So in other words, if Liberty were less efficient in their systems and relied more heavily on outside vendors to raise their overhead it would make for better education? Not sure I am following the logic. We are comparing apples to oranges in online programs with the infrastructure already in place to handle students efficiently. The learning curve for major universities shifting to online is massive and costly. I witnessed this with my son at Texas A&M this past year. It was ugly and the profs did not adapt quickly. Building capacity is no easy task and it took us a decade to get our system down.

The relatively open admission requirements to the program do not pass the classes for students. It is a fair point of discussion. Is the online experience as good as being a residential student? Of course not. But the same could be said for every online program.

I don't see the same level of disdain for Arizona State and Purdue which both have lower entry standards for online than residential and have massive online enrollments. The best I can ascertain we are a victim of just marketing better than our competitors.

(04-07-2021 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 02:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 01:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  They’re not discriminating against Liberty based on their religion. Look at Notre Dame, Baylor and most of the Big East. The issue is that Liberty has an open (not even veiled) discriminatory policy against LGBTQ+ students. This is something that places like ND and Baylor *don’t* have even though they still adhere to their religious teachings. That’s not about politics or religion, but rather straight up discrimination. That has no place on society and people can’t hide behind a “religious freedom” argument to justify it. LIBERTY is the school that has chosen to take this type of stance, NOT the other universities. It’s completely on them that other conferences don’t want to associate with them, just as people with discriminatory viewpoints shouldn’t expect companies and institutions to hire them in positions of authority (or any positions at all). The world has irreversibly moved into this issue and if they want to think like a dinosaur, then they’ll be treated like a dinosaur.

Eh, I think history has shown that even within Christianity, different sects can have different beliefs about some things. For example, IIRC, Presbyterians believe that elective abortion is morally acceptable, whereas the Catholic church does not. In this case, Baylor and Notre Dame seem have what we might call more liberal views on gay rights than does Liberty, but IMO Liberty's view is rooted in their interpretation of the Bible, so it does have something to do with religion.

Also, given the political battles over the past decades over gay marriage, transgender athletes and many other issues involving LBGTQ rights, I don't agree that these issues are non-political. IMO they clearly are political, in the sense that they have been and are the subject of political debates, etc.

That said, I agree with your earlier posts about why many conferences and universities might not want to affiliate with Liberty. Administrators in academia tend to have very liberal views on gay rights, so are unlikely to want to affiliate with Liberty. And that's their decision to make.

I think you're still missing the point here. It's less to do about liberalism/conservatism as it does academia itself. When you're pumping out 75-100K online diplomas and have a Biology professor that has published books refuting evolution in favor of creationism then you're not going to be taken seriously by your peers. In fact they won't even look at you as a peer. Call it elitism if you want but it's goes well beyond political stances.

Um, no, I don't think I'm missing the point. Last time I checked, Liberty was accredited by SACS, which is the same agency that accredits Duke, North Carolina and the University of Virginia.

Now Liberty isn't in their class, it's US News ranking is in the 289 - 389 national university range, but that's the same range as schools like Louisiana-Lafayette, Western Kentucky, Georgia Southern and South Alabama, all schools that are in G5 conferences.

So ... Any animus towards Liberty among conference and universities probably does boil down to the liberal politics of the leaders of these other conferences and institutions rather than academic qualifications.

So you think these are the measures that people that have spent their entire careers as academics use? US News rankings? That's a joke. 8/10 Liberty students only needed a high school equivalent and their check to clear to be accepted as their online program has little to no standards. It's a nonprofit Devry. Now each University plays a role and serves a niche and they're not all Ivy League schools but they all look down on Liberty, especially the online program which cheapens the degree and the entire University. In 10-20 years that may change as they've made a butt load of money and have poured it into their Lynchburg campus. But as long as creationism isn't restricted to their Divinity school they're not going to be taken seriously among other academics, is that a liberal stance? I would say not.

I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously. FWIW, I just looked at the Forbes rankings, and they have Liberty in the 500s, in the same range as ULL, Western Kentucky, South Alabama and Texas State.

But set US News aside - Liberty is accredited by SACS, the same agency that accredits other schools in the south. Very similar to your typical CUSA or Sun Belt school.

From what I can see, Liberty's academic profile is a clear fit for the G5.

(04-07-2021 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously.

They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

(04-07-2021 07:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously.

They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

I would guess that the use of such anecdotes would only be persuasive to those who are already at least somewhat opposed to Liberty on liberal ideological grounds.
Decision makers not so inclined against Liberty would likely reject anecdotes in favor of the objective results of the accreditation processes, which are the formal and independent processes used to determine the academic adequacy of a university, and Liberty has met those criteria.

Unfortunately for Liberty, as other have mentioned, university presidents do tend to have a liberal ideological bent, and so might tend to be ideologically opposed to Liberty regardless of the results of objective accreditation processes.

(04-07-2021 08:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 07:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously.

They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

I would guess that the use of such anecdotes would only be persuasive to those who are already at least somewhat opposed to Liberty on liberal ideological grounds.
Decision makers not so inclined against Liberty would likely reject anecdotes in favor of the objective results of the accreditation processes, which are the formal and independent processes used to determine the academic adequacy of a university, and Liberty has met those criteria.

Unfortunately for Liberty, as other have mentioned, university presidents do tend to have a liberal ideological bent, and so tend to be ideologically opposed to Liberty regardless of the results of objective accreditation processes.

The “anecdotes” are promoted on their schools website here’s your Liberty Biology and Geology departments:

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/05/02/...-new-book/

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/02/20/...this-week/

The University of Phoenix is accredited by the same agency as the University of Arizona. They’re ranked in US News nationally from 298-389. Do you really think that influences University Presidents or employers or really anyone into thinking that the University of Phoenix is a beacon of higher learning or on par with others with those same credentials? That just shows how useless those metrics are.

Liberty has been smart though. They took that money and invested heavily in their Lynchburg campus, including athletics. They subsidize their tuition to compete financially with public schools in VA. A lot of that was JF Jr’s doing but they needed to dump him. With time they can enter into mainstream higher learning but they’ve got a ways to go regarding reputation. That’s not bias, that’s fact.

Liberty is not getting invited to the American. The Presidents and Chancellors will say no. There is no way the leaders or faculty of South Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, Temple or Tulane would ever vote yes. It only takes three "no" votes to nix them.

I see no reason to add them either. No money in it.

Creationism is only taught through the School of Divinity as of a decade ago or so under the watchful eye of SACS. The textbooks in science classes are generally the same as every other university. This is the same old garbage that was debunked after being brought up when we were having our conversations with CUSA and the Belt a few years ago. Don't let facts get in the way of a good stereotype.

I don't personally know the chancellors or presidents of any of the AAC schools but I have had conversations with a number of P5 leaders through my job. When I bring up my alma mater the general response is they are not touchable right now but that the sentiment is changing in regard to the school. Removing the Jerry Jr. lightning rod is a BIG step in the right direction. One AAC AD told me confidentially that LU is definitely on the conference's radar and he was intrigued by what is happening athletically at the school. Then again, ADs don't make these decisions.

(04-07-2021 02:08 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  It is odd watching others have a discussion about my alma mater without the Liberty perspective involved. Quo Vadis did a nice job of summarizing the Liberty take. Students who attend the school voluntarily agree to the rules of engagement. It is not like the school hides the honor code in some vault.

Yes, Jerry Jr. was a mess. Yes, he was kryptonite to other university presidents. Yes, the school still is cleaning up the mess he left behind. But he is gone and many of the bones of contention that were used for years to deny the school access to conferences have been removed. The LBGT+ community is not any less loved by Jesus than the fundies who founded the school. But we do take the concept of no sex outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and woman seriously. That means students of the opposite sex being involved in relations are held to the same standards as those of the same sex. I will acknowledge that leniency has grown over the years from when I was a student back in the '80s. But there is intentionality today to have a focus of compassion for the LGBT+ community in place of the condemnation of years gone by. As SMUstang referenced, we take Scripture seriously and believe the Bible spells out what God knows is best for all of us. It is from that perspective that we approach sexual standards at the school. Do those in our community fall short of God's standard in showing love and compassion from time to time? Absolutely.

And to my ODU poster friend in regard to the "diploma mill" concept as it relates to online education, don't hate the playa hate the game. I don't see conferences distancing themselves from Arizona State & Purdue right now. Everyone is doing their best to improve their online offerings. We got intot he game a decade before everyone else learned how to market it well. We still have just under 20k residential students in addition to the 80k online. I shouldn't have to point out that every school was essentailly online this past 12 months. The future is unfolding and I am proud of how my alma mater is positioned to manage it with the combination of online and an incredible rebuilt campus.

As for the AAC, did anyone see the latest Hoops & Helmets Rankings from College Football News? Remind me again why Liberty shouldn't be a serious candidate for the AAC. And wait until you start looking at the rankings in Olympic sports.

Why isn't Liberty a serious candidate?

Read your third sentence.

We (AAC) choose as our right, not to associate with people who use "religion" to exclude and promote the persecution of others. Liberty has the right to do what they want within the law. We have the right to say it's wrong aand rightfully shun them.

Freedom to do something doesn't mean others have to agree with you. You can have fun playing in your own sandbox all alone.

(04-08-2021 08:19 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 02:08 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  It is odd watching others have a discussion about my alma mater without the Liberty perspective involved. Quo Vadis did a nice job of summarizing the Liberty take. Students who attend the school voluntarily agree to the rules of engagement. It is not like the school hides the honor code in some vault.

Yes, Jerry Jr. was a mess. Yes, he was kryptonite to other university presidents. Yes, the school still is cleaning up the mess he left behind. But he is gone and many of the bones of contention that were used for years to deny the school access to conferences have been removed. The LBGT+ community is not any less loved by Jesus than the fundies who founded the school. But we do take the concept of no sex outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and woman seriously. That means students of the opposite sex being involved in relations are held to the same standards as those of the same sex. I will acknowledge that leniency has grown over the years from when I was a student back in the '80s. But there is intentionality today to have a focus of compassion for the LGBT+ community in place of the condemnation of years gone by. As SMUstang referenced, we take Scripture seriously and believe the Bible spells out what God knows is best for all of us. It is from that perspective that we approach sexual standards at the school. Do those in our community fall short of God's standard in showing love and compassion from time to time? Absolutely.

And to my ODU poster friend in regard to the "diploma mill" concept as it relates to online education, don't hate the playa hate the game. I don't see conferences distancing themselves from Arizona State & Purdue right now. Everyone is doing their best to improve their online offerings. We got intot he game a decade before everyone else learned how to market it well. We still have just under 20k residential students in addition to the 80k online. I shouldn't have to point out that every school was essentailly online this past 12 months. The future is unfolding and I am proud of how my alma mater is positioned to manage it with the combination of online and an incredible rebuilt campus.

As for the AAC, did anyone see the latest Hoops & Helmets Rankings from College Football News? Remind me again why Liberty shouldn't be a serious candidate for the AAC. And wait until you start looking at the rankings in Olympic sports.

Why isn't Liberty a serious candidate?

Read your third sentence.

We (AAC) choose as our right, not to associate with people who use "religion" to exclude and promote the persecution of others. Liberty has the right to do what they want within the law. We have the right to say it's wrong aand rightfully shun them.

Freedom to do something doesn't mean others have to agree with you. You can have fun playing in your own sandbox all alone.

THIS!!!

I 100% agree with your sentiment, Foreverandever. That is what true liberty is all about. From the Liberty camp, we are all in on the freedom of choice.

Where I disagree with you is in regard to the suggestion in your third sentence that Liberty uses "'religion' to exclude and promote the persecution of others." That is not a fair representation of Liberty's position even though it is a common misconception. I will grant you some argument on exclusion as it relates to faculty but promotion of the persecution of others is hyperbole and flat out inaccurate. But I respect your take even if I disagree.

(04-08-2021 08:12 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  Creationism is only taught through the School of Divinity as of a decade ago or so under the watchful eye of SACS. The textbooks in science classes are generally the same as every other university. This is the same old garbage that was debunked after being brought up when we were having our conversations with CUSA and the Belt a few years ago. Don't let facts get in the way of a good stereotype.

I don't personally know the chancellors or presidents of any of the AAC schools but I have had conversations with a number of P5 leaders through my job. When I bring up my alma mater the general response is they are not touchable right now but that the sentiment is changing in regard to the school. Removing the Jerry Jr. lightning rod is a BIG step in the right direction. One AAC AD told me confidentially that LU is definitely on the conference's radar and he was intrigued by what is happening athletically at the school. Then again, ADs don't make these decisions.

So it's not in the curriculum for accreditation reasons but professors within the science department are outspoken about their anti-evolution positions, is that a fair statement?

(04-07-2021 09:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 07:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously.

They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

I would guess that the use of such anecdotes would only be persuasive to those who are already at least somewhat opposed to Liberty on liberal ideological grounds.
Decision makers not so inclined against Liberty would likely reject anecdotes in favor of the objective results of the accreditation processes, which are the formal and independent processes used to determine the academic adequacy of a university, and Liberty has met those criteria.

Unfortunately for Liberty, as other have mentioned, university presidents do tend to have a liberal ideological bent, and so tend to be ideologically opposed to Liberty regardless of the results of objective accreditation processes.

The “anecdotes” are promoted on their schools website here’s your Liberty Biology and Geology departments:

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/05/02/...-new-book/

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/02/20/...this-week/

The University of Phoenix is accredited by the same agency as the University of Arizona. They’re ranked in US News nationally from 298-389. Do you really think that influences University Presidents or employers or really anyone into thinking that the University of Phoenix is a beacon of higher learning or on par with others with those same credentials? That just shows how useless those metrics are.

Liberty has been smart though. They took that money and invested heavily in their Lynchburg campus, including athletics. They subsidize their tuition to compete financially with public schools in VA. A lot of that was JF Jr’s doing but they needed to dump him. With time they can enter into mainstream higher learning but they’ve got a ways to go regarding reputation. That’s not bias, that’s fact.

Not sure how it matters what anecdotes Liberty advertises on its website. The accreditation process is the objective determinant of the adequacy of a university. After that, rankings like US News come in to play, but as I said, look at the Forbes rankings, and you will see Liberty ranked in the same tier with many G5 schools as well. You will likely be hard-pressed to find any objective ranking system that doesn't have Liberty in that same general tier. Washington Monthly has them ranked right alongside schools like Toledo, Tulsa and Akron. They seem to clearly be a G5-level academic institution.

The University of Phoenix is not IMO a valid comparison, because they are a essentially an online university, and they don't have any athletics. Liberty has over 15,000 students on an actual campus, and it has athletics.

(04-08-2021 08:40 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  I 100% agree with your sentiment, Foreverandever. That is what true liberty is all about. From the Liberty camp, we are all in on the freedom of choice.

Where I disagree with you is in regard to the suggestion in your third sentence that Liberty uses "'religion' to exclude and promote the persecution of others." That is not a fair representation of Liberty's position even though it is a common misconception. I will grant you some argument on exclusion as it relates to faculty but promotion of the persecution of others is hyperbole and flat out inaccurate. But I respect your take even if I disagree.

But it's a common misconception because it was widely espoused by Liberty's founder.

(04-07-2021 01:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Y’all need to stop it with the narrative that Liberty and BYU are some how discriminatory because they are religious schools who stand by the tenets of their faith.

Private schools can set whatever rules and requirements they want. No one is forcing anyone to attend those schools and those who do choose to go there do so knowing what the rules and requirements are and in enrolling are consenting to follow those rules.

BYU could require students to where blue tube socks at all times if they wanted to—it’s not discrimination if it’s clearly stipulated in the code of conduct.

I know it’s disconcerting for some of you that their are people out there who want a religious education and want to attend a university that upholds their religious values. Forcing religious schools to violate the principle tenets of their faith is the act of religious discrimination here, not dismissing or refusing to admit a student who refuses to abide by the rules set forth by the institution.

Foreverandever pretty much just gave the perfect answer to this, but I'll reiterate. You're correct - "schools can set whatever rules and requirements they want. No one is forcing anyone to attend those schools and those who do choose to go there do so knowing what the rules and requirements are and in enrolling are consenting to follow those rules."

But, by the same token, conferences can set whatever rules and requirements THEY want. No one is forcing them to accept schools into their conference whose policies they find disagreeable. So Liberty and BYU remain free to do what they will, but conferences will not be compelled to accept them into their conference.

USFFan

(04-07-2021 11:42 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The AAC is down to 11 in FB and its very possible in 5 years time a couple more schools are leaving. Therefore you wouldn't want to kick anyone out.

I would think inviting Dayton and St. Louis could help to strengthen AAC basketball and build the conference together more.

Nobody knows for sure, but this reads like you think there's another round of conference expansion that's going to result in 1 or more AAC schools getting a golden ticket. I don't believe that's the case at all. The networks have made it pretty clear that they're not going to fund that any longer.

If (and it's a big if) there is expansion movement of actual substance (something happens with Oklahoma and Texas or USC and UCLA) that results in a legitimate shake-up, then it's possible that any schools left in a weakened position might try to stay afloat (vis-a-vis the AAC upon the collapse of the BEFC) by poaching a few AAC members, but it will likely be relegated to the same purgatory status of the AAC (in fact replacing the AAC as the "strongest of the non-autonomous conferences." We'll see whether that plays out.

I think the greater likelihood is that some AAC schools decide to try to do what UConn has done - take their football team independent and join a more regionalized conference for all other sports. I won't be shocked if there's a push for a change in the language in the next CFP contract that instead of giving the NY6 bid to the highest ranked champion of a G5 conference to instead the highest ranked team not in an A5 conference. If/when that happens, the biggest advantage to being in a football conference will be gone.

USFFan

So we all agree then, we will drop Liberty from the AAC......

(04-08-2021 10:45 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 01:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Y’all need to stop it with the narrative that Liberty and BYU are some how discriminatory because they are religious schools who stand by the tenets of their faith.

Private schools can set whatever rules and requirements they want. No one is forcing anyone to attend those schools and those who do choose to go there do so knowing what the rules and requirements are and in enrolling are consenting to follow those rules.

BYU could require students to where blue tube socks at all times if they wanted to—it’s not discrimination if it’s clearly stipulated in the code of conduct.

I know it’s disconcerting for some of you that their are people out there who want a religious education and want to attend a university that upholds their religious values. Forcing religious schools to violate the principle tenets of their faith is the act of religious discrimination here, not dismissing or refusing to admit a student who refuses to abide by the rules set forth by the institution.

Foreverandever pretty much just gave the perfect answer to this, but I'll reiterate. You're correct - "schools can set whatever rules and requirements they want. No one is forcing anyone to attend those schools and those who do choose to go there do so knowing what the rules and requirements are and in enrolling are consenting to follow those rules."

But, by the same token, conferences can set whatever rules and requirements THEY want. No one is forcing them to accept schools into their conference whose policies they find disagreeable. So Liberty and BYU remain free to do what they will, but conferences will not be compelled to accept them into their conference.

That's likely true, but we could imagine some scenarios where it might not be, particularly in the case of public institutions. Because public institutions often are run by leaders who are much more liberal than their state publics. E.g., Michigan in 2006, where the people of Michigan voted to eliminate certain kinds affirmative action programs, though the University of Michigan was adamantly in favor of such programs.

I think it's possible that in a conference with a lot of public schools in Trump-supporting states, there might be political pressure on those universities to affiliate with Liberty, even if the campus leaders are liberals who strongly oppose them. Not likely, but possible.

(04-08-2021 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 07:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 06:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've spent my entire career in academia and, whatever any particular person may think about US News, the rankings do have an impact. They are taken pretty seriously because the public takes them seriously.

They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

I would guess that the use of such anecdotes would only be persuasive to those who are already at least somewhat opposed to Liberty on liberal ideological grounds.
Decision makers not so inclined against Liberty would likely reject anecdotes in favor of the objective results of the accreditation processes, which are the formal and independent processes used to determine the academic adequacy of a university, and Liberty has met those criteria.

Unfortunately for Liberty, as other have mentioned, university presidents do tend to have a liberal ideological bent, and so tend to be ideologically opposed to Liberty regardless of the results of objective accreditation processes.

The “anecdotes” are promoted on their schools website here’s your Liberty Biology and Geology departments:

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/05/02/...-new-book/

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/02/20/...this-week/

The University of Phoenix is accredited by the same agency as the University of Arizona. They’re ranked in US News nationally from 298-389. Do you really think that influences University Presidents or employers or really anyone into thinking that the University of Phoenix is a beacon of higher learning or on par with others with those same credentials? That just shows how useless those metrics are.

Liberty has been smart though. They took that money and invested heavily in their Lynchburg campus, including athletics. They subsidize their tuition to compete financially with public schools in VA. A lot of that was JF Jr’s doing but they needed to dump him. With time they can enter into mainstream higher learning but they’ve got a ways to go regarding reputation. That’s not bias, that’s fact.

Not sure how it matters what anecdotes Liberty advertises on its website. The accreditation process is the objective determinant of the adequacy of a university. After that, rankings like US News come in to play, but as I said, look at the Forbes rankings, and you will see Liberty ranked in the same tier with many G5 schools as well. You will likely be hard-pressed to find any objective ranking system that doesn't have Liberty in that same general tier. Washington Monthly has them ranked right alongside schools like Toledo, Tulsa and Akron. They seem to clearly be a G5-level academic institution.

The University of Phoenix is not IMO a valid comparison, because they are a essentially an online university, and they don't have any athletics. Liberty has over 15,000 students on an actual campus, and it has athletics.

What part of academia exactly are you a part of where you don't know how to properly use the word "anecdote". I showed that the denial of evolutionary biology is NOT anecdotal but a cornerstone of their learning. If you're still doubtfull, 2 courses of Creation Studies is required of every student and "Creation Hall" is located on the 2nd floor of the Center for Natural Sciences. They do what they need to for accreditation purposes with their curriculum but it's front and center. Under no circumstances could this topic be called "anecdotal".

I also showed that accreditation and US News rankings are basically worthless for comparison sakes unless you hold a degree earned from the University of Phoenix in the same regard as one from Tulsa, Toledo or Akron. You seem pretty fixated on these things, likely because your pre assumed position is that Liberty is a pariah due to politics not academics. Which isn't completely wrong but not completely right either. They have several self-inflicted wounds that keep them from being considered a peer institution to many schools. The Falwell's are a large part of it.

(04-08-2021 02:45 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Liberty is not getting invited to the American. The Presidents and Chancellors will say no. There is no way the leaders or faculty of South Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, Temple or Tulane would ever vote yes. It only takes three "no" votes to nix them.

I see no reason to add them either. No money in it.

Officials in Tampa's local government might try to persuade USF to change its stance. COVID-19 must have devastated local tourism. A sure-fire solution: unleashing Hugh Freeze, his wallet, and his cell phone (private and exempt from FOIA this time) on Ybor City. It would give the local economy, from dancers to escorts to hospital bed suppliers, such a timely and substantial boost that it might cause the Bulls' leaders to look past their disdain for Liberty's putatively puritanical views.

(04-08-2021 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 09:31 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 08:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 07:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  They are taken seriously as far as marketing the University to high school students. And a single anecdote about a purported science professor teaching fantasy in lieu of science might only go so far, but if a few more anecdotes along the same lines could be collected by those advocating against Liberty's admission into a conference, it would go a long way to securing enough "No" votes.

I would guess that the use of such anecdotes would only be persuasive to those who are already at least somewhat opposed to Liberty on liberal ideological grounds.
Decision makers not so inclined against Liberty would likely reject anecdotes in favor of the objective results of the accreditation processes, which are the formal and independent processes used to determine the academic adequacy of a university, and Liberty has met those criteria.

Unfortunately for Liberty, as other have mentioned, university presidents do tend to have a liberal ideological bent, and so tend to be ideologically opposed to Liberty regardless of the results of objective accreditation processes.

The “anecdotes” are promoted on their schools website here’s your Liberty Biology and Geology departments:

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/05/02/...-new-book/

https://www.liberty.edu/news/2017/02/20/...this-week/

The University of Phoenix is accredited by the same agency as the University of Arizona. They’re ranked in US News nationally from 298-389. Do you really think that influences University Presidents or employers or really anyone into thinking that the University of Phoenix is a beacon of higher learning or on par with others with those same credentials? That just shows how useless those metrics are.

Liberty has been smart though. They took that money and invested heavily in their Lynchburg campus, including athletics. They subsidize their tuition to compete financially with public schools in VA. A lot of that was JF Jr’s doing but they needed to dump him. With time they can enter into mainstream higher learning but they’ve got a ways to go regarding reputation. That’s not bias, that’s fact.

Not sure how it matters what anecdotes Liberty advertises on its website. The accreditation process is the objective determinant of the adequacy of a university. After that, rankings like US News come in to play, but as I said, look at the Forbes rankings, and you will see Liberty ranked in the same tier with many G5 schools as well. You will likely be hard-pressed to find any objective ranking system that doesn't have Liberty in that same general tier. Washington Monthly has them ranked right alongside schools like Toledo, Tulsa and Akron. They seem to clearly be a G5-level academic institution.

The University of Phoenix is not IMO a valid comparison, because they are a essentially an online university, and they don't have any athletics. Liberty has over 15,000 students on an actual campus, and it has athletics.

What part of academia exactly are you a part of where you don't know how to properly use the word "anecdote". I showed that the denial of evolutionary biology is NOT anecdotal but a cornerstone of their learning. If you're still doubtfull, 2 courses of Creation Studies is required of every student and "Creation Hall" is located on the 2nd floor of the Center for Natural Sciences. They do what they need to for accreditation purposes with their curriculum but it's front and center. Under no circumstances could this topic be called "anecdotal".

I also showed that accreditation and US News rankings are basically worthless for comparison sakes unless you hold a degree earned from the University of Phoenix in the same regard as one from Tulsa, Toledo or Akron. You seem pretty fixated on these things, likely because your pre assumed position is that Liberty is a pariah due to politics not academics. Which isn't completely wrong but not completely right either. They have several self-inflicted wounds that keep them from being considered a peer institution to many schools. The Falwell's are a large part of it.

As others have pointed out, we have good reason to believe that Liberty is viewed poorly by university administrators because of the liberal ideology that is pervasive among university presidents. On the other hand, your view that it is partially based on academics is IMO hard to fathom. The accreditation and rankings show Liberty has the same general academic standing as many other G5. You have tried to counter this by mentioning the "anecdotes" ( I used quotes like you originally did, is that better?) about creationism on their website. I have explained why that *should* be nothing to a fair-minded, that is, not liberally-biased, university administrator.

IOW's, to me it seems clear that the only kinds of administrators at other schools that we would expect would be swayed by Liberty's creationism as expressed on their website are those who are liberally-biased against Liberty. Because accreditation is the objective indicator of a university's academic standings. Not expressions on their website. And rankings mean something too. And Phoenix is not relevant because they are almost totally online and have no athletics.