lectures by distance - whereas in most cases it probably is immoral to skip a service in favor of a "distance sermon." I am suggesting, however, that part of the problem with "distance worship" is that the medium does not fit the message. The medium overwhelms the message. I think distance education suffers from some of the same problems.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2005)

Scott,

I'll be quick, since I have my usual load of brick and mortar busy work to which I must attend. 



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > ...we are fooling ourselves about 90% of formal college/seminary education being the best form of education. (I realize you dissent, but I would expect you to).
> ...



Of course. It was quick hyperbole on my part. I would ask you to provide similar research, that does not show higher education to be as bankrupt as Bloom, Hirsch, et al. have shown many times, but neither of us has time for that.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> For what it's worth, I don't think I would be where I am via distance ed. I recall my tutor making an off-hand comment that changed my research completely. I paid a good bit for that comment, I guess, but it was worth it. It could never have happened by distance.



I understand what you are saying here, and that is one of the reasons that traditional education has its advantages. But is it really impossible to think that a tutor in a local setting (i.e. a non-traditional school) could not have made the comment?



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > The thought of paying upwards of $20,000 per year (and that is probably the average) for the "education" that is offered by most colleges is ridiculous.
> ...



I agree that seminary professors are not paid what they are worth. But I would argue that it is not based on work load, but rather the significance of the task they have. To be honest, the work load of a prof is unbelievably light compared with the average doctor, lawyer, accountant and the like. I would have loved to have taught three classes (with an average of 4 months off per year) for the 8th or 9th time instead of billing 2400+ hours as a lawyer. But the importance of training men for gospel ministry makes "work" pale - we should want the best men to do the task, and be willing to remunerate them well for it.

My argument about cost touches on the bankruptcy of the system in general. Higher education is the last great vestage of the welfare state. If you look at the statistics, the increases in the cost of education over the past two decades is astronomical. No other industry comes even close. Other businesses have increases in operating costs, but are not able to increase prices with no reference to market. Why can higher education instititutions do this? Because they have absolutely no consumer accountability. Higher education is completely accountability-free; student loans have increased the debt of our nation unbelievably.

You could also argue that this ever increasing appetitte of education institutions has had one of the most deliterious effects on our nation in the past two decades. Because the average debt of college graduates is more than most home mortgages, the increasing trend of people is to put off marriage, put off children, and to focus on the almighty dollar in order to pay off loans. Look at the average age of marriages and first births since the 1970s.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Go ahead, humor me. Just for fun. Why exactly is the analogy so flawed? I realize that there are significant disanalogies, but both worship and education are corporate, formal functions in which information is conveyed verbally, by monologue to hearers. They involve community (or communion) by persons. Both require the information to be conveyed to the hearers (thinking mainly about the sermon) by qualified persons who've proven themselves in a rigorous educational setting by passing formal exams.
> 
> The idea of hearing a sermon by distance seems almost obscene, but the idea of listening to a lecture by distance is okay? I agree that the morality of each is distinct. I'm not suggesting that it's immoral to listen to lectures by distance - whereas in most cases it probably is immoral to skip a service in favor of a "distance sermon." I am suggesting, however, that part of the problem with "distance worship" is that the medium does not fit the message. The medium overwhelms the message. I think distance education suffers from some of the same problems.
> ...



Because worship is more than hearing a sermon. It is more than gaining Biblical information. If it were only that, we might be able to argue the merits of "distance hearing." We might think about whether it is better to hear (for example) poor local preaching or Spurgeon (or insert name here). But preaching is more than information - the Spirit is involved immediately. The same cannot be said of physics, or math, or Shakespeare. Worship is ultimately corporate; education is not. It is not about the medium, it is the substance.

Again, that does not mean that the traditional system is without its merits. But I posit that you cannot put it forth as the only worthy model. Or do you really think that WSC grads are actually better prepared for the ministry than Log College graduates were?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 12, 2005)

Here's my personal opinion - since ultimately, this whole conversation is about the opinions of individuals: I think that Dr. Clark has a vested interest in propagating traditional onsite education... At the same time, I think others have a vested interest in asserting the legitimacy/quality of distance education programs.... 

Ultimately I don't really care where or how a person obtains an education... as long as the person possesses the requisite knowledge. I believe that it is the responsibility of the presbytery (and calling church) to make sure that their candidates are up to standard. There is a tried and true maxim that I believe applies here: the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 12, 2005)

> But is it really impossible to think that a tutor in a local setting (i.e. a non-traditional school) could not have made the comment?



I don't think so. It happened existentially. It happened in the give and take of face to face conversation. I guess this doesn't happen as much in the DE setting. You can't take a video monitor or a computer terminal to lunch. Well, you could, but it would be exceeding strange!



> To be honest, the work load of a prof is unbelievably light compared with the average doctor, lawyer, accountant and the like.



Okay, so sem profs are lazy are they? 

When I can start billing you folks for typing out emails instead attending my classes, answering countless private emails, making hospital visits, and answering the phone, then we can start comparing lawyers and sem profs! (



> ...increase prices with no reference to market. Why can higher education instititutions do this? Because they have absolutely no consumer accountability.



I quite disagree. It's all about the market. Parents are paying exorbitant prices for education because American parents believe that it furthers the well-being of their children.

If American parents turned off the spigot, costs would go down. It's supply and demand. Colleges charge what they do because they can get and they can get it because folks will pay it. Wheaton turns down a lot of applicants, this despite the rather high cost of attendance. 



> Because worship is more than hearing a sermon.



Quite. If, however, we compare sermon and lecture, there are real analogies.



> ...It is not about the medium, it is the substance.



I think this gets to the nub, which is where I began. What is education? I think one view is that it is merely the transmission of information (substance) and another view is that it is that and much more. I think the latter is a richer and more profound definition that reflects the reality of the thing in itself.



> But is it really impossible to think that a tutor in a local setting (i.e. a non-traditional school) could not have made the comment?



I don't think so. It happened existentially. It happened in the give and take of face to face conversation. I guess this doesn't happen as much in the DE setting. You can't take a video monitor or a computer terminal to lunch. Well, you could, but it would be exceeding strange!



> To be honest, the work load of a prof is unbelievably light compared with the average doctor, lawyer, accountant and the like.



Okay, so sem profs are lazy are they? 

When I can start billing you folks for typing out emails instead attending my classes, answering countless private emails, making hospital visits, and answering the phone, then we can start comparing lawyers and sem profs!  Churches, colleges, and seminaries are 501(c)3's and as such exist on a completely different scale of being than for profit entities such as Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and Hungadunga (Groucho Marx's famous law firm).



> ...increase prices with no reference to market. Why can higher education instititutions do this? Because they have absolutely no consumer accountability.



I quite disagree. It's all about the market. Parents are paying exorbitant prices for education because American parents believe that it furthers the well-being of their children.

If American parents turned off the spigot, costs would go down. It's supply and demand. Colleges charge what they do because they can get and they can get it because folks will pay it. Wheaton turns down a lot of applicants, this despite the rather high cost of attendance. 



> Because worship is more than hearing a sermon.



Quite. If, however, we compare sermon and lecture, there are real analogies.



> ...It is not about the medium, it is the substance.



I think this gets to the nub, which is where I began. What is education? I think one view is that it is merely the transmission of information (substance) and another view is that it is that and much more. I think the latter is a richer and more profound definition that reflects the reality of the thing in itself.

Further, there are lots of things that occur as part of a brick and mortar four-year education (learning, friendships, community) that supplement what happens in the classroom. Those things cannot be transmitted down a video/high speed line.



> ...do you really think that WSC grads are actually better prepared for the ministry than Log College graduates were?



This is an excellent, if loaded, question. We're facing many of the same issues in our time that the old siders faced in theirs.

Do you think that John Thomson would support distance ed? He wasn't much in favor of the LC, I doubt that he would support DE.

The LC was a new side institution. So, it's problematic from the start, from my dead orthodox, old side pov.

The Old Side subscriptionists were deeply suspicious of the LC. They had been trained rigorously in brick and mortar British universities. 

I know I'm supposed to say, "Of course not, no one could approach the LC...", but there may be some premises in the question that need to be questioned.

I'm not sure I'd want my pastor to be trained by a new sider, Tennent or not. The Old Siders (the confessionalists) tried to undermine the LC in 1738. They demanded that LC students submit to the same examination as those who had been trained in university. 

The LC was pious but was it a good school? Was it equipped to produce well-trained, well-educated men for ministry? We're Presbyterians. Who was teaching state of the art Hebrew, Aramaic etc in the LC? Did the LC have a world class Greek prof? We have resources of which they couldn't dream. We have access to texts they did not. 

We've had a long time to work on seminary education since then. As soon as the Presbyterians could do it, they founded a real seminary. Princeton didn't replicate the LC. One thing led to another. Was Princeton superior to the LC? I think so. 

Are there ways in which we (I especially) are deficient, certainly, but taken as a whole, then probably yes, students are getting a better education at a strongly confessional, excellent, well-equipped school. I'm certainly willing to be corrected on this.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I quite disagree. It's all about the market. Parents are paying exorbitant prices for education because American parents believe that it furthers the well-being of their children.
> 
> If American parents turned off the spigot, costs would go down. It's supply and demand. Colleges charge what they do because they can get and they can get it because folks will pay it. Wheaton turns down a lot of applicants, this despite the rather high cost of attendance.




Scott,

I do understand where you are coming from. And I am not in complete disagreement with you. Really.

But I have to say that your market analysis here is way off base. Every economic study of the cost of education says otherwise. Just because everyone is willing to rob Peter to pay Paul does not mean that there is a market justification. There is going to be a huge bill to pay the piper when the system ceases to support itself. Debt is at unbelievable levels in America today, and while a good amount of it is wasteful spending and credit cards, much of it is school debt. Why? Because everyone _says_ that you have to have a college education. Because everyone _says_ it is worth it. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But the fact that the debt load is so high, together with the non-dischargability of school debt, cannot help but have deleterious effects.

I will leave it at that.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 13, 2005)

Scott said "œ I'm arguing primarily, however, about process and theory. The theory of distance undergrad and graduate education is poor. The process is in appropriate."

To date, I have not read an argument, primarily or otherwise. Perhaps you might stop chasing phantom DE ideologies and point out one or two programmes that you believe are flawed? Have you researched the actual ideologies of any DE school? Improvement can only be made by helpful critical analysis, not conjecture and speculation. 

The fact that you would compare the means of grace with a conventional lecture at a college or seminary is almost not worth commenting on. One has to wonder if you were actually serious when you wrote it. Sometimes it is hard to tell when a post is "œtongue in cheek" and when it is serious. If you were serious, perhaps you might want to go to the WTS tape library and extract a certain lecture delivered there by one Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who dismantles any notion that a lecture even approaches the sacred means of grace called preaching.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Scott said "œ I'm arguing primarily, however, about process and theory. The theory of distance undergrad and graduate education is poor. The process is in appropriate."
> 
> To date, I have not read an argument, primarily or otherwise. Perhaps you might stop chasing phantom DE ideologies and point out one or two programmes that you believe are flawed? Have you researched the actual ideologies of any DE school? Improvement can only be made by helpful critical analysis, not conjecture and speculation.
> ...



Jerrold,

I thought I was clear that about the ways in which I was comparing a sermon with a lecture. I quite understand that they are distinct and I tried to note that fact.

Twice now respondents have thrown epithets at the analogy but have not really engaged it. It may be flawed, but I think the visceral reaction to it is interesting - not probative but interesting. 

I think this entire discussion points up the inherent weakness in DE. Digital communication is too fast (as many others have noted), too ephemeral (post today, gone tomorrow), and too impersonal. Folk do not read e-texts the way they do printed texts. They do not speak with one another the way they do in person. 

I understand that this does not prove that distance lectures offered by video are ineffective at providing a foundational education. To offer a full-scale refutation would require me to violate the nature of this medium. I cannot type out the works of Postman and the other critics of "if we can do it, we must" approach to technology. If I did it few would read them. That's not why readers come to boards such as these. I've had folks on lists such as this demand that I not refer them to any other sources but answer their questions at length. To quote Dana Carvey doing Bush 41, "Ain't gonna happen."

As to theory, I guess I thought I was sketching the outlines of a theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what a theory is?

Once again: In my view, foundational education, of the sort done in a college or seminary, is personal communication. It is the tranmission of information (which electronic communication does imperfectly), an ethos, attitudes, and behaviors. According to its nature a sound foundational education, it cannot be done well at distance, even if tools that help overcome distance and time are used. 

As to process, I thought I sketched a process. A student enrolls into a real school, with a real, actual community. In that community of fellow students, a learner engages new material, re-considers previously held ideas, learns new disciplines and languages, shares common experiences, engages in dialogue, memorizes, writes, and is examined. 

Learning begins by dislocation, always mental, often emotional, and usually physical. I hear advocates of DE saying, "I refuse to be dislocated from any current location" (whether intellectual or physical) but I want to be credited as a learner without actually going through the process.

As to phantoms, I'm trying to respond what I'm reading. Perhaps if I could hear the tone of voice, interrupt a speaker with questions, I might have a clearer grasp of what folk are saying. If we could have a give and take that doesn't take 6 hours, we might get somewhere. As you can see, communication by distance has its drawbacks.

rsc


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2005)

A sound education can be achieved without going to a B & M school. In fact, I agree with Dr. Lloyd-Jones when he says that the Church for the last 1000 years has been getting it all wrong by sending the divinity student away to be educated in a system that has no basis in scripture. Divinity students ought to be trained by experts (that means pastors/teaching elders). DE allows for this as the student is actively engaged in the life of the very environment he will spend his time. Some might also wish to read a fascinating article written by John Frame titled, "œProposal for a New Seminary", in which he argues that the perish Church model is superior to the academic institutionalized model (and this coming from a professor!). Frame admits he is simply parroting the sentiments of Princeton's Gardener Spring.

In my own denomination, in addition to a Divinity Programme by mentor/tutor (or in my case DE as my mentor died in the first year of my training) we must fulfill the following. I dare say that most modern Reformed bodies do not even come close to this kind of rigor before they enter the pulpit as an ordained minister.

First Year Oral Exam (3-4 hours)
Scripture Four Gospels.
Confession of Faith Chapters 1-13.
Larger Catechism Questions 91-121.
Recitation of Shorter Catechism Questions 1-52, with proof texts. 
Books: Robert Murray M'Cheyne; Pilgrim's Progress, Life of David Brainard.
(must receive pass before proceeding to 2nd year)


Second Year Oral Exam (3-4 hours)
Scripture I Samuel to Psalms.
Confession of Faith Chapters 14-33.
Larger Catechism Questions 122-160.
Recitation of Shorter Catechism Questions 53-107, with proof texts. 
Books Edwards on Religious Affections; Spurgeon´s Lectures to My Students. 
(must receive pass before proceeding to 3rd year)

Third Year Oral Exam (3-4 hours)
Scripture Proverbs to Malachi.
Confession of Faith Chapters 1-33, with Shaw on the confession.
Larger Catechism Questions 161-196.
Recitation of Shorter Catechism Questions 1-107, with Fisher´s Catechism.
Books Baxter´s Reformed Pastor; Samuel Rutherford´s Letters; Jay Adams Shepherding God's Flock.
(must receive pass before proceeding to 4th year)


Final Trials for License. 
Scripture : Paul´s Letters to the churches. Romans "“ 2 Thessalonians (inclusive).
Westminster Confession of Faith
Sermon: (preach before Presbytery).
Sermon: (submit written manuscript).
Hebrew Exegesis: Given Text (exercise is to highlight shades of meaning/significance).
Greek Exegesis:Given Text (exercise is to highlight shades of 
meaning/significance).
Thesis: Write a 10,000 word Thesis.

In addition to this, I preached over 400 times(Free Church of Scotland, Associated Presbyterian Church of Canada and Scotland, Orthodox Christian Reformed Church, Free Reformed Church of North America, Free Presbyterian Church, Reformed Baptist, etc) during the 4 years of my training, taught over 200 catechism classes, and officiated 2 funerals.
How does this system compare to the grads of WTS or any other B&M institution when it comes to preperation? Most students that i have spoken to, when they see the massive Presbytery requirements (which have gone on for over 400 years in the Scottish Churches) say they could never become a minister in our Churches because the requirements are too high!

DE is the perfect compliment to the Parish Church model, incorporating the academics with the practice. It is the better of the two system when used in this way. 

Kind regards,

Jerrold

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2005)

Rev. Lewis & Dr. Clark:

Would either of you say that the "disposition", "character", "abilities", etc. of a student would also play a large role in which path one takes, or would you both say that your position remains "cookie cutter" about your respective views - (i.e. one size fits all)?

The reason I ask- I went through both DE and B&M. I have reservations about both and compliments about both based on the disposition of the student (i.e. is he studious, can he work on his own or not, is he motivated, does he have the skills to research rightly, etc). I'm curious to how you would both see that.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Rev. Lewis & Dr. Clark:
> 
> Would either of you say that the "disposition", "character", "abilities", etc. of a student would also play a large role in which path one takes, or would you both say that your position remains "cookie cutter" about your respective views - (i.e. one size fits all)?
> ...



Dear Rev. McMahon,

I think what you mention lies at the heart of every good education. As I see it the student and his abilities (time management, flexibility, discipline, aptitude etc) will determine best which kind of programme is best for him. Most of these skills, in my opinion should be assessed by qualified persons (the session and presbytery), and a plan set forth on that basis. It could be B&M; it could be DE, or both. 

I still maintain that the Church does herself a disservice by delegating the responsibility of training shepherds to non shepherds (or shepherds who are rightly academics, taking on ordination to lend ecclesiastical credibility to their purely conventional occupation).

The privilege of service, and the enormous duties that it entails, will never be adequately taught by men who's first function is not the flock, but academics. As John Frame says in arguing for parish trained ministers, "œOver the years, however, it has become less and less possible for a man to be an outstanding pastor and an outstanding scholar; thus seminaries, forced to choose, have inevitably picked the latter". In Canadian hockey, the adage goes, "those who can't play, coach". I think it is by and large it is the same for many, but not all, institutionalized fully accredited academicians. :bigsmile:

Kind regards,

Jerrold

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by JOwen]

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Rev. Lewis & Dr. Clark:
> 
> Would either of you say that the "disposition", "character", "abilities", etc. of a student would also play a large role in which path one takes, or would you both say that your position remains "cookie cutter" about your respective views - (i.e. one size fits all)?
> ...



Dear Matt,

This is a good and important question. 

Yes, the ability of the student makes a difference in any educational endeavor, but remember the discussion was really about undergraduate education, which is a *foundational* education. I think this qualifier has been overlooked in some of our discussions. 

From the pov of an educator, the idea of a high school graduate, no matter how highly disciplined and motivated, doing undergraduate work by himself or herself by distance is not the most attractive option. 

As I keep saying, education is not mere transmission of information from one brain to another via a wire. It is participation in a community. Online communities are fairly gnostic at best. I couldn't tell the folks from this list (except Matt perhaps) from Adam. That's okay, except if this list were to suddenly start granting degrees!

As I've said a few time, I think DE has a valuable role to play in _augmenting_ an education already achieved. I would love to be able to meet by DE with students I taught at Wheaton or here at WSC. We have an established vocabulary, a frame of reference, a relationship, a set of shared experiences and values on which we can draw.

I'm not a Luddite. Here I am typing away on a web-based discussion list. DE has value and uses, but teaching someone about Tennyson or Aristotle by video conference or computer screen isn't my idea of education for the reasons I've already stated.

As to JMF's proposal for a new seminary, I don't think anyone has taken him up on it. There are attempts to reconstitute the old "Cathedral School" model where a largish local church hosts a seminary. The weakness I've seen thus far is that the academics tend to suffer. Those schools may (or may not - the assumption is yes, but the experience of some may suggest otherwise) be strong in practica, but they don't tend to have the libraries, faculties, and other resources that make an outstanding school.

I first read it as one of John's students and we discussed it when we were colleagues. As far as I can tell, John has always felt guilty (he used to say so) about not being very "practical." So he developed what he thinks is a "practical" approach to education. 

Part of his scheme is driven by his idiosyncratic definition of theology as application. John doesn't have much time for the more traditional defintions of the theology which begin with the archetypal/ectypal distinction. It's a long discussion, but the short of it is that if one accepts the archetypal (theology as God knows it)/ectypal (theology as it is revealed to us) distinction and the definition of theology as party theoretical and partly practical then John's proposal is less interesting.

rsc


----------



## historyb (Dec 14, 2005)

Hello,

In my first post I said I was getting a DE and in factI was able to just re-enroll in my univesity because of lack of Financial aid. I think DE does have a permanent place in American society now and as far as I go my education is in Computer Science. 

I also think that B & M Learning has a place to. In my humble opinion there are some subjects that should never be taught DE. For Computers though I think that DE is a good way because it entails you use the medium that your going to use in your career.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 15, 2005)

> For Computers though I think that DE is a good way because it entails you use the medium that your going to use in your career.



Sure, there subjects that can be taught by DE, but a college/university education should not be reduced to mere vocational training. 

College/university isn't first about "getting a job." It's about "getting an education." It is about become a thoughtful, intelligent, well-rounded person.

Sure there's a place for vo-tech schools, but we're not talking about vo-tech education here. We're talking about a liberal arts education, about what it takes to become not a technician, but a learned person.

This is not to say there is no practical value in becoming a learned person. 

If current trends continue and folks change jobs/careers 4-6 times in their life, almost no one will remain at the present position for the rest of their life. In our economy the motto is adapt or die. The only ones who will be able to adapt are those who are students. 

Another of my favorites, P. G. Wodehouse, turned his classical education into banking job (biding his time) thence into a journalism career, and finally into a career as a writer of short stories and comic novels. Plum never had a 'writing course' in his life, but he had read the classics (in Greek and Latin!) and was a genuinely learned man. Few writers were as acclaimed for their graceful use of the language as PGW.

Even engineers and computer majors must take some liberal arts courses. 

We have a surprising number of students who have computer/engineering backgrounds who are forced to learn the liberal arts in graduate school. When they began their strictly vocational approach to undergraduate education, they had no idea they would end up in seminary, so they never bothered to learn read well and write discursively. Now, in my courses, they face stringent reading and writing requirements for the first time and they wish they could take composition 101 again etc.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2005)

As further proof of how all things can be abused, all you have to do is peruse Communio Sanctorum, to see Paul Owen try to beat up his orthodox critics with his degree from Scotland:



> Furthermore, the simple fact of the matter is that (unlike my critic) I have an earned doctorate from one of the world´s top universities, in New Testament studies. I have proven my competence as a New Testament scholar, outside the safe and secure playground of evangelicalism. So if I am being asked why I presume to have something to say on these matters, I can simply note that I have published in places such as the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, and the Library of Second Temple Studies. I have presented papers at the national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature. My doctoral dissertation ( "œJewish Eschatology as a Matrix for Understanding the Death of Jesus in Early Christianity") has been accepted (pending revisions) by a major academic publisher. My vocal critic, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate the capacity to even successfully navigate the course of study of a masters degree program at a satellite campus of an evangelical seminary. Yet he regularly takes it upon himself to correct the "œerrors" of seasoned scholars who have a proven track record of academic excellence and credibility. Maybe he should wait until he has at least completed the modest task of finishing graduate school with a decent GPA, before pontificating about issues which are quite evidently beyond his present grasp and realm of competence.



from:
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=121



> I have been asked to put some thoughts down on exegesis of the Bible. Though I have a PhD in New Testament from a credible university (Edinburgh), have published mainstream articles in the fields of New Testament and apocalyptic literature, and teach biblical studies at the undergraduate level, I by no means consider myself an expert in the discipline. But I think I do qualify as a student of the task, and so from one student to others, I pass on some of the following theses:



from:
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=118

Now does this mean that no one should go to Scotland for a PhD? Of course not. But it is prima facie evidence that a NT degree from an established *secular* institution may simply make a man more dangerous and arrogant than he was before. Give me a shoemaker with a 6th grade education to teach my kids before I put them near the poisonous arrogance of this "scholar"


----------



## historyb (Dec 15, 2005)

> College/university isn't first about "getting a job." It's about "getting an education." It is about become a thoughtful, intelligent, well-rounded person.



Sometimes as is in my case it is about getting a job. I wish I had time for getting a proper education, but at this stage of my life it's about getting a job. Hopefully after 11 yrs in my present College I got some kind of Education. 

With all due respect Dr. Scott all education is about getting a job, a career is just a job that is more fulfilling in scope that a "job" would be.



[Edited on 12-16-2005 by historyb]


----------



## gwine (Dec 16, 2005)

Maybe so, Doug, but having an education can open doors to a career as opposed to just a job.



> Even engineers and computer majors must take some liberal arts courses.



So true. I went through a technical degree. If all you ever learn in college is just how to do your 'job' then you are indeed impoverished. I went through high school and college never having read Shakespeare or studied the classics (logic, philosophy) and it is harder now to cram new ideas into this old brain. But I enjoy reading and learning - it just takes more time because I didn't have a good foundation.

If I could do it all again, knowing what I know . . .


----------



## historyb (Dec 16, 2005)

I have to say I did get a liberal arts degree, mostly because I took all the courses offered at my Community college.  I had no idea abut education or anything when I went to college and most of high school sure didn't help any to prepare me or anyone for College for that matter. 

I did experience a year of classical education when I was a junior in High School, I had a body cast on and my Teacher came to the house and ask me what type of education I wanted, I told him a classical one not knowing anything about it just that CS Lewis seemed to have one. (I was just discovering all his writings) That was the best year of all my Hish School time. 

Believe or not that is what most people learn at College, at least at the Communtiy college level is how to do thier chosen job. Most people (with the exception of young people) do not have the time anymore to invest to get the type of education which is classical in nature. Not sure what I'm trying to say seems I' just rambling on so I stop now.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > For Computers though I think that DE is a good way because it entails you use the medium that your going to use in your career.
> ...



A college/university education does not make one a "well-rounded person" any more than a Fu Manchu makes one Chinese. The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment. Dr. Scott is not more intelligent, thoughtful, or well rounded a person 5 min after his PhD than he was 5 min before. Perhaps a more well rounded academic, but intelligence, thoughtfulness, and "œperson[ness]" are altogether separate qualities usually gained by a godly upbringing, discipline, love, and hard work. 

Are the most thoughtful, intelligent, and well rounded people only those with an academic degree? If memory serves, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Are they also the most beautiful? I think you have far too high an opinion of academic success Scott. It's a means to an end, it does not make one a better human.

If you want to be a well rounded person (thoughtful, intelligent) "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God" (Mic 6:8).

JHL


----------



## gwine (Dec 16, 2005)

> The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment.



I would hope that there is more to it than that, but you are probably right in that most (?) schools and students see it that way. I have the means but not a strong enough motivation to go back to school, and the reason I wish to go back is because there was much lacking in my education beyond the basics. Sure, I can read and write, but my appreciation for the arts and my ability to reason fall short of what I would like.

Coming up on 53 revolutions with a reasonably secure job, I am grateful to have the opportunity to even consider this. I pray that my son, who will be getting his degree in Mechanical Engineering this December, will be so favored.

I follow this discussion because I can't decide between the DE and B&M. I dislike the idea of travelling 1 1/2 hours to class but I wonder if my motivation is high enough to stick with DE. The other issues are important, too, and I need to weigh them as well.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > The education system is solely for the purpose of obtaining qualifications to aid one in gainful employment.
> ...



Whatever else one might gain from a college or university education, in my opinion, is secondary to its prima facia use, and could be learned, perhaps better in the real world of joy and pain. My disagreement with Dr. Clark's statement regarding "well-roundedness" stems from a belief that *life itself* the best teacher; especially when looking to the holy and perfect example of Jesus in the scriptures.

Kind regards,

JHL

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by JOwen]


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 16, 2005)

Josh,

Just to through my 2 cents in, a couple of things you ought to consider whether you go DE or B&M, is what you want to do with that undergraduate Degree? Since it appears you want to end up going to Seminary and eventually being a Pastor, and assuming you are going to stay on the Reformed Baptist side  you might want to take some courses that will help you "make tents". I am sure Phillip Way would love to devote all his time to the Church, but finances won't let him so he is "bivocational". I would hazard to guess that if you do end up as a Pastor, you may end up in the same situation and taking some courses that will help you make a living for you and your family will be very helpful.

Now its time for a little rant!

Josh,

Are you sure about going to a Reformed College that will prepare you for Seminary? is YOUR calling being a man who will stand in the pulpit and speak to God's people on His behalf? Has God blessed you with the necessary gifts to take on this calling? Have others seen these gifts in you? Do you see going this route as being the best and only way to serve Christ and His Church? This is something you need to continually pray long and hard about. It takes a lot more than a Seminary degree to stand in that pulpit. Unfortunately there are a number of men out there who went to Seminary (whether DE or D&M) who do not belong in the pulpit. Scripture is very clear regarding those who look to be Elders. Though it is something that is worth seeking, those who are "teachers of Israel" will be under a harsher judgment than those who are not. If going this route is your calling and you have counted the cost, then God will bless your endeavors whether its via DE or B&M. And I certainly pray that if you go this route, you will be one of the very precious few out there who will rightly preach the whole counsel of God (and make all of us on the PB proud to have known you!)

But I do have one caveat. Being a Minister is not the only way anyone can serve Christ's Church. Speaking as a Presbyterian, the Presbyterian system is not built on the Minister with an MDiv. Though it goes without saying that the Teaching Elder is extremely important, Presbyterianism is built on the Ruling Elder. Without the Ruling Elder, there is no church. You can have all the TE's you want, but without RE's, no congregation can be considered a "particular" church. I don't know about the Baptist system, but I would hazard to guess that the Board of Deacons or Elders are just as important. RE's and Deacons are not required to be Seminary trained or even to have gone to a Reformed college, but they serve Christ's church just the same.

One of the responsibilities of an RE is to make sure what's coming out of that pulpit is biblical and within the Standards of the Church. You want to stop FV/NPP/Shepherdism and any other aberrant excuse for theology that come down the pike? have sound RE's who are well grounded in the Scriptures and the Standards and are willing to say "enough!". And if the TE is not willing to submit to the brethren, then maybe he just gets the BOOT! The RE is where the "rubber meets the road". Plus Seminaries would stop teaching this garbage if their Seminarians couldn't get calls to be TE's.

But to be well grounded, RE's and Deacons need to be well trained in the Scriptures and Standards so they can spot these errors. 

This is where I think distance education can be very beneficial, that is training RE's and Deacons. As a Ruling Elder with a full time job, I neither have the time nor the inclination to go over the WTS-Dallas and get a post graduate degree. I have 2 degrees already and don't need another one. But taking courses over the internet or whatever, at my convenience is a great idea.

So that's it. Nothing like free advise


----------



## pastorway (Dec 16, 2005)

ditto to Wayne.

Get a degree that will provide a means of support for you and your family first, then think about seminary if that is where God is calling you!!!

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 16, 2005)

Did anyone else see the summary of the latest literacy report on the news tonight?

I believe that they said that only 31% of college graduates have a sufficient literacy level to read a newspaper or magazine. This is down from 40% in 1991. I guess all those skyrocketing tuitions (take a look at what schools cost in 1991, and now, and then try and factor in the very small inflation rates over that span) have done us incredible good.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 16, 2005)

Just as a footnote, Frame has mellowed quite a bit since his proposal 35 years ago regarding parish-training:

"Postscript, 2001

It's hard to believe that nearly thirty years has elapsed since I wrote this paper. It's also fun for me to see what I was saying when I was younger, bolder, more radical. I've probably mellowed somewhat since that time, but my heart is still in the 'Proposal.' 

The paper has not been widely acclaimed, but it has generated enough interest for me to remark occasionally, without any seriousness at all, that it has a 'cult following.' 

The 'situation' I describe in the paper may have been a bit overdrawn then. Today, there are a number of attempts to get beyond the academic model of theological education. Quite a number of churches have their own seminaries today. In my own Presbyterian Church in America, there is Knox Seminary, closely associated with Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and seminaries associated with Spanish River Presbyterian Church in Boca Raton, FL, and Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The latter two sometimes offer accredited courses taught by professors from Reformed Theological Seminary. These make a serious attempt to integrate practical and theological training. 

On the other hand, some traditional seminaries do a good job at preparing men for ministry. I probably exaggerated, in 1972, the deficiencies of the seminaries. As of now, I'd be delighted to have my sons study at Reformed Theological Seminary if God were to lead them in that direction. There are, however, other seminaries I'd tell them to avoid like the plague. But we can and should do better.

As for myself, I have always taught at a traditional, academic seminary, and probably will for the rest of my life. That is what I'm gifted to do. I don't believe I would do very well as a teacher at a school such as that described in the _Proposal_. I lack the people skills. My skills seem to be exclusively academic, though my interests seem to be largely practical. I live with that tension. And I would not be successful at trying to start a seminary following the _Proposal_ or to raise funds for it. 

The economics of theological training is a subject that needs to be explored in this context. I am not the one to do it. But is there some way that the people of God can be moved by a vision for theological education, as they are often moved by appeals for support of missions? Something like that would have to happen, if churches are to become seminaries in the spirit of my _Proposal_."

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/refo..._of_frame/ST1_Proposal for a New Seminary.doc

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## gwine (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Did anyone else see the summary of the latest literacy report on the news tonight?
> 
> I believe that they said that only 31% of college graduates have a sufficient literacy level to read a newspaper or magazine. This is down from 40% in 1991. I guess all those skyrocketing tuitions (take a look at what schools cost in 1991, and now, and then try and factor in the very small inflation rates over that span) have done us incredible good.



Hey! As a college graduate I'll have you know that I'm not illiterate! My momma and my poppa were married 2 years before I was born. 

But seriously, those figures are depressing. Even when I was in the college scene 20 years ago the first 2 weeks or more involved "remedial" catch-up because high-schoolers were deficient in math and English.


----------



## CDM (Jan 12, 2006)

> My argument about cost touches on the bankruptcy of the system in general. Higher education is the last great vestage of the welfare state. If you look at the statistics, the increases in the cost of education over the past two decades is astronomical. No other industry comes even close. Other businesses have increases in operating costs, but are not able to increase prices with no reference to market. Why can higher education instititutions do this? Because they have absolutely no consumer accountability. Higher education is completely accountability-free; student loans have increased the debt of our nation unbelievably.
> 
> You could also argue that this ever increasing appetitte of education institutions has had one of the most deliterious effects on our nation in the past two decades. Because the average debt of college graduates is more than most home mortgages, the increasing trend of people is to put off marriage, put off children, and to focus on the almighty dollar in order to pay off loans. Look at the average age of marriages and first births since the 1970s.


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Jan 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> But seriously, those figures are depressing. Even when I was in the college scene 20 years ago the first 2 weeks or more involved "remedial" catch-up because high-schoolers were deficient in math and English.



These days the first 2 _years_ of college are catch-up. The general ed. requirements of most colleges are nothing but your high school classes all over again. That's why I went to the local community college for the first two years to get all my gen. ed. out of the way for only $12 a credit, then transferred to a state university for my major requirements.


----------

