Andersonville Seminary

Via video tape and CD. (Welcome to the 21st century!) </font>[/QUOTE]You miss the whole point of teaching. Teaching must by its nature be interactive. One may learn something by sitting and listening to tapes but it is not the same as interactive teaching. Otherwise, a computer and cracker-jack programming could replace all teachers. There must be human interaction. Furthermore, there is a moral/ethical side to teaching that cannot be conveyed through electronic media. Someone was opining about the lack of moral content in modern seminary education. This is where we are losing some of it without the interaction with strong, mature, godly mentors. Teaching has a personal, human-to-human component that cannot be replaced by technology.

 

My prayers are with you.

 

The problem is that the counselor is not the academic scholar who lectured on the tape. What does the counselor know? What are his/her qualifications? Unless you are seeking pat textbook answers, you are being shortchanged.

 

Good question!

BTW, what do you think about SATS (South Africa Theological Seminary)? They did offer a joint doctorate with Unizul.

 

Bill

Since that is Monday, I am and will be praying for you.

In Christ,

Wayne

 

I can aggree that human-to-human teaching is sometimes better.

But, if I cannot learn from Augustine or Paul ... then I am not benefiting from some of the best minds that have lived. And if I could only learn from those that I interact with, then I would not learn from the greatest theologians that have ever lived.

 

Paidagogos,

Are you are saying all distance learning is not worthwhile? Many programs I have seen do not require any on campus time, including accredited institutions.

 

El Guero is right on target with his last comment. Very well said.

 

===


Paid:

It is my understanding that SATS never offered a "joint" doc with UZ in the sense of a graduation from both schools.

As you know, in SA and the UK established schools sometimes "accredit" lesser schools. For a time UZ accredited SATS and for a time one could enroll into SATS for a doc or into UZ through the auspices of SATS. In fact, the latter is what I did!

SATS helped me with the preliminary paper work and guided me into the UZ program,

About two years ago SATS decided to seek governmental approval ( equiv to our accreditation) apart from UZ. It got that. In another year SATS probably will be approved to offer the D. Th.

I like SATS in general. They are very responsive and helpful. I do not much care for the BA/MTh curriculum in Systematic Theology. IMO it is light in Bibliology and Theology proper. I've discussed that with SATS, but Peppler disagrees with me (at least that's what Rueben said).

 

Thanks for prayers re my surgery.

 

Bill

Anytime, let us know more when you can.

 

PS you are a little too far for me to visit, but I would if you were closer.

Wayne

 

I do believe in the potential for distance learning (but I KNOW it is often poorly done). How could I not believe since that is how my ThD was done, and my duty at Faith Seminary/Salem [which now, just having begun, I must until recuperated give up] is to assure the quality of our DL courses.

But I say the "potential" is there ; the quality IMO of distance learning correlates much with who supervises that and how that supervision is done.

For example, I took while in the MDiv at Western a DE course, an ITS one, Stott on the Pastoral Epistles--Greek Exegesis of the Pastorals, my course was called. . My supervisor required me to elicit from the Greek text about 100 exegetical problems and summarize the existing views in the literature on each and argue for the one view that I preferred.

But Stott was no where to be found to evaluate my responses and to interact with them, you see. I could ask Stott no question. I could not probe his mind and he could not probe my responses! All of his mind that I had access to were his words on the tapes.

For these needs I relied on a Western prof whose expertise in Greek was up to that challenge and who was paid to look at every one of my responses and to discuss everyone of them in writing with me.

Good DE Learning IMO does require interaction and more specifically interaction with someone who is both qualified and willing to spend the time to do that.

 

No, not at all. However, there must be human contact, interaction and accountability. There are many ways nowadays to communicate without face-to-face conversation. However, simply listening to dead men’s tapes and writing an outline or synopsis is not teaching. Furthermore, it is not the proper basis for granting degrees. In my formal education, I have read many dead men’s tomes and learned much but this was not the sole venue for earning my degrees. Also, I continue to read voraciously and learn but this is for further growth and learning, not the basis of procuring an academic degree. Distance education is more than this. BTW, I have had a serious interest in DE, although under names, since I first read John Bear’s first book in the 1970’s.

 

Brothers

I feel that what you are calling quality education, I consider to be lower than what our standards for personal study should be.

If we are relying upon personal interaction, then that removes my ability to study Augustine, or Chrysostom ... Unfortunately, I know of very few theologians that are approachable that are truly experts in their field(s).

If you know if any, I am willing to study ...

 

If you know of any, I am willing to study ...

 

You are reading things into my post that I did not write. Please read UZThD’s post in response. I agree heartily with him. The problem is that much of DE is not done well. Fly-by-night schools have sprung up along side of legitimate DE efforts and we appear helpless in discerning between the two. DE is much more than taping lectures and doing a few fill-in-the-blank tests. The technology is pretty much bells and whistles whereas the basic instruction methodology is a specialized, professional area. Many people are attracted by the bells and whistles along with the ease of acquiring an academic credential. They see the technology and fail to realize that all DE is not created equal. In fact, I would say that most people are exceedingly naïve regarding the quality of DE programs. DE is not necessarily something new—it has been around for well over a hundred years with the University of London programs. Therefore, the technological aspect is simply a tool in DE, not the essence itself.

The thing that bothers me is that DE has achieved the status of an infocommercial. Since there is money to be made in the lucrative DE market, every cornpone college in the country is racing to enroll paying students who lust for capital letters. DE degree programs are advertised and promoted on the basis of satisfied degree holders. It is the basis of subjective personal testimonials, not the objective standard of tests, procedures and academic achievement. There are weighty considerations of methodology, accountability, interaction, feedback, etc.

The question of residency has been a long debated issue in DE. Although genuine programs with no residency requirements are appearing, all the concerns have not been successfully addressed. In the genuine no required residence DE programs, there is interaction and feedback through various technology. BTW, I questioned that whatever an accredited school does is not necessarily a standard of quality any longer. Economic considerations many times override higher ideals of quality and convictions.

 

You can learn much on your own. After all, I consider the goal of formal education to be an independent learner who has the skills and is able to learn on his own. On the other hand, I do not think it credible to give degrees, especially higher degrees, for personal and individual learning without significant interaction with properly credentialed teachers, accountability and qualitative controls.

I am very fond of the mentoring concept in DE. A guy can learn much from the tutelage and communication with a pioneer thinker. Can you imagine the benefit that the disciples received from just being around Christ? Think about what Timothy and Titus learned from Paul. Their education was superior, IMHO, to a doctorate from Harvard.

 

I agree!