Talk:Omega Graduate School

Name of Institution

Why is this institution called "The Oxford Graduate School" when it has no ties to the University of Oxford and is not located in some other palce called Oxford? Just an attempt to gain legitimacy by association?

Accreditation

This place seems unaccredited. Should we add them to Category:Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning since they claim accreditation by an agency that states they denied acreditation but the denial was on appeal? [1] Further information is needed. -Harvestdancer 17:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Their status (as of November 2003 [2]) is candidate institution ("appears to have the potential to achieve accreditation") by TRACS, not accredited yet. The CHEA database listing is incorrect. --Blainster 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools awarded accreditation to Oxford Graduate Scool on November 4, 2008. Therefore, to quote Shakespeare, Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not seems." The school is also an authorized institution with the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, and is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Regional accreditation would nevertheless be ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterelotis (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cordial Links

• This phrase is non-descriptive, and POV/uncited, it should be removed or cited:

Although it has cordial links with various departments and Colleges of the University of Oxford, it has no formal connection with the University.

Removed. Arbusto 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation and admission requirements

Arbustoo continues to make hasty and uninformed edits to the entry because of a lack of research and sufficient inquiry. He states that the "Admission Requiremetns" are unknown, while they are clearly stated on the website [3] and in the school's academic catalog.

The faculty do not hold various Christian theological backgrounds. The majority of the faculty have terminal degrees in secular fields from secular universities.[4]

Wrong. According to the faculty website, only 8 of their 22 members have terminal degrees from a secular University. More than half of their faculty have earned their terminal degrees from OGS itself. It's also rather clear from the courses they teach that these Professors, even if they do not have theological education, do participate in a sort of theological education. Not that this should have any bearing on the wikipedia article, but this place is where the Academy goes to die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.22.190 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning accreditation, candidacy with TRACS is a level of accreditation. TRACS candidates are listed in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation Directory along side accredited schools. Candidacy with TRACS is a probationary period of five years preceeding full accreditation. You may verify this by viewing the CHEA directory and looking up Oxford Graduate School or any other TRACS candidate.

Arbustoo, making such edits to wiki entries is both irresponsible and unprofessional. If you will not take the time to do thorough research, do not make edits. You are not an expert on Oxford Graduate School. Until you have visited the campus, interviewed the faculty, and thoroughly read all relevant materials, you have not earned the right to edit this entry. Please stop doing so.

Ignoring your ad hom attacks against Arbustoo, Admission requirements is not even close to known. On the admissions page you linked to:

Master's-level graduate courses require possession of a BA or its academic equivalent. Academic equivalence is determined by the admissions committee based on past education, expertise, and maturity of the applicant. It may include any combination of the following: over 120 undergraduate hours, the combination of undergraduate credits, continuing education units and/or undergraduate hours plus extensive work in a recognized field, life experience or significant publications documented by a portfolio.

In other words, the committee decides whatever. If you want to propose a rephrase, fine, do it here, stop attacking Arbustoo, and discuss how to rephrase or incorporate further infromation into the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's deal with Admissions Requirements first. How can Arbustoo's edit be valid? You just cited a paragraph from the Admissions page. How then can the statement "Admission Requirements are uknown" be valid? There are obvious requirements and procedures, including the ones you cited. While you may not agrees with the procedures, that is no reason to state that they are unknown. I propose that we simply link to the Admissions Requirements page.::

Next, you did not address the issue concerning the faculty. Arbustoo's edit states that the faculty have "various Christian theological backgrounds". That is patently false. The majority of the faculty have secular degrees from secular universities (including JD's, MD's, PhD's, and EdD's). I cited this in my version with a link to the website. I propose we simply link to the faculty page.

Further, you did not address the issue of TRACS candidacy. A TRACS candidate is listed in the CHEA directory along side other accredited schools. Can you explain this to me, please? Stating that a school is a candidate is sufficient, I believe.

I would also mention that Arbustoo's edit was quite sloppy. There are mispellings "dgree", inaccuracies ("Masters of Literature","Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD)", etc.). These statements are simply not correct.

I understand if you want to make the POV unbiased, but you cannot do so at the expense of accuracy.--Jreichard 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)::

So why did you revert to a disputed version instead of fixing the spelling errors? No no, this won't do. And the paragraph I pasted included the very telling life experience which is basically rendering the other requirements null. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not addressing the other issues. Please address my other concerns. I would also add that while you may disagree with the concenpt of Life Experience, this is not the forum to judge. The school obviously had to meet the requirements of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission and the preliminary requirements to meet TRACS candidacy. They are the authorities to which the school reports.--Jreichard 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They had to fill out this form[5], check off this list[6], write a check for $4,000 and mail it in. Those are the preliminary requirements. The checklist includes "A charter and/or authority from the appropriate governmental agency to operate legally and to award degrees (and, if applicable, certificates and/or diplomas) within the state it is located." which is the most rigorous requirement - except that an exemption may be, and frequently is, granted for religious institutions[7] and this therefore means filling out two forms and spending $4,000. OGS has not been authorized yet[8]. AMERICAN BAPTIST COLLEGE is on the list, MID-AMERICA BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY is on the list, but guess what? OGS didn't make the list. Per criteria[9] it is a diploma mill. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the hostility? The school is absolutely not a diploma mill; that is an irresponsible and outlandish claim to make. It has residency requirements, established faculty, and an established campus and a fair sized library for a small school. It has applied for accreditation. It has existed for decades. I think the state of Tennessee and TRACS are more than competent to determine if this school is a diploma mill. You are citing a CHEA document, but OGS is listed in the CHEA directory of accredited institutions, along with all other TRACS candidate institutions. You are letting your bias shine through. Why will you not address my first concerns: primarily, the issue with TRACS and CHEA and the fact that the faculty do not have theological backgrounds. Please address these issues. Thank you.--Jreichard 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If my posts appear to be hostile, all I can say is, it is hard to read a tone of voice in a post. I am not meaning to be hostile, and if there is anything specific I have said which could be taken that way please let me know. Now, though, I'm a wee tad annoyed: Don't even start accusing me of bias. I am in no mood for personal attacks.

That said, where are they in the CHEA database, because I looked, hence my link to CHEA - can you post a direct link to the info, or give (concise) search directions to locate this info? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I surely did not intend a personal attack. The CHEA search can be performed by visiting [10], agreeing to the Terms of Use, and then entering the search term in the Institution Name textbox. You will find all TRACS candidates listed in the database. Hense my statement that candidacy in "TRACSese" is the five-year probationary period which leads to full accreditation. If an institution demonstrates integrity for the five-year term, they become fully "accredited". I agree that the language is confusing.--Jreichard 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah but we already have in the article they have applied for TRACS, am I missing something here? Let me try to come from a different direction. Are you comfortable with my last edit to that sentence in the article? And apology accepted, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not pressed the issue of accreditation because the language is indeed incredibly confusing. I did not want to get into an argument over unclear terms. However, I think a more fair statement would be "Oxford Graduate School is presently a candidate for accreditation with..." I have conceded quite a few other edits that I think were fair and helped clarify some things. Thank you. We are making good progress, I believe; I appreciate your patience as we work through the details.--Jreichard 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jreichard, 1) your personal attacks on me do not help your case and 2) if you choose to comment on spelling errors perhaps you should avoid making spelling errors in your ad hom. attacks(two examples: "preceeding" and "thoroeugh"). Arbusto 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was personally offensive. Arbustoo, I do not see how my comments are "personal attacks" any more than your judgement of Admission requirements of this school as "dubious". Wikipedia is not a place to make judgements, but to simply present known facts. (KillerChihuahua, would you mind chiming in here? You and I have been working together quite nicely on this project and have come to agreement in many respects). Arbustoo, please refer to the conversation with KillerChihuahua above concerning accreditation. We have a dilemma in that TRACS candidate schools are listed in the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Directory along side accredited institutions. Please see my full explanation of this above. I really do not wish to quarrel, but simply desire to see factual information presented for this entry. I understand your frustrations with TRACS and many questionable religious institutions, but I think it is unfair to make judgements in a Wiki entry. With all due respect, I am going to remove the "dubious" statement and simply link to the Admissions page so people can view the website and make judgements for themselves. Please take into consideration what KillerChihuahua and I have discussed above. We need to make a consensual decision regarding accreditation. I propose we simply state "Oxford Graduate School is a candidate for..." I appreciate this exercise; everything should be kept into healthy check. Let's continue to debate the issues at hand. Thank you. --Jreichard 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1) CHEA lists schools that are seeking accreditation. They do that with good reason to show good faith to those schools who seek accreditation. 2) The OGS's admission's policies are "dubious" because they will take people with a BA or with "life experience" which is not defined objectively. 3) You choose not to have a "consensual decision" when you referred to my CITED changes as vandalism and reverted them. I have compromised. Meanwhile you have once again removed cited material. Arbusto 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1) CHEA absolutely does not list schools that are merely "seeking" accreditation. If you can cite any single reference on the CHEA website to indicate this, I would welcome it, but I assure you, the CHEA directory lists only accredited institutions. You will not find any other institution in the CHEA database who is "seeking" accreditation because of "good faith". This is absolutely false. The TRACS candidates are listed because candidacy with TRACS is a probationary 5-year period of accreditation. 2) Let's let the accrediting bodies and state authorities determine if policies are dubious or not. If you feel strongly about this, please write a letter reporting it. 3) Unfortunately, something can be cited but misinterpreted or misrepresented. Let's work toward a factual representation. --Jreichard 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For TRACS "Recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education. The institutions listed here have been accredited or are candidates for accreditation by this accrediting organization." [11] Please provide a source that demonstrates the contrary that "CHEA absolutely does not list schools that are merely "seeking" accreditation." Arbusto 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a matter of what "candidacy" means (see my discussion with KillerChihuahua). I propose that we simply state that Oxford Graduate School is a candidate for accreditation with TRACS, as the CHEA directory makes no distinction between schools who are accredited and those who are candidates. The directory is clearly entitled "Database of Institutions Accredited By Recognized U.S. Accrediting Organizations". I believe we can come to a fair compromise.--Jreichard 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking? You wrote that "CHEA directory lists only accredited institutions," but according to CHEA "The institutions listed here have been accredited or are candidates for accreditation by this accrediting organization" So clearly there is a difference between having accreditation and being a candidate.[12] OGS is a "candidate" according to TRACS and it is not listed as fully accredited by any group. Thus, it lacks approved accreditation.

I ask again: Please provide a source that demonstrates the contrary that "CHEA absolutely does not list schools that are merely "seeking" accreditation." Arbusto 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

An institution cannot achieve candidacy status without going through a preliminary process of assessment and meeting certain criteria. This is much more than "seeking" accreditation. Perhaps we are simply at a miss with words. What I am saying is that candidacy is more than "seeking" but yes, not yet "accredited". I never suggested that we state OGS is accredited, because it is has not yet achieved accredited status with TRACS; rather, I suggested that we simply state that it is a "candidate for accreditation". As I stated to KillerChihuahua above, this is not a major issue with me as I know the language is very confusing.--Jreichard 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Upon further investigation I switched the tags from "unaccredited" to accredited per the source on the school's page, which seems unreasonable to doubt. I wish you would have mentioned that 2003 date on the school's webpage to avoid this lengthy disagreement on what candidate means. Arbusto 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, may I also mention, I think the statement "there are no departments or study subjects" should be removed. The departments, faculty, and individual courses can be found listed in the Academic Catalog which is available for download in Microsoft Word format. Thank you.--Jreichard 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Arbusto 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arbustoo. I believe we are making good progress. --Jreichard 04:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just undid an anon's change to the accredidation status but I may have been hasty. Please change back if the current version is not correct. --kingboyk 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Content

I added some additional content, most of which consists of direct quotes from the Academic Catalog of the Graduate School. None of the formally agreed upon content has changed. Thanks. --Jreichard 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

This "Graduate School" has no accreditation, and its status as a "Candidate" according to TRACS merely means that its on its WAY to accreditation, but has not yet earned it. The fact that five years has lapsed, and that on their website they claim they're "accredited" tells us all we need to know really. If this was a serious college, it would be accredited by one of the regional boards at best, and a national agency like TRACS (which itself has had a dubious track record) at worst.

Moreover, its "Faculty" page has worst editing than your average Wikipedia article. Its riddled with grammatical errors. and while many of its "Faculty" appear to be real, and at the very least have some passing truth, considering the "Ninja Surgeon" level of some of them (including multiple doctorates on top of medical and legal degrees) one has to wonder about the veracity of it all. SiberioS (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Graduate School received full accreditation by TRACS on November 4, 2008. --Jreichard (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Testimonial

As a student of Oxford Graduate School, allow me to say that it is the real deal. Real scholarship, real campus, real professors, real study, real research, real accreditation. Anyone that wants the facts can easily get them from TRACS, CHEA, the OGS website and even better, by actually traveling to Oxford and seeing for yourself. I am extremely proud of my affiliation with Oxford Graduate School and recommend it as heartily as it was recommended to me. Lastmilemission (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that these Wikipedia talk pages exist for discussion of article development and editing -- not for talking about the subject of the article, nor for promotional statements like this one. --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)