FAQ

In addition to questions like "what are the key differences between the old (pre-2020) Standards and the new (2020) Standards" and "how are the new Standards being implemented," here are some of the questions that Commission staff have received or anticipate receiving regarding the new Standards and Policies and Procedures. We'll continue to add to this list as we receive questions. If you have a question that isn't answered here, you can contact your liaison (if you're talking about a concrete situation or would like a personal response) or post a question on the questions/comments page (if you don't need a response).

You may also find it helpful to review the yellow highlighted text in the annotated version of the Standards and of the Policies and Procedures if you have questions about specific standards or policies.

[Note: you can use your browser's search function to find content on this page, typically Command-F or Control-F.]

Q: Our school formerly had approval to do ____ (e.g., an exception, an experiment, or something that doesn't seem to fit in the new Standards). What happens to that?

A: Most "pre-existing" exceptions and experiments are now "normal" under the new Standards. During the summer of 2020, the Board of Commissioners waived most follow-up reports related to topics like residency and admissions (if you're not sure whether a report has been waived, please contact your liaison). More generally, if a school currently has permission for something under the current Standards, it will also have permission under the new Standards (for example, see the note under Policies and Procedures IV.D.1, affirmed by the Board of Commissioners in February 2021). As always, check with your liaison about your specific questions or concerns.

Q: The new Standards have fewer degree categories. Will our school need to discontinue or change the name of any existing degree?

A: No. The reduction only relates to how degrees are categorized, not which ones are offered. Schools may change the names of degrees if they wish (after notifying Commission staff), e.g., the new Standards no longer require professional master's degrees to use the word "in" nor academic master's degrees to use [topic] -- but no changes are required.

Q: Is it true that the new Standards no longer distinguish between "academic" and "professional" master's degrees at all?

A: Sort of. The master's degrees previously recognized as professional (Standard B), music (Standard C), or academic (Standard D) now fall under the single category of Master of Arts (Standard 4.6-9). But, schools still need to identify (e.g., via learning outcomes and curricular design) whether a degree is primarily professional, primarily academic, or equally academic and professional (see Standard 4.6), and would need to indicate this on the Annual Report Form as well as on any petitions for new degree programs.

Q: With the elimination of the "15% rule" for non-BA admissions (previous Standard A.4.2 and B.4.2), doesn't this just open the door for our graduate degrees to not really be graduate degrees anymore?

A: No--and one could argue that it's really the opposite. Under the previous Standards, schools simply needed to demonstrate that they didn't exceed the mathematical limit, which gave large schools much more leeway than small schools and made for arbitrary distinctions (e.g., who's to say that the student in the 15% is ready for graduate theological education and the one at 16% isn't?). And, as the subcommittee on degree programs noted (building on the work of the Educational Models and Practices peer group reports), it's not as if all students with BAs are necessarily ready for graduate work and those without BAs are not. The new Standards require schools to assess the readiness of every student, rather than resting only on a proxy (see the note for Standard 7.4).

Q: Could you tell me more about the rationale regarding DMin duration and admissions under the new Standards?

A: Regarding duration, clarifying that the degree requires a minimum of 30 credits (Standard 5.1) aligns with other degree standards, which specify duration in terms of credits rather than years, and is based on a study of current DMin programs that have been reviewed and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Regarding admissions, the new Standards seek to clearly spell out the criteria for admitting students without an MDiv, and is based on the research of the Educational Models and Practices peer groups. See the notes in the annotated version of Standard 5.1-6 as well as this Colloquy article on DMin duration.

Q: I'm still confused about shared credit, advanced standing, and dual degree programs.

A: The Board of Commissioners has created Guidelines for Reduced-Credit Master’s Degrees.

Q: Where does competency-based education fit in to the new Standards?

A: See the Board's Guidelines for Competency-Based Theological Education.

Q: Since the new Standards are based on more general principles and not on specific practices, will this mean anyone can interpret the Standards any way they want?

A: The last page of the Preamble to the new Standards addresses this question, particularly in the structure of the Standards: an opening paragraph introducing essential elements of that standard, followed by a series of numbered statements that clarify and amplify that standard's essential elements. The Self-Study Ideas also provide clarity for understanding the principles embodied in each standard. In addition, the Commission has developed and is constantly refining training materials for schools involved in self-studies and for evaluation committees conducting comprehensive visits in ways that bring consistency and continuity to how the Standards are interpreted.

Q: What happened to the word "assessment" in the new Standards? I don't see it used at all.

A: The new Standards combine the formerly distinct categories of "institutional evaluation" and "assessment of student learning" into one category called "evaluation" in Standards 2.5-8, referring to the former as "institutional" and to the latter as "educational," since both are forms of evaluation. That decision was based on broad input from the membership, especially those who are responsible for those areas at their member schools.

Q: Why are there no residency requirements in the new Standards--except for the PhD degree?

A: This issue is addressed elsewhere under "Key Changes in the New Standards" but we would also encourage you to review the yellow highlighted note under 3.6 and 5.15 in the annotated version of the new Standards. The decision to eliminate residency requirements was based primarily on the results of scores of reports on exceptions to residency that the Board has reviewed since it began granting such exceptions in 2013. The results of evaluating non-residential modalities indicate that those modalities achieve virtually the same (or in some cases, better) student learning outcomes as residential modalities. The sole exception is that there have not yet been enough exceptions to residency for PhD programs to demonstrate the same outcomes.

We will continue to add to this FAQ. To suggest a question for inclusion, see the questions and comments page.