Friday, October 20, 2006

Non-Traditional Education (Some Personal Reflections)

I earned my M.Div. (Apologetics) and DTS (Doctor of Theological Studies) degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES). CES is a non-traditional, long distance school, offering course work through mentorship study. The school follows something of a British educational model, for students work with scholars to construct their academic programs. As with traditional education, there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to the non-traditional scheme, and each person must decide for him/herself which avenue is best. The important thing to remember–as some traditional schools are only now beginning to recognize–is that the non-traditional, long distance paradigm is a legitimate alternative to the conventional model. Well, some time ago, a man wrote to me, inquiring about the benefits of CES. What follows are my off-the-cuff remarks.

The benefits are numerous. Besides acquiring a degree from home at a reasonable cost, the following factors were central in my thinking:

(1) Personally Relevant - I had taken classes through secular and Christian schools, and all too often the requirements and courses were overly predictable. Sometimes, the material was not as personally significant as I had hoped. Other times, the course work was, frankly, less than demanding. I cannot speak for others, of course, and I have taken a few courses that were both difficult and relevant. Most often, however, these ideals were not central. With CES, on the other hand, I was allowed to work with my mentor/advisor to craft as program that was important to me. There are, of course, limits on these matters, which is part of the reason mentors are involved in the first place. But generally, I was able to work under the guidance of a scholar to craft courses that I cared about. By the time I had heard of CES, I had a BS from Penn State, had taught in a public school for 14 years, had pastored for a decade or so, and had done course work through both secular and religious institutions. By that time, I was not interested in some prefab, predictable degree. I wanted to plunge into work that mattered to me. CES provided the opportunity to do just that.

(2) Academically Challenging - As mentioned above, I have done work through various schools. Generally speaking, these courses were not all that difficult, and the demands were not that great. I had written numerous papers and easily coasted through the various courses. Under the tutelage of Dr. Walston, however, I quickly found myself challenged. The writing requirements were comparable (and beyond) to traditional school, but it was the practical demands that made this process immensely helpful, though sometimes, frankly, frustrating. The reason for this occasional frustration, of course, is that it can be difficult being academically stretched. I can assure you, however, that it was well worth the effort. Again, I can't speak for everyone's experience, but with Rick Walston I was always challenged to think and write in a consistent, proper, and coherent way. (Aside: I have been writing for years, but I have to say that my skills were honed through CES. Thus, in part due to my experience with CES, I published Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith, and just recently I had another manuscript accepted for publication [Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil]. Both works are published with Wipf & Stock publishers. )

On top of these benefits, and perhaps outweighing all of them, my friendship with my mentor/advisor was immensely helpful. Occasionally, we would disagree, but most often we were on the same page and after the same goals. At least in my case, I actually had a much closer relationship with Rick than I have with any other teacher. This resulted in a constant give-and-take, a camaraderie, a friendship that has only deepened over the years.

There are, of course, some "negative" features to this type of program. You aren't actually sitting in a classroom, which some people enjoy. Also, you are perhaps somewhat limited by the fact that you normally work with a single scholar (or two) instead of with the myriad of instructors offered through a traditional program. That being said, I don't think these are necessarily that significant. In my view, non-traditional education is not better or worse than traditional education; rather, it is simply different. In some ways it excels (at least it did for me), while in other ways it may lack some of the benefits of the typical classroom. All said and done, however, I honestly don't feel that long distance programs are a Plan B alternative to traditional schemes. Rather, I see them as different ways of achieving desired academic goals. I think a lot of traditional schools are just beginning to catch on and see the benefits of long distance education. There may be a tendency, however, to minimize these for obvious financial reasons. I'm not saying that secular schools are only "in it for the money," for there are clearly many fine traditional institutions. I'm merely pointing out the financial constraints/pressures of any school that wishes to continue offering its programs. At any rate, CES was a wonderful experience for me. There are still some, unfortunately, who would frown on the lack of accreditation. But, I think at least some people are beginning to see that the ultimate value of an educational model is not the size of the library or the beauty of the campus, as good as these might be, but the actual education that it provides.

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Please feel free to write back.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I found it very interesting. The one thing I don't like about non-residential courses is the lack of interation between students and faculty. I think that this is part of the learning experience. I'm currently teaching a distance subject at an Australian college while living America to students in Australia, Thailand and Nigeria. It's amazing the flexibility different educational models have, but I think it would be positive for every student to have at least some time each year--even if only a week or two, on campus.

Dr. Carmen C. DiCello said...

Thanks, John, for your comments. I agree that there are some disadvantages, as I think there are with every model. Perhaps, this is something that might be worked out as non-traditional education forges its way into the future. Then again, to be honest, my personal interaction with most (not all) of my traditional teachers was rather superficial. I could ask questions, of course, but I typically did not have deep relationships with most of them. With my advisor at CES, on the other hand, I was able to maintain contact as much as I’d like via email and, occasionally, telephone. While I sometimes couldn’t get immediate feedback (my advisor wasn’t at his computer or was busy with something else), neither could I during traditional classes. I actually did meet with my advisor, and we conversed on numerous subjects, academic and personal. I’m not saying that all people can do this, but I ended up not only interacting with a scholar but finding a friend. Still, at the end of the day, you are correct to say that there are various valid methods, each with strengths and weaknesses. Again, thanks for writing!