Recommendations for least expensive online MSW?

[Alpha]

You said that "CSWE does not discriminate against Christians." Christians are not being thrown to the lions, but orthodox monotheistic faith groups (Christians, Muslims and Jews) have specific views on marriage and gender. To truly accomodate these views, you would need to welcome practising social workers with diverse views on the matter of gender. Obviously, hatred directed at gay clients would not be acceptable under any accomodation agreement, but you could specify the conditions of coexistence. CSWE does not even attempt to do that. Asking faith-based universities to sign statements that are specifically contrary to their religous and philosophical stance amounts to discrimination. You can defend the CSWE stance, but you should understand how the other side views it. Frankly, I don't see how this has anything to do with science.

There are plenty of religious universities that have CSWE accredited Social Work programs.  Yeshiva University and Boston College are two examples.  When CSWE requires schools to agree to certain policies and practices it is no different than some schools (Liberty, e.g.) requiring students to sign belief statements/agreements prior to enrollment.

[openair]

You said that "CSWE does not discriminate against Christians." Christians are not being thrown to the lions, but orthodox monotheistic faith groups (Christians, Muslims and Jews) have specific views on marriage and gender. To truly accomodate these views, you would need to welcome practising social workers with diverse views on the matter of gender. Obviously, hatred directed at gay clients would not be acceptable under any accomodation agreement, but you could specify the conditions of coexistence. CSWE does not even attempt to do that. Asking faith-based universities to sign statements that are specifically contrary to their religous and philosophical stance amounts to discrimination. You can defend the CSWE stance, but you should understand how the other side views it. Frankly, I don't see how this has anything to do with science.

There are plenty of religious universities that have CSWE accredited Social Work programs.  Yeshiva University and Boston College are two examples.  When CSWE requires schools to agree to certain policies and practices it is no different than some schools (Liberty, e.g.) requiring students to sign belief statements/agreements prior to enrollment.

The parallel only works to a certain extent. CSWE is an accrediting body, which means that they act as the gatekeeper to the profession. A university that has a certain code of conduct does not have the same type of power. You can always go to another university, especially if you don't agree with their take on things. In Canada, there was a case of Trinity Western University, which was barred from opening an accredited law program due to their beliefs about traditional marriage. Notice that these cases are much more serious, as specific groups are excluded from participation in various professions in order to supposedly protect the rights of others. I find this to be concerning development. I would not support that, regardless of what I personally believed about gay rights. The case of Cairn University is a bit more complicated.

[Alpha]

You said that "CSWE does not discriminate against Christians." Christians are not being thrown to the lions, but orthodox monotheistic faith groups (Christians, Muslims and Jews) have specific views on marriage and gender. To truly accomodate these views, you would need to welcome practising social workers with diverse views on the matter of gender. Obviously, hatred directed at gay clients would not be acceptable under any accomodation agreement, but you could specify the conditions of coexistence. CSWE does not even attempt to do that. Asking faith-based universities to sign statements that are specifically contrary to their religous and philosophical stance amounts to discrimination. You can defend the CSWE stance, but you should understand how the other side views it. Frankly, I don't see how this has anything to do with science.

There are plenty of religious universities that have CSWE accredited Social Work programs.  Yeshiva University and Boston College are two examples.  When CSWE requires schools to agree to certain policies and practices it is no different than some schools (Liberty, e.g.) requiring students to sign belief statements/agreements prior to enrollment.

The parallel only works to a certain extent. CSWE is an accrediting body, which means that they act as the gatekeeper to the profession. A university that has a certain code of conduct does not have the same type of power. You can always go to another university, especially if you don't agree with their take on things. In Canada, there was a case of Trinity Western University, which was barred from opening an accredited law program due to their beliefs about traditional marriage. Notice that these cases are much more serious, as specific groups are excluded from participation in various professions in order to supposedly protect the rights of others. I find this to be concerning development. I would not support that, regardless of what I personally believed about gay rights. The case of Cairn University is a bit more complicated.

I think the Trinity Western decision was a good one.

[studyingfortests]

The parallel only works to a certain extent. CSWE is an accrediting body, which means that they act as the gatekeeper to the profession. A university that has a certain code of conduct does not have the same type of power. You can always go to another university, especially if you don't agree with their take on things. In Canada, there was a case of Trinity Western University, which was barred from opening an accredited law program due to their beliefs about traditional marriage. Notice that these cases are much more serious, as specific groups are excluded from participation in various professions in order to supposedly protect the rights of others. I find this to be concerning development. I would not support that, regardless of what I personally believed about gay rights. The case of Cairn University is a bit more complicated.

Well (a) we are waaaaaaay off topic to my thread, which isn't helpful to me.  but (b) if I buy the above argument, where do we draw the line?  Bob Jones University in SC is, by all accounts, a school with an excellent reputation for academic rigor that does a good job of preparing its students academically.  However, it is probably the only such school in the country that has that level of academic rigor and reputation, but is not accredited. 

Why?

Because they refuse to admit LGBT students, and they do not allow interracial dating.  In 2021!

A friend of mine was a student there. He was gay and deeply closeted. He never came out while a student, and after graduating, when he went back for one of his reunions, it somehow became known that he was gay, and he was "invited" never to return to campus.

One of his friends, a woman who appeared black, whose father was white and whose mother was black, was told she could only date black students. When she explained her multiethnic background, she was told she had to choose one or the other and could not date outside of whatever race she picked.

The accreditor that accredits schools in the south refused to accedit Bob Jones U because of their institutionally discriminatory practices.  There are plenty of other deeply religious schools all over the US that somehow manage to not be openly racist and thus maintain their accreditation. 

So why is CSWE's value that social workers any different than the regional accreditor's action against Bob Jones?  Social workers, by virtue of the sort of work they will be doing, are going to be constantly confronted with people whose beliefs, values, culture, experiences, socioeconomic status, and other factors may be different than their own.  Are you honestly arguing that it is OK for a school that trains social workers to teach them that their own personal beliefs and values should override what state and federal laws have to say about the rights and privileges of various classes of people that these individuals will be charged with working with and trying to help?

[openair]

We definitely moved to a new topic. Here are my thoughts on the topics that you’ve raised:

Bob Jones University is currently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (regional) and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (national, faith-based). This means that the claim that it is the “only school in the country that has this level of academic rigor and reputation, but is not accredited” wouldn’t be a reflection of the current state of things. You would be correct, if you were speaking about the long stretch when the school did not have accreditation. That’s true.

Secondly, Christian Fundamentalism and Conservative Christianity (Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox) aren’t the same thing. Bob Jones University represents the former movement, while Cairn represents the latter. This may seem trivial, but it has enormous consequences for how an institution approaches people and ideas in the outside world. Conservative Christian groups and institutions do not accept the doctrine of separation, which is upheld in fundamentalist Christian circles. I would definitely expect the fundamentalist environment to be much more rigid as a result of embracing the idea that you need to separate from all “worldly activities” and associations. This wouldn’t only be rigid for students, who simply admitted to struggling with their sexual attractions. It would even be rigid for those Christians who revealed their taste for secular music, or drinking alcohol! Abuse can happen anywhere, although some environments are more toxic.

To be fair, Bob Jones University has repudiated some of its practices. Their apology has been posted on the university’s website: https://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believ...tement.php. Quote: “For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures.”

You said: “Are you honestly arguing that it is OK for a school that trains social workers to teach them that their own personal beliefs and values should override what state and federal laws have to say about the rights and privileges of various classes of people that these individuals will be charged with working with and trying to help?”

There is nothing about the conservative Christian teaching that necessitates shunning of gays, or discrimination. The teaching addresses sinful action in a specifically Christian sexual relationship context (professing Christian people with this attraction are typically instructed to stay celibate. Conservative Christians generally do not believe in forcing conversion therapy on people who feel these attractions) and this has no bearing on the work of a social worker, who has to work with clients of all faith and non-faith backgrounds. The Christian teaching does not claim that those who engage in this activity are less human and deserve to be treated worse than heterosexual people. If that was the consequence, I would agree with your argument. However, I just don’t see this particular connection. Of course, some (not all) gay advocacy groups claim that the teaching on sin strikes them as homophobic, but they bear the burden of showing how this teaching necessarily leads to hate and how someone who simply holds a certain belief about professing Christian gay celibacy would be a threat to them outside of the church context.

[studyingfortests]

We definitely moved to a new topic. Here are my thoughts on the topics that you’ve raised:

Bob Jones University is currently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (regional) and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (national, faith-based). This means that the claim that it is the “only school in the country that has this level of academic rigor and reputation, but is not accredited” wouldn’t be a reflection of the current state of things. You would be correct, if you were speaking about the long stretch when the school did not have accreditation. That’s true.

Interesting.  I was not aware that BJU had, ahem, let go of its bigotry. I'd guess that's due more to the changing landscape of education, and the realization that it would likely have had difficulty surviving without regional accreditation and the eligibility for various federal benefits that it brings with it than it is with a full-throated acknowledgement that their perspective wasn't the best.  For all I know it could also be due to the passing of old guard who were vehemently opposed. Sometimes progress happens through attrition. In any case, it seems like a win for everyone.

There is nothing about the conservative Christian teaching that necessitates shunning of gays, or discrimination. The teaching addresses sinful action in a specifically Christian sexual relationship context (professing Christian people with this attraction are typically instructed to stay celibate. Conservative Christians generally do not believe in forcing conversion therapy on people who feel these attractions) and this has no bearing on the work of a social worker, who has to work with clients of all faith and non-faith backgrounds. The Christian teaching does not claim that those who engage in this activity are less human and deserve to be treated worse than heterosexual people. If that was the consequence, I would agree with your argument. However, I just don’t see this particular connection.

In principle, I agree with your perspective as well. And I think that's why there are indeed many wonderful Christian-rooted schools that are accepting and embracing of LGBT students as well as other perspectives and beliefs that may not be in keeping what some more conservative Christians may advocate.

Of course, some (not all) gay advocacy groups claim that the teaching on sin strikes them as homophobic,

Well... I frankly think there are an awful lot of patently ridiculous claims that come out of the left-leaning folks, such as the idea that somehow the mere act of critically analyzing varius far-left perspectives or viewpoints is, by itself, an "act of violence."  And sadly, I see people, even licensed professionals, who advance this perspective.  

Basically, I'm not at all in favor of regional accreditors or CSWE or any other accreditor, programmatic or institituional, preventing anyone from holding a belief.  Where it gets complicated and difficult is when holding a belief involves suppressing opportunities or rights of others, and I think we have to be especially careful of that when we are training helping professionals.  From what little I know of CSWE, it seems that they are trying to walk a delicate and difficult line, and, on the whole, seem to be doing a pretty good job of it

Now, with that said, I'd love to hear about any other low-cost MSW programs anyone has to suggest. [/quote]

[openair]

I currently reside in Europe, but I've once inquired about 100% online degrees in India. At the time (this was around 2019), a two-year Master of Social Work at Assam Don Bosco University had a $6,000 USD approximate total price tag. It could be done in totally online format. However, you could potentially face some issues with recognition in the U.S. You'd have to inquire about the possible treatment of foreign 100% online social work degrees. It may not be an option, if you really need the CSWE accreditation in your state. However, you can check the link here;

https://www.dbuniversity.ac.in/dbuglobal/Online-MSW.php

I believe that there was someone on the sister board (degreeinfo), who completed one of the Assam Don Bosco University business programs (with fully online exams) at an even cheaper rate.

For something closer to home with comparable accreditation standards, you can also check out Canadian programs;

https://online.wlu.ca/master-social-work

[sanantone]

You said that "CSWE does not discriminate against Christians." Christians are not being thrown to the lions, but orthodox monotheistic faith groups (Christians, Muslims and Jews) have specific views on marriage and gender. To truly accomodate these views, you would need to welcome practising social workers with diverse views on the matter of gender. Obviously, hatred directed at gay clients would not be acceptable under any accomodation agreement, but you could specify the conditions of coexistence. CSWE does not even attempt to do that. Asking faith-based universities to sign statements that are specifically contrary to their religous and philosophical stance amounts to discrimination. You can defend the CSWE stance, but you should understand how the other side views it. Frankly, I don't see how this has anything to do with science.

It has everything to do with science. Teaching people that their natural inclinations are sinful based on man-made stories has caused millions of LGBTQ people to be depressed and suicidal. They have much higher than average suicide rates because of societal criticism based on fictitious stories and not science. It's one of the worst things you can do as a mental health professional. If you have beliefs that can negatively impact a person's mental health, as a professional, you should keep them to yourself. Imagine a physician not giving a blood transfusion because he thought it was sinful. Licensing boards and professional organizations don't care if a physician is a Jehovah's Witness. He or she is required to give optimal care and, if he or she can't do that, then he or she shouldn't become a doctor.

[openair]

It has everything to do with science. Teaching people that their natural inclinations are sinful based on man-made stories has caused millions of LGBTQ people to be depressed and suicidal. They have much higher than average suicide rates because of societal criticism based on fictitious stories and not science. It's one of the worst things you can do as a mental health professional. If you have beliefs that can negatively impact a person's mental health, as a professional, you should keep them to yourself. Imagine a physician not giving a blood transfusion because he thought it was sinful. Licensing boards and professional organizations don't care if a physician is a Jehovah's Witness. He or she is required to give optimal care and, if he or she can't do that, then he or she shouldn't become a doctor.

Speaking of science,

https://thefederalist.com/2016/12/09/new...ay-people/

[sanantone]

It has everything to do with science. Teaching people that their natural inclinations are sinful based on man-made stories has caused millions of LGBTQ people to be depressed and suicidal. They have much higher than average suicide rates because of societal criticism based on fictitious stories and not science. It's one of the worst things you can do as a mental health professional. If you have beliefs that can negatively impact a person's mental health, as a professional, you should keep them to yourself. Imagine a physician not giving a blood transfusion because he thought it was sinful. Licensing boards and professional organizations don't care if a physician is a Jehovah's Witness. He or she is required to give optimal care and, if he or she can't do that, then he or she shouldn't become a doctor.

Speaking of science,

https://thefederalist.com/2016/12/09/new...ay-people/

The Federalist? You chose an opinion piece by a highly-biased political website? They're counting on readers not being able to access the articles they referenced, but I have school access. I read one of the articles referenced, and the author of the Federalist article left out important information. Forty-eight percent of suicide attempters said their attempts were clearly related or related to their sexual orientation. Many surveys have a scale, and the survey in this study included a scale, so you're deliberately not telling the full story if you only refer to one possible response. 

Attempters were twice as likely to have come out to someone than non-attempters. In other words, youth were more likely to have attempted suicide after informing someone of their sexual orientation. Additionally, males had more suicidal ideations related to their sexual orientation than females did, so even more of their attempts were related to their sexual orientation. Five-one percent of the males who had suicidal ideations said they were somewhat to very much related to being LGB. The fact that almost half of LGB youth stated that their attempts were related to their sexual orientation is enough to explain the difference in suicide rates between LGB youth and heterosexual youth. 

In conclusion, The Federalist is lying by omission. If you want to debate science, share something written by a scientist and not someone with a general humanities degree who likely has little empirical research and stats training.


Anyway, to the OP, probably the quickest way to find what you want is to research all the cheapest schools. 

https://www.geteducated.com/online-colle...cial-work/