What's Better: Unaccredited PhD or Self-Study PhD?

[isaachunter]

So I know the consensus between RA or NA schools vs Non-Accredited schools leans heavily toward accreditation. Schools like Master's International and Andersonville and any number of others, though their programs might be legit in content have nothing real to offer in way of credentials for those who would like to work in academia. Basically, they are useless degrees with little to no portability.

What about self-study? 

This probably answers itself in a way. But would you say there is any value to self-studying a PhD program (i.e. taking the program requirements and duplicating them outside of academia, on your own)? It is the same as doing an unaccredited program in that there is no credential provided. I can't complete the work and then start calling myself a doctor. There is probably less of a chance of landing an academic position at an unaccredited school with a self-study program than with a degree from an unaccredited school. But, with PhD's being pumped out every year and the market flooded, what is the likelihood that I will be able to land a job at even an unaccredited institution with an unaccredited degree? I'm competing against all the other PhD's out there who can't find jobs. 

If I go the entrepreneurial route and hang out my own shingle, start my own school like the ancient philosophers used to do, like Paul often did (preaching out of a rented lecture hall), then self-study would certainly be more cost effective than an unaccredited program. But it would lack credentials. Would the unaccredited program provide any more credentialing or would self-study vs unaccredited be essentially the same as far as legitimacy? 

I see self-study's value is in the acquisition of knew knowledge at the "free" cost. I will learn the same if not more (maybe less) in self-study than I would in an unaccredited, NA, or even RA program. I've done enough of all three to know I personally learn more through self-study than through formalized programs. But I also knew while in high school that I could learn more in a day hold up in the library than I could in an entire year in public high school. But there was no convincing the administration that (believe me, I tried). 

Credential by testing I suppose is one benefit to self-study. I've also seen in IT fields a guy complete the MIT opencourse program for free, blogged about it, and then was offered a job at an IT company. He turned it down because he was already successfully self-employed. This would not occur at a college or university or seminary. Merit is not really rewarded outside of formal programs. A few get to teach part-time because of their success, but this is only open to the few who are exceptionally talented and those who are ridiculously lucky. 

What do you think? If given only two options: self-study a PhD or attend an unaccredited PhD program, which would be better?

[ss20ts]

Have you actually found a competency based PhD program? That's typically what self study is - a competency based program. I would never go for an unaccredited PhD. Totally a waste of time in my world. PhD's are all about research. An unaccredited PhD would hold little value in many careers and numerous jobs.

[isaachunter]

Have you actually found a competency based PhD program? That's typically what self study is - a competency based program. I would never go for an unaccredited PhD. Totally a waste of time in my world. PhD's are all about research. An unaccredited PhD would hold little value in many careers and numerous jobs.

I have found two competency based programs but neither are PhDs. The one at Columbia Evangelical Seminary is a ThD and the one at Redemption Seminary is a D.Ed.Min. (the RS degree is being planned, not available yet).

Unfortunately both schools are unaccredited. CES is about $6000 for the program. RS is $7879 all in.

Master's International University in Divinity is not really competency based or student-designed but is correspondence based in that you submit all assignments via email. There are no semesters, no course limits, no real tuition per credit, just a monthly fee while enrolled (much like NationsU).

If these schools would get at least Nationally accredited it would go a long way in providing legitimate education for everyone rather than just for the wealthy or talented. I would prefer CES' format (student-designed w/ input from mentor) but at the cost of MIUD (<$2000). 

Redemption Seminary is competency based much like CES. It does have courses through LOGOS and you receive the Logos Software and all the program courses as soon as you enroll, then you work through the material at your own pace with feedback from your assigned mentor. 

AT MIUD I think you are completely on your own. You receive the syllabi for all your courses, you have a set study sequence and you work at your own pace. But you do not have an assigned mentor. You submit your assignments to an email (virtually a black box) and once you are finished then you start on your dissertation. I don't think there is much in the way of feedback. 

The main differences I can see between unaccredited and self-study are: 1. unaccredited has at least some efficacy in the ministry realm and in Church organizations (this of course varies) while self-study would have virtually no efficacy in either realm. 2. self-study often provides a better education than unaccredited curriculum (this of course would vary). 3. self-study is often cheaper (even up to free) compared to unaccredited programs. 4. unaccredited programs are providing at least some level of credential (legitimacy varies based on intended application) while self-study provides zero credential in any possible scenario.

My biggest hesitancy with doing an unaccredited program is 1. ROI is not good based on the financial cost involved vs the problematic nature of the credential, nor the effort involved vs the problematic nature of the credential 2. an unaccredited program is a distraction from my real research interests (the case at MIUD but not necessarily at CES or Redemption). 

In the end I'm left either sacrificing legitimacy to get a PhD I can justify financially or sacrifice my financial stability in order to get a PhD that has legitimacy. Both carry huge risk, since there is no way of knowing if the unaccredited PhD will produce an ROI (i.e. land a job, sell more books) and the accredited PhD may not produce an ROI either (lot of out-of-work PhD's these days). 

With that in mind, self-study, despite its problems is the most cost effective, provides the optimal increase in knowledge and has little in the way of a downside. And, with a little hustle, it's possible to still be successful in self-employment with self-study whereas the PhD (accredited or unaccredited) might end up having to go the same route and still be thousands of dollars in debt or, though only slightly better, thousands of dollars poorer.

[rachel83az]

What about Luther Rice's Doctor of Ministry? https://www.lutherrice.edu/degree-progra...nistry.cms

You do need to complete 4 courses on-campus but the rest is online. $354 per credit hour, making the degree cost around $10k.

[cerich67]

So I know the consensus between RA or NA schools vs Non-Accredited schools leans heavily toward accreditation. Schools like Master's International and Andersonville and any number of others, though their programs might be legit in content have nothing real to offer in way of credentials for those who would like to work in academia. Basically, they are useless degrees with little to no portability.

What about self-study? 

This probably answers itself in a way. But would you say there is any value to self-studying a PhD program (i.e. taking the program requirements and duplicating them outside of academia, on your own)? It is the same as doing an unaccredited program in that there is no credential provided. I can't complete the work and then start calling myself a doctor. There is probably less of a chance of landing an academic position at an unaccredited school with a self-study program than with a degree from an unaccredited school. But, with PhD's being pumped out every year and the market flooded, what is the likelihood that I will be able to land a job at even an unaccredited institution with an unaccredited degree? I'm competing against all the other PhD's out there who can't find jobs. 

If I go the entrepreneurial route and hang out my own shingle, start my own school like the ancient philosophers used to do, like Paul often did (preaching out of a rented lecture hall), then self-study would certainly be more cost effective than an unaccredited program. But it would lack credentials. Would the unaccredited program provide any more credentialing or would self-study vs unaccredited be essentially the same as far as legitimacy? 

I see self-study's value is in the acquisition of knew knowledge at the "free" cost. I will learn the same if not more (maybe less) in self-study than I would in an unaccredited, NA, or even RA program. I've done enough of all three to know I personally learn more through self-study than through formalized programs. But I also knew while in high school that I could learn more in a day hold up in the library than I could in an entire year in public high school. But there was no convincing the administration that (believe me, I tried). 

Credential by testing I suppose is one benefit to self-study. I've also seen in IT fields a guy complete the MIT opencourse program for free, blogged about it, and then was offered a job at an IT company. He turned it down because he was already successfully self-employed. This would not occur at a college or university or seminary. Merit is not really rewarded outside of formal programs. A few get to teach part-time because of their success, but this is only open to the few who are exceptionally talented and those who are ridiculously lucky. 

What do you think? If given only two options: self-study a PhD or attend an unaccredited PhD program, which would be better?

The answer is actually found ina  very good movie, Good Will Hunting.
Maybe watch it (again?) with that question in mind.
As far as a PhD from a non RA but NA school, for most employment in industry, the government it won't matter. Most, not all

If it is knowledge you seek for the sake of, why care if you are called doctor anyhow?

If it is the title, you'll feel like a fraud just a little bit every time you use it if you get a completely unaccredited one, plus you run a very real risk of being exposed and your reputation ruined. A NA one you will at least not be a fraud.

Your call, you do you

[isaachunter]

What about Luther Rice's Doctor of Ministry? https://www.lutherrice.edu/degree-progra...nistry.cms

You do need to complete 4 courses on-campus but the rest is online. $354 per credit hour, making the degree cost around $10k.

I looked at this school awhile back and only got as far as the per credit tuition rate and the type of degree offered. A DMin is not equivalent to a PhD. PhD's are typically research based while DMin (and all related ministry degrees) are ministry related. I have little to no interest in taking a job as a pastor or elder or minister. I would like to do research in several different subjects that are closely related and then go on to teach those subjects in the future. 

There are also hidden (or at least fine print) costs associated with this degree, which is typical of lower tuition rate schools. They draw students in with what appears to be a lower (affordable) rate and then you find out later there are "associated" fees that go along with the degree. For instance, every course has a $135 Tech fee. That brings the tuition rate up to around $400. There is also typically a dissertation fee that ranges from $250 to $1000. I've even seen some as high as $3000. LR doesn't list a dissertation fee. Either it has no dissertation and has a project/practicum instead, or there is no fee, or it's just not listed and there is one (a nice surprise for the unsuspecting student once they've finished all their coursework). 

Lastly, this degree program is not fully online. It appears students are required to take 12 credits (4 courses) on campus. LR is in Georgia. That is a round trip ticket of probably $500 or more from my current location (if I could even get a flight in Covid World), then I would need a place to stay for the semester while taking those courses so lets say that's roughly $300 / month + Food $100 / month and if a semester is 3 months long = $1200 on top of the tuition bring the actual total for the degree in at $13,700. This is close if not nearly the same price as Liberty and they have an actual PhD program that is RA and is 100% online. Even the dissertation is virtual. 

I've spent the last three months while finishing my MA looking for schools that I could afford and were actually considered legitimate. I don't think they exist. Most are like Liberty, offering a great tuition rate per credit, but the extra fees combined with the semester and credit load limitations placed on students jack the rates back up to unaffordable levels. If they could assign a single mentor to a student (a mentor could have 50-100 student caseload) and then put the coursework in front of them and let the student work at their own pace, charge a basic (translated affordable) rate during their studies, this would be accessible. 

I think my best route is to really explore why I'm compelled to get a PhD in the first place. It's not like I want it for a realistic job that's waiting to hire me. Once I'm finished I will join the ranks of all the other unemployed PhD holders working at Starbucks or McDs. 

What switch internally was flipped that makes pursuing a PhD even something I should consider? Is it vanity? Is it a need for legitimacy? Acceptance? If it is any (or all) of those things, I really should run the other way because I doubt any of those come with a PhD at even an RA school let alone an unaccredited institution. 

Is it the social consumer construct of the Western psyche? Never enough? Need more? Bigger. Better. Brighter. More, more, more? There's really nothing after a PhD except maybe another PhD. Or the off chance of landing a adjunct teaching job somewhere where I make less money than I make now for twice as much work, herding other students through the maze to get their BAs and MAs, and PhDs so they can throw boxes at an Amazon warehouse. 

Spending $2000 for personal enrichment is not that terrible (though I still have a hard time with it). But $13-14k? 

$0 for self-study still seems the better option of the two.

---

The answer is actually found ina  very good movie, Good Will Hunting.
Maybe watch it (again?) with that question in mind.
As far as a PhD from a non RA but NA school, for most employment in industry, the government it won't matter. Most, not all

If it is knowledge you seek for the sake of, why care if you are called doctor anyhow?

If it is the title, you'll feel like a fraud just a little bit every time you use it if you get a completely unaccredited one, plus you run a very real risk of being exposed and your reputation ruined. A NA one you will at least not be a fraud.

Your call, you do you

I can't imagine a PhD in Biblical Studies even from an RA school would carry much weight in industry or government. Maybe to check a box. That has been the gist of getting my BA. In interviews it gets a box checked and then they want to know about experience and skills. The job I have now is an a completely different field from what I was previously in and got the job only because the temp agency pushed me to apply (because the company couldn't find anyone qualified) and I beat out another applicant because I knew how to use a computer (data processing, reporting, etc). It is the main reason I still have a job despite lots of cuts to our staff and with all the Covid layoffs. It took a year to train me and no one else in the company knows how to do my job. The last two attempts to cross-train someone ended with the people quitting because they couldn't get the hang of using a computer (which surprises me with everyone buried in their smartphones these days).

I agree 100% about the fraud feeling from an unaccredited school. I already have that feeling just considering these schools. It's the main thrust that drove me to this site to get opinions. I've asked potential employers (places I would like to work) and though they do accept unaccredited now, they said if they ever get accredited they will have no choice but to limit to NA or RA schools for candidates. The other institution doesn't care if it's accredited (they just want the PhD) but they don't pay any money. I could do that job on my own and not have to worry about having a boss and can research and teach whatever I'm interested (because I do tend to lean toward the heretical if we're all being honest here). 

I will go watch Good Will Hunting right now. See if I can pick up on the answer. ;-)

[udi]

Have you thought about co-publishing an academic paper?

I had talked to my professor at one point about co-publishing a paper and he said he was interested. When I began researching what I would publish, I found so much questionable and useless research that people were spinning their wheels on. I got discouraged and quit.

Anyway, if you're interested in self study, there's nobody to stop your from independent research, publishing books, etc.

Also, look into the National Coalition of Independent Scholars http://ncis.org/

[isaachunter]

Have you thought about co-publishing an academic paper?

I had talked to my professor at one point about co-publishing a paper and he said he was interested. When I began researching what I would publish, I found so much questionable and useless research that people were spinning their wheels on. I got discouraged and quit.

Anyway, if you're interested in self study, there's nobody to stop your from independent research, publishing books, etc.

Also, look into the National Coalition of Independent Scholars http://ncis.org/

I agree 100% with this comment. But self study and taking on the Independent Scholar credential does nothing but exacerbate the legitimacy issue, even for those who have RA PhDs and taught in the Academy.

But, this is the direction I'm currently exploring, pursing my own ThM and PhD through self-study (designing my own unique curriculum by modeling the best of established programs), and then stepping into the independent researcher avocation. I would like to eventually develop a specific curriculum and launch online courses independent of any established academic institution. Of course many Bible Scholars have gone before me on this road and have crashed and burned. I guess there is inherent risk in everything (at least I'm not shackled to $50-100K worth of debt).

You are right. There is A LOT of junk out there pushed into publication. I think the culprit is this bizarre notion that genuine, legitimate research must be new. That may be true in STEM fields, but I personally think it is the wrong mindset for philosophy and theology. It breeds heresy and all manner of gibberish and nonsense. Then again, I reject the idea of adhering to strict orthodoxy as well. I think there needs to be a balance. Full disclosure I'm a bit of a heretic myself. I've been chided more than once by professors for trampling on their sacred cows - not because my research was invalid, but simply because it was "out of bounds" for the comfort level of that particular professor's personal worldview. Some people are just overly sensitive. 

Books and online courses are certainly possible routes in the future. I do expect to always be floundering in the wasteland of obscurity between academia and the church - never being full accepted by either. No credentials from academia to be considered legitimate and too unorthodox and "philosophical" for the watered-down theology of the church. But there are worse positions to be in.

I will most likely be submitting papers to academic journals in the future. Who knows if I'll have any success. There are PhD students and professors with all the right credentials who still struggle to get published. So we'll see on that front. For my ThM thesis I would like to secure a credentialed professor or scholar as an advisor or mentor or reader, but not sure if anyone would be willing to risk their reputation for something so unconventional. Maybe I can find one who retired and is just itching to read yet another dissertation. More realistically, I will probably have to resort to public posting and request feedback from discussion forums or the general public. 

As for the NCIS, I read Gross' book several years ago (Independent Scholar's Handbook) and found it quite interesting (though I'm not sure research is done that way anymore - written before the internet existed). I've considered associations like this in the past and will most likely do so again as I move further down this path. Not sure if this specific organization would fit my needs. I would look more toward one with an overt religious focus like SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). It's cheap (at least for me based on income) and I can attend their annual Conference, present papers, etc. BUT, would I really be interested in that in the first place? If I want to keep up with the "cutting edge" or research (in my opinion the cutting edge in Biblical Studies is probably something to steer clear of - they're getting kind of wacky in Seminaries these days) I could just listen to the multiple podcasts or read several blog posts of those who attended and who interviewed presenters. There are also less "academically affiliated" conferences that are more closely aligned with my research interests.  

It's all a work in progress, but I have to say I'm not a little disappointed that exorbitant tuition costs and program inflexibility has cast me  out into the hinterlands of illegitimacy. I'll certainly get over it. There's a really good chance academia is really not all it's cracked up to be anyway. I can at least keep reminding myself I saved $15k!

[Merlin]

Have you thought about co-publishing an academic paper?

I had talked to my professor at one point about co-publishing a paper and he said he was interested. When I began researching what I would publish, I found so much questionable and useless research that people were spinning their wheels on. I got discouraged and quit.

Anyway, if you're interested in self study, there's nobody to stop your from independent research, publishing books, etc.

Also, look into the National Coalition of Independent Scholars http://ncis.org/

Speaking of, keep in mind that there are legitimate accredited schools out there that will grant Ph.D.'s on the basis of published work. So you don't have to look at getting an unaccredited Ph.D. You just need to do the work and then talk to schools about what it takes to earn a Ph.D. based on your body of work. You'll need a decent amount of it... so several academic papers, and maybe a book or two, but it can be done. There may be some additional work that you have to do with the school, some specific courses to take, etc. but much less than you'd normally do. That said, I would imagine that would take longer than completing a traditional Ph.D., so it is probably not the best way to proceed unless you were already doing research and planned to be an independent scholar.

[isaachunter]

Speaking of, keep in mind that there are legitimate accredited schools out there that will grant Ph.D.'s on the basis of published work. So you don't have to look at getting an unaccredited Ph.D. You just need to do the work and then talk to schools about what it takes to earn a Ph.D. based on your body of work. You'll need a decent amount of it... so several academic papers, and maybe a book or two, but it can be done. There may be some additional work that you have to do with the school, some specific courses to take, etc. but much less than you'd normally do. That said, I would imagine that would take longer than completing a traditional Ph.D., so it is probably not the best way to proceed unless you were already doing research and planned to be an independent scholar.

Do you know of any Seminaries that would do this or have a program that will grant a PhD based on prior work? I have not personally run across any in my search for a school, but I would certainly be interested. It would need to be nationally or regionally accredited, of course. And not cost prohibited (which is the real problem with Liberty - the cheapest so far among RA seminary/schools). 

I woke up this morning thinking, "Well, I'm just 8 courses away from a RA MA in History, why not just get that and teach History online? Problem is the statistics are clear. They produce twice as many History PhDs each year than there are positions for them. I would be in competition with all of these people plus I have no teaching experience. I spoke with one history teacher at a nationally accredited school and he said he was able to land his adjunct teaching job only after having several years of volunteer teaching at his seminary. And that was at a NA school, not an RA. 

There are SO MANY reasons to not go on in formal academia and very few that say to spend the money and get the degree. Yet, as it typically the case, those voices in my head might be a minority but they are really loud and really annoying!