A Sea Of Red

And unlike the Bush crowd’s southern tilt, many of Obama’s team will be from America’s derided ‘elite’ east or west coasts. The same may apply to the hundreds of students or young postgraduates filling the much coveted internships across the administration. Under Mr Bush, many interns were fervent Christians from Regent University and Liberty University in Virginia, in spite of those institutions’ relatively less than top-flight academic reputations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a23bf7b4-e65f ... fd2ac.html

Could someone please tell me why LU is accredited if its academics are sub-par?

I don't know that they're calling LU sub-par as much as they're just saying it isn't Ivy League.

As if those limeys know anything about either school.

ATrain wrote:

And unlike the Bush crowd’s southern tilt, many of Obama’s team will be from America’s derided ‘elite’ east or west coasts. The same may apply to the hundreds of students or young postgraduates filling the much coveted internships across the administration. Under Mr Bush, many interns were fervent Christians from Regent University and Liberty University in Virginia, in spite of those institutions’ relatively less than top-flight academic reputations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a23bf7b4-e65f ... fd2ac.html

Could someone please tell me why LU is accredited if its academics are sub-par?

ever heard of ferrum college or averett university? their academics are completely laughable at best, nothing more than a subpar community college that offers 4-year degrees, yet they are accredited.

When you use a term like "relatively less than", you can pretty much get away with saying anything. It's something you add to get your opinion into something you can't make a fact.

ALUmnus wrote:When you use a term like "relatively less than", you can pretty much get away with saying anything. It's something you add to get your opinion into something you can't make a fact.

Or, maybe it was the author's way of saying that although LU and Regent aren't known for their academic excellence to the degree that Stanford, Harvard and Yale are, that doesn't mean that they don't have excellent academics and/or a reputation for academic excellence in some circles.

Ok...so does this mean I can forget about getting a internship with Obama?

Hold My Own wrote:Ok...so does this mean I can forget about getting a internship with Obama?

i think it's a safe bet to say you most likely aren't socialist enough for him.

mrmacphisto wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:When you use a term like "relatively less than", you can pretty much get away with saying anything. It's something you add to get your opinion into something you can't make a fact.

Or, maybe it was the author's way of saying that although LU and Regent aren't known for their academic excellence to the degree that Stanford, Harvard and Yale are, that doesn't mean that they don't have excellent academics and/or a reputation for academic excellence in some circles.

I think it's a safe bet that we're pretty accurate with the author's intent with that line.

...

Hold My Own wrote:Ok...so does this mean I can forget about getting a internship with Obama?

HMO, I think it's a pretty safe bet that this president doesn't need a tanning salon in the White House.

ATrain wrote:Could someone please tell me why LU is accredited if its academics are sub-par?

It's easy.

Accreditation ≠ Great Academics

A school could be accredited one month and not accredited the next if the accrediting foundation finds reason. My point is that a school could just float the bare minimum to maintain accreditation. In that case, they obviously wouldn't be striving for academic superiority.

That's not saying anything about the article's comments, but just pointing out that accreditation is hardly a measure of academic quality. It's the bare minimum.

Guys, this is the financial times. A british publication. I think the author was just trying to convey that Bush hired people with his Christian ideology despite them not being from "top-flight" schools. Chill out.

LUconn wrote:Guys, this is the financial times. A british publication. I think the author was just trying to convey that Bush hired people with his Christian ideology despite them not being from "top-flight" schools. Chill out.

What he said.

Oh I'm chill. The man asked a question. I answered.

El Scorcho wrote:

ATrain wrote:Could someone please tell me why LU is accredited if its academics are sub-par?

It's easy.

Accreditation ≠ Great Academics

A school could be accredited one month and not accredited the next if the accrediting foundation finds reason. My point is that a school could just float the bare minimum to maintain accreditation. In that case, they obviously wouldn't be striving for academic superiority.

That's not saying anything about the article's comments, but just pointing out that accreditation is hardly a measure of academic quality. It's the bare minimum.

exactly! now if it's a program specific accreditation, that's a little different because, for example, athletic training program accreditation has some high standards to satisfy to get and maintain accreditation. it still obviously does not guarantee a high quality education, but it at least puts standards in place to ensure a quality and relevant education.