I don’t care really whether the Sourthen Cross is a little different in it’s look or not - what I can’t get over is how much good press Southern Cross and Sydney Anglicans.net give to Moore College. I mean, really, it’s a wonder we all don’t go there just to get the supposed slice of heaven everyone makes it out to be.

Surely it isn’t all that good! Does everyone who goes there have an absolutley awesome time and just love it to bits?

It just makes me ask: How much good press can one place get?

Does anyone agree? Or am I out on a limb here by myself?

Roger

PS please don’t take this as an opening to bag out Moore College, I’m just showing my amazement at the continued excellent publicity Moore College gets.

What sort of “bad publicity” do you think they should report?

Craig

Bad Publicity: Maybe the fact that a number of enrolled students seem to complain or hate being there.

Bad Publicity: Many student do not feel cared for by staff and faculty.

Bad Publicity: Maybe the fact that the work load is more than an undergraduate degree and yet you only get a bachelors.

Bad Publicity: The fact that the lecturers get 6 months off for “study leave” or long service leave out of every three years - what other job do you get to do that.

I just think there is an over abundance of good publicity, when I don’t see the place can be all that perfect.

But may be I am wrong - may be it is a “slice of heaven”

Roger

*tongue firmly in cheek*

It can’t be perfect, otherwise it would have accepted my application to study there!!  Instead it told me to get 12+ months of work experience in the one place, which I have had great trouble getting in my profession.

I can hear at least one person starting to type

w-h-y d-o-n-’-t y-o-u

Please, STOP right there and don’t type any more!  Prescriptions unnecessary, thank you, I’m turning myself inside out here trying to secure something.

I don’t need further advice, only prayer, nepotism and that other ‘-ism’ related to nepotism where you know the right people but are not related to them.

As for why God has said No to me about semi-permanent (12+ months) teaching positions for three years running, well your guess is as good as mine.

Please note that this post does in no way contradict the Habakkuk chunk I quoted elsewhere (in the “I Believe” forum, possibly).

Roger, the current MTC spreads are sponsored advertorials for their 150th. I think this is clearly labelled on the page.

We have done stories that have touched on some of these issues before.

Workload is probably the most serious issue you raise. It is the reason the MTC faculty has changed the curriculum this year. A fact SC has reported. In this context, I actually investigated the issue of workload and (somewhat understandably) I couldn’t find any students or ex-students willing to go on record about it.

I have heard that Moore have cut down on the curriculuum this year - by as much as 25%.

Roger, it seems to me to be an extraordinary suggestion that a paper funded by the Diocese should proceed to write bad publicity about the main training college for that Diocese.

As for your comment about lecturers receiving study leave being “bad publicity”, this is an astonishing assertion and I would like to hear you defend it with something a bit more substantial than your throwaway line “what other job do you get to do that”.

I’d be interested to know what you imagine the lecturers were doing during their six months study leave. I would be mightily surprised if they are soaking up the rays at Bondi Beach, taking photos of tourist sites in Oxford, or tending to their share portfolio. In fact, my best guess as to how they are spending their study leave is that they are studying.

Now possibly this is just me, but I imagine too that if you expect lecturers to know their subject, you must expect them to study, and not just in their spare time between giving lectures, marking essays, and seeing students.

Similarly, if you want to see the academic work that the lecturers are doing actually benefitting the wider Christian community in a direct way, you will want them to be taking study leave. I have commentaries and books on my shelves that are written by these lecturers during their study leave, and I use them in my preaching and writing. I’m very thankful for the work they do, and for the generosity of the college in sponsoring this work at no direct benefit to them. I see it as an example of the grace and kindness of God at work.

I see from your profile that you are a music teacher, Roger. What other profession than music teaching allows you so many holidays, and then to spend so much of your “work” time tinkling around with pianos and other instruments, something that people like me do for pure enjoyment and pleasure?

Now, if you think that is an unreasonable criticism of your job, you might also like to reconsider whether or not your criticism of theological college lecturers is fair.

[/rant ends]

Yeah, Craig...I think they have cut down the work load...but this is only because the top student of each year (ie, many of whom have a PHD or Masters already and are quite naturally brilliant) weren’t doing 25% of the work load in order to get through the course.

So instead of actually cutting down the work load to get through they have just cut the “expectation” of a whole work load that their top students weren’t doing anyway. So how do we then expect the ‘average Joe’ to get through.

More idea of bad press: Has it been reported the continual increase in fees over the last 5+ years?

Even with the FEE HELP, why is fourth year now so expensive for the students, we they only have very few contact hours. It went from being a “Free” year to being rather quite exorbitant.

Anyway, enough negetavity. I was just making a comment - seems like SC likes to pick and choose who the give good and bad press to ...

Roger

Yeah, Craig...I think they have cut down the work load...but this is only because the top student of each year (ie, many of whom have a PHD or Masters already and are quite naturally brilliant) weren’t doing 25% of the work load in order to get through the course.

I don’t understand your comment.

More idea of bad press: Has it been reported the continual increase in fees over the last 5+ years?

If fees have increased, I assume it’s because costs have increased. I don’t think anyone is quietly pocketing the extra.

How do you suggest the extra costs should be funded?

Anyway, enough negetavity. I was just making a comment - seems like SC likes to pick and choose who the give good and bad press to ...

So your criticism of Moore is “it is expensive and lots of work”.

Sounds fair - but I don’t think that is a secret.

I think Craig’s statement that “Moore is expensive and a lot of work” is a fair summary of Roger’s argument.

Is that so bad?

I would prefer the college to be academically rigorous, pushing students and preparing them for a lifetime of ministry.

I would prefer that the costs relating to college be high, paying for one of the world’s best theological libraries, paying for many excellent theological educators, paying to (physically) expand in size as the college grows, rather than being “cheap” and skimping on these things.

I would prefer that lecturers have study leave so that they can work further in their field or develop resources for the church to use, rather than sitting in ivory towers, becoming increasingly out-of-touch with their academic field and not serving the wider church.

I don’t quite get your point Roger. You seem to want Moore to strive for mediocrity. I would rather the college to be a world leader in evangelical theological training.

[quote author="Roger BlackTree"]

Anyway, enough negetavity. I was just making a comment

Yes, although I notice you ignored my comment and questions about the lecturers. It seems to me that you should either justify what you said or offer an apology.

- seems like SC likes to pick and choose who the give good and bad press to ...

Roger

A few points here Roger:

1. You haven’t proved what you said here, and you’ve ignored Jeremy’s response to your criticism.

2. Just quickly let your eye flick to the top of your screen—no, not the bit where it says “Internet Explorer”, try an inch or two below that. That’s it. See the bit where it says “sydneyanglicans.net”? Before I tell you, why don’t you give me your theory on who is paying for the bandwidth whereby you get to have a free kick at the editorial policies of Southern Cross. Hint: There’s a clue hidden in this paragraph somewhere.

3. Again I ask: On what grounds should a paper funded by the Diocese sponsor criticism of the main training college for that Diocese? If you produced a paper known as the “Roger BlackTree weekly” and distributed it amongst your friends, would you encourage the contributors to report negatively on their experience of you?

Having said that, I notice that according to Jeremy (and my own reading of Southern Cross, they actually have addressed some of the questions you raise.

G’day Gordon.

While I agree that Anglicans should promote Anglicanism, not allowing any speak about the bad or not so good stuff actually helps prevent change, and therefore is not in the best interest of the Anglican Dioscee of a whole.

Take the past when it was considered best for the church to smother any child molestation, by paying off the family and dealing in house by moving the minister involved.

I think strength means we are able to be honest about open about any and all shortcomings, instead of being in the business of spin doctoring.

Blessings craig b

Roger, why not put your concerns into a brief letter and send it to SC?

[quote author="Craig Bennett"]
I think strength means we are able to be honest about open about any and all shortcomings, instead of being in the business of spin doctoring.

Hey Craig.

I can agree with that. All I was asking for was proof from Roger that this had been the case with regard to Southern Cross and its reporting of Moore. Plus, still hoping to hear from him about why he thinks the study leave for lecturers counts as “bad publicity”.

We’ve already established that the bit that Roger was criticizing was not so much a report by Southern Cross, as an advertisement paid for by Moore College and clearly marked as such.

G’day Gordon,

I missed the bit about the advertisment. 

I would like to see some more info about the 25% decrease in actual work load, especially as I am a synod rep and was led to believe it was a 25% decrease accross the board, and not just for some.

Blessings craig b

Here is the article on workload reduction from October last year

My understanding is that it is across the board.

Perhaps I’m a pedant but shouldn’t this discussion be another thread?