More CC Research Help Needed. This time: Schools with a RELIGIOUS atmosphere

[yummytongue]

<p>Fine, ghostbuster, I admit I generalized there. (Still, you can’t really cite that one person you know as an example, but i get your point).</p>

<p>Jesuits just have a reputation among more orthodox catholics for being “liberal” because a handful of them are very vocal on hot button issues, like abortion, gay marriage, and their “non-traditional” views on them.</p>

<p>And about the admissions requirement of Franciscan: they accept 85% of their students. Yet, for a school of such a high acceptance rate, they have a disproportionally high percentage of top students- 30% were in the top 10% of their class, and 51% were in the top quarter. Weird.</p>

<p>They have a pretty good theology and philosophy department, but IMO, students should look elsewhere if they plan to study anything else. Anyway, most students at Franciscan study theology. It’s a love/hate thing. I know kids that absolutely love it there, and kids that can’t wait to transfer. Sorry if it seemed earlier that I was ripping on Franciscan.</p>

<p>EDIT:// whoops, they have a good nursing program. Forgot about that.</p>

[kitty56]

<p>Regarding shoot4moon’s experience at USF:</p>

<p>

I was wondering about how many theology courses were required. None.

</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, I checked their website for the core curriculum:</p>

<p>"Area D: Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies, and Ethics (12 units)</p>

<p>Philosophy (4 units)
Theology and Religious Studies (4 units)
Ethics (4 units)"</p>

<p>Did he not know that they require a Theo/Religious Studies course?</p>

[southernspirit]

<p>Reply to eddieodessa</p>

<p>My daughter just got accepted to Messiah College and it is one of her top choices. How has your daughter’s experience been so far? Has she found any of the classes to be too rigorous? My daughter picked a tough major and that is my only concern.</p>

[JustAMomOf4]

<p>Gordon College, MA
Gordon is a non-denominational Christian college that requires an affirmation of faith upon admission, chapel 3 times a week and strongly encourages Church attendance at the church of one’s choice on Sunday.</p>

[APOL]

<ol>
<li><p>Westmont College in Santa Barbara,CA</p></li>
<li><p>Small LAC, Christian</p></li>
<li><p>Several friends attended.</p></li>
</ol>

[greenwitch]

<p>Samford University outside Birmingham, AL</p>

<p>small LAC, Baptist and a dry campus ( they say they’re not draconian about that)</p>

<p>We went to an open house there and were led in a prayer during the opening remarks. It was a bit unnerving to me. My daughter is looking at small schools that offer nursing, and most of them are religious schools of some sort. </p>

<p>Samford has required “convocation” credits - not quite sure what they are - and just felt too religious to us ( although it was beautiful and very appealing in every other way).</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>keilalexandra</p>

<p>

berryberry - As an atheist, I strenuously disagree that any number of required theology classes does not indicate an “overtly religious” atmosphere.

</p>

<p>As an atheist, you clearly have a different view on this. But requiring a student to take one or two theology classes certainly doe not make it overtly religious. Especially if you look at some of those class offerings. I satisfied my 3 religious class requirement at my not overtly religious Benedictine college with things like the “anthropology of religion”</p>

<p>

And I’m not Catholic in the least (cf. the atheist self-identification above), but I find it rather offensive that you call Notre Dame “religious lite.” 85% Catholic at possibly the most famous Catholic school in the US, required theology courses, I presume crucifixes displayed prominently

</p>

<p>Oh well, I guess you are going to have to be offended - because in the context of the OP’s question, Notre Dame is indeed religious lite. i could care less how famous it is - that doesn’t qualify it for the OP’s criteria. And hanging crucifixes on a wall don’t either. Yes, Notre Dame has some tenants of being a religious school but no where near enough based on the criteria the OP specified - hence the religious lite terminology</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>^And I disagree, again, with your interpretation of the OP’s criteria (“big part”). Of course, it is my right to be offended and your right not to care. I’ve done fair time on the other side of the equation, so I don’t begrudge you.</p>

[csleslie51]

<p>Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, VA. Motto: For Christ and Learning
“The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding.
The Mission of the Department of Government is to promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American republic,…”
All students must sign a “Statement of Faith” before they arrive, affirming belief in what the college considers core Christian doctrines.
Teaching faculty must also sign the “Statement of Faith”, plus a more detailed “Statement of Biblical Worldview”, which represents the College’s requirements for what should be taught."
Of note - they do not use FAFSA for financial aid (no government funding) but do use the Profile for need based. The college eschews federal financial aid and is therefore relieved from Department of Education reporting requirements on demographic makeup of its student body and from other federal reporting requirements.
This college was also known for it’s number of White House Internships during the Bush Administration (highest number of interns per students enrolled in an individual university)</p>

[vlatski]

<p>im just lost how do i create a thread lol</p>

[atomom]

<p>From Princeton Review: Most Religious Schools (as reported by students) 2009 top 20:</p>

<ol>
<li>Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA; 2. Brigham Young University (UT)</li>
<li>Wheaton College (IL); 4. Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI; 5. University of Dallas,Irving, TX; 6. Grove City College, Grove City, PA; 7. College of the Ozarks,Point Lookout, MO;</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN; 9. Furman University, Greenville, SC</li>
<li>Samford University, Birmingham, AL; 11. Baylor University, Waco, TX; 12. Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI; 13. Texas A&M University–College Station; 14. United States Air Force Academy, USAF Academy, CO; 15. Pepperdine UniversityMalibu, CA; </li>
<li>Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 17. St. Anselm College,Manchester, NH; 18. Brandeis University, Waltham, MA; 19. Auburn University,Auburn,AL; 20.University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT</li>
</ol>

<p>This is the first year in a long time that Brigham Young U. wasn’t #1</p>

<p>What makes Thomas Aquinas College SO religious? 3 Masses a day(most in Latin). (Not required, but many students go). More than 10% of students have gone on to become priests/brothers/nuns–religious vocations are supported/encouraged. Faculty takes oath of fidelity to the Pope/official church teachings. Dress code. Single sex dorms–no visiting, ever. Awesome chapel.</p>

<p>Other Catholic colleges on the list–#5 University of Dallas, #8 Notre Dame, #16 Catholic U. of America, #17 St. Anselm.</p>

<p>Also, from the “Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College” here is a list of 21 American Catholic schools that are faithful to church teaching–conservative Catholics would consider them “truly Catholic” and in-line with official church teaching:</p>

<p>Aquinas College (Nashville, TN), Ave Maria U. (FL) Belmont Abbey College (NC), Benedictine College (KS), Catholic U. of America (DC), Christendom College (VA), The College of St. Thomas More (Ft.Worth, TX), DeSales U. ¶, Franciscan U. of Steubenville (OH), Holy Apostles College and Seminary (CT), John Paul the Great Catholic U. (CA), Magdalen College (NH), Mt. St. Mary’s U. (MD), Providence College (RI), Southern Catholic College (GA), St. Gregory’s U. (OK), Thomas Aquinas College (CA), The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (NH), University of Dallas (TX), University of St. Thomas (Houston, TX), Wyoming Catholic College (WY)</p>

<p>Some of them have a more religious atmosphere than others. I can tell you that Wyoming Catholic, U. of Dallas, Thomas More (NH & TX), Thomas Aquinas, Southern Catholic, John Paul the Great, Franciscan, Christendom, and Ave Maria are very religious.
Benedictine (KS) and Belmont Abbey are religious, but seem to have a higher percentage of non-religious students.
The others, I can’t say. (I have relatives, friend’s kids who go/have gone to the above schools.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>I think there clearly needs to be a dissecting of the OP’s criteria in borderline cases such as ND. </p>

<p>

As an atheist, I strenuously disagree that any number of required theology classes does not indicate an “overtly religious” atmosphere.

</p>

<p>Specific theological classes, or general ones? By that I am asking whether a particular religion is a required subject of study, or whether theology courses at all are required.</p>

<p>In the case of the former, that clearly puts some points in the “religious” criterion if only because a religious affiliation is supported institutionally. If it is the latter, I don’t see how you could possibly believe that. Is any college that requires science courses at all a tech university? Is a college that doesn’t require science courses because it doesn’t consider them integral to a liberal arts education espousing a didactically incorrect approach? Science exists. Religion exists. Studying religion does not at all mean the school is religious, just as studying science does not at all mean the school is permeated with a scientific atmosphere.</p>

<p>

And I’m not Catholic in the least (cf. the atheist self-identification above), but I find it rather offensive that you call Notre Dame “religious lite.”

</p>

<p>In what way is it offensive? And of course it is your right (q.v. your statement on the subject), but that doesn’t make your reaction well-supported or rational. </p>

<p>ND is certainly “religious lite” in the context of its supposed affiliation. When there is an institutional affiliation, then this context dominates in a thorough examination of the school’s religious atmosphere. Unless the masses are liturgically accurate, the students well-versed on Church teaching, etc., then the notion that it is “religious lite” is a logical consequence of the atmosphere on campus.</p>

<p>To extend this beyond religion into a context that may make more sense to you, consider a campus on which 90% of the students self-identify as liberal. However, over 50% of the student body is pro-life. Sixty percent of students who voted did so for McCain and Palin. However, most of the student body does not engage in activism or intellectual discourse. There are many College Democrats, Pro-Choice, etc. meetings, none of which are well-attended. The institution openly espouses a liberal agenda that is either ineffective or simply irrelevant to students.</p>

<p>Would you consider this a liberal campus? Of course not. The fact that liberalism is institutionalized is essentially of no consequence to the atmosphere on campus. The self-identification of the student body is largely invalid, and thus also inapplicable as a useful criterion. You may consider it a “political campus,” but it is certainly “liberalism lite,” given the apathy and in some cases distortion of this self-identification. </p>

<p>The facade of religion does not mean the campus is actually religious. </p>

<p>I think your consideration of quantitative and objective factors is a largely ineffective approach to answering the OP’s question.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>^I consider anything “lite” to be an offensive descriptor; that particular (mis)spelling has derogatory connotations. In the case of your contradictory “liberal” campus–which has its own problems as an analogy, but I’ll get to that in a moment–the campus is indeed “political,” and half liberal. After all, if liberal ideology is truly espoused by the school, it’s a good bet that there will be a significant contingent of students who follow that ideology, even if a majority do not and thus the student body is not characterizable as “liberal.”</p>

<p>Your argument conflates religious and conservative. Is it possible to have a religious, politically liberal campus? Yes. (Does one actually exist? I’m not sure, since I have zero interest in attending a religious institution. But philosophically, the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive.)</p>

<p>I’m not sure what type of theology classes exactly ND requires. A similar example that I am more familiar with is St. Olaf’s, an academically rigorous Lutheran LAC with IIRC two required theology courses that offer multiple options to choose from–but close reading of the general education requirements will reveal that certain Christian content and ideology is required to be in common among all of the course options.</p>

<p>Certainly there is a distinction to be made between schools that require a course in Christian religion (even if it’s simply one course on the Bible–that is a specific religious affiliation being supported) and schools that require a course in religious studies. The former would probably be more religious than the latter. However, there is also a distinction to be made between schools that require any type of course in religion/theology and schools that do not. The former is also likely more religious than the latter.</p>

<p>I am not aware of any historically secular institution that requires the study of theology specifically beyond simply study of a broad range in the humanities. (I suppose you could make a case for Furman, but given how recently Furman has forsaken its religious affiliation, it’s not truly secular.) Of course, this unusual situation–a historically secular institution requiring the study of theology–could exist, just as a “liberal” campus with a “conservative” student majority could exist.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

the campus is indeed “political,” and half liberal

</p>

<p>I point I openly stated. However, the “lite” was clearly in reference to the institutional affiliation – something I explicitly stated could not be ignored.</p>

<p>

After all, if liberal ideology is truly espoused by the school, it’s a good bet that there will be a significant contingent of students who follow that ideology, even if a majority do not and thus the student body is not characterizable as “liberal.”

</p>

<p>This is not true, at least insofar as “a significant contingent of students” does not preclude “a significant contingent of students” being very conservative. Many schools have religious affiliations that have no effect on anything. Their mere existence does not imply that the school as a religious atmosphere, yet the student body must be considered in tandem with this affiliation.</p>

<p>

Your argument conflates religious and conservative. Is it possible to have a religious, politically liberal campus? Yes. (Does one actually exist? I’m not sure, since I have zero interest in attending a religious institution. But philosophically, the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive.)

</p>

<p>The analogy was in a state of total disconnect from the issue, which is precisely why I mentioned it at all. I don’t care about the political beliefs of the students when I am considering the religion of a campus, at least out of the context of the overlap between religious beliefs and political beliefs. My analogy was precisely that, as you state yourself in your post.</p>

<p>

However, there is also a distinction to be made between schools that require any type of course in religion/theology and schools that do not. The former is also likely more religious than the latter.

</p>

<p>Please provide some sort of evidence to support this. I could easily and reasonably claim that the schools that require some sort of theological course are simply distinguished from those who do not in that they tend to prefer a true liberal arts education, one in which all relevant aspects of human existence and culture are examined. In fact, I may go so far as to claim that there is no correlation between requiring some theology classes and the school itself being characterized as religious, precisely because no particularly religion is espoused in the mandatory coursework. I have yet to witness or hear about a campus that is characterized as religious that does not gravitate toward one religion specifically. </p>

<p>

Of course, this unusual situation–a historically secular institution requiring the study of theology–could exist, just as a “liberal” campus with a “conservative” student majority could exist.

</p>

<p>Again, a truly liberal campus seems to preclude the possibility of a truly conservative majority. “Theology” is required by some campuses, but is extended to ethics, philosophy, etc. Many schools do require at least some exposure to those aspects of human existence.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>

@Baelor

Would you consider this a liberal campus? Of course not. The fact that liberalism is institutionalized is essentially of no consequence to the atmosphere on campus. The self-identification of the student body is largely invalid, and thus also inapplicable as a useful criterion. You may consider it a “political campus,” but it is certainly “liberalism lite,” given the apathy and in some cases distortion of this self-identification.

I was responding to the bolded part of your statement–confirming that I would consider it a “political” campus and partially a liberal one, but not “liberalism lite” because I consider the latter adjective unnecessarily derogatory.</p>

<p>

@Baelor

This is not true, at least insofar as “a significant contingent of students” does not preclude “a significant contingent of students” being very conservative.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but I’ll attempt to respond. “A significant contingent of students” at a majority-red (where 50%+ of the students voted Republican in the last presidential election, let’s say) school might still be liberal; a similar significant minority might be extra-conservative, although I’d say anyone who voted for Palin is already pretty conservative.</p>

<p>

@Baelor

Many schools have religious affiliations that have no effect on anything. Their mere existence does not imply that the school as a religious atmosphere, yet the student body must be considered in tandem with this affiliation.

Indeed. Some examples of religiously-affiliated schools that I would NOT consider having a religious atmosphere: Macalester, Duke. A non-religiously-affiliated school that DOES have a religious atmosphere, in many respects: Furman. Are you arguing that ND’s student body is not religious? Previously cited statistics would seem to prove you wrong. If a given student attends church every Sunday and truly believes in God and Jesus Christ, I would consider that student a religious Christian–a “non-religious” Christian being someone who believes in God/Jesus but does not feel it necessary to partake in the trappings of organized religion (i.e. does not attend church regularly).</p>

<p>I make the distinction between schools that require theology/religion and schools that require theology/religion/ethics/philosophy. A “true liberal arts education” does not necessarily require that one study every major academic discipline; and the study of theology, in a secular environment, is no more and no less important than the study of history or philosophy.</p>

<p>(One might make an argument, as many colleges seem to have internally, that English is more important than other humanities disciplines because of the lifelong need for strong writing skills. But I have not seen the same special attention accorded to theology/religion at a historically secular school. Can you cite such an example?)</p>

<p>My hypothesis is based upon observance of various schools’ general education/graduation requirements and anecdotal evidence from students who attended those schools. For example, Davidson College is Presbyterian-affiliated, requires at least one course in religion (not specifically Christian religion, but not including philosophy), and has been aptly characterized on a subjective level as “surprisingly religious for secular students and surprisingly unreligious for religious students” (I paraphrase).</p>

<p>

Religion and Philosophy: It is important that students develop humane instincts, form a principled ethical system, confront some of the foundational questions of human existence, and understand the effect religious and philosophical ideas have on the human experience. The faculty therefore requires students to take two courses in religion or philosophy. Given the heritage of the College, at least one of these courses must be in religion.

[Graduation</a> Requirements - Purpose](<a href=“http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x24553.xml]Graduation”>http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x24553.xml)</p>

<p>I would consider Davidson a progressive (vs. conservative), religious institution. My personal opinion is that the general atmosphere is probably more religious than Bates or Amherst and less religious than Notre Dame–but religious nonetheless. Clearly the college supports its institutional affiliation in meaningful ways (“Given the heritage of the College…”) and anecdotal evidence supports a similar student body of moderate political distribution with a significant conservative contingent drawn by the religious atmosphere. </p>

<p>I have one friend whose first choice is Davidson; she also seriously considered Grove City, although ultimately ruled it out for academic reasons. She is probably not representative of Davidson’s overall student body, in seriousness toward religion, but it’s not unreasonable to conclude that other students like her may be attracted to Davidson for religious reasons. (She is Presbyterian.)</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

I was responding to the bolded part of your statement–confirming that I would consider it a “political” campus and partially a liberal one, but not “liberalism lite” because I consider the latter adjective unnecessarily derogatory.

</p>

<p>Then I guess you subscribe to the word a meaning that transcends its implicit objective definition in this case. </p>

<p>

I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but I’ll attempt to respond. “A significant contingent of students” at a majority-red (where 50%+ of the students voted Republican in the last presidential election, let’s say) school might still be liberal; a similar significant minority might be extra-conservative, although I’d say anyone who voted for Palin is already pretty conservative.

</p>

<p>1) People voted for McCain and Palin. I mention this because clearly your mindset is different from mine, and both of ours are different from others on this thread. This in turn is relevant for the reason I mentioned in my first post – “borderline” cases like ND may never be universally recognized as religious or non-religious.</p>

<p>2) Are you suggesting that the environment of a school be based upon something other than the majority viewpoint of the student body? How would you justify this position? Note that for the purposes of this discussion, I am not considering fallacious or meaningless self-identification – assume that on average, the students are all equally active/vocal. Otherwise, the self-identification is meaningless anyway, something that I very clearly and specifically laid out in my previous post (cf. the ND student body and 85% Catholic statistic).</p>

<p>

Previously cited statistics would seem to prove you wrong. If a given student attends church every Sunday and truly believes in God and Jesus Christ, I would consider that student a religious Christian–a “non-religious” Christian being someone who believes in God/Jesus but does not feel it necessary to partake in the trappings of organized religion (i.e. does not attend church regularly).

</p>

<p>Not true, because I hardly consider those statistics useful. A “religious person” by your definition need not ever speak about his religion or views, disagree with his particular ecclesiastical authority, and never do anything other than go to Mass and truly believe in the existence of God.</p>

<p>In other words, by your definition, a religious person may never have to state themselves as such in instances that are not completely innocuous. Hence the incredible shortcoming of your definition. A silent majority may be taken out of the equation completely because their positions have no bearing on the atmosphere on campus. Again, self-identification is useless if used a the sole criterion.</p>

<p>

I make the distinction between schools that require theology/religion and schools that require theology/religion/ethics/philosophy. A “true liberal arts education” does not necessarily require that one study every major academic discipline; and the study of theology, in a secular environment, is no more and no less important than the study of history or philosophy.

</p>

<p>This was unclear in your previous posts; the scope of theology for many does extend into philosophy; even historically the two are very closely intertwined.</p>

<p>

For example, Davidson College is Presbyterian-affiliated, requires at least one course in religion (not specifically Christian religion, but not including philosophy), and has been aptly characterized on a subjective level as “surprisingly religious for secular students and surprisingly unreligious for religious students” (I paraphrase).

</p>

<p>I fail to see how simply requiring a religious course in this case is nothing other than an acknowledgment that religion is in some way significant when studying mankind. </p>

<p>

Clearly the college supports its institutional affiliation in meaningful ways (“Given the heritage of the College…”) and anecdotal evidence supports a similar student body of moderate political distribution with a significant conservative contingent drawn by the religious atmosphere.

</p>

<p>This seems more like an appeal to the historical nature of the college than anything else. If the school were truly religious, I don’t see why they would have justified having a religion course be mandatory with “heritage” when “affiliation” or “institutional beliefs” would have otherwise sufficed.</p>

<p>In fact, I fail to see what is religious about Davidson at all. The argument that it is religious because ONE religion course on ANY religion is required is completely bogus. I see no statistics anywhere about how active the students are in their beliefs, or anything that would actually be relevant for that matter. I don’t see how your very strict definition is a suitable one.</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>I do indeed subscribe to the word “lite” an appropriate (IMO) connotative meaning, as well as its denotative meaning.</p>

<p>Wrt 2), I am not “suggesting that the environment of a school be based upon something other than the majority viewpoint of the student body.” Rather, I am distinguishing the political positions of significant minority groups at a school where the majority holds a different political position. I have never encountered a situation where institutional policies are liberal to the same extent that the student body is conservative (excluding moderates); generally the professors are more liberal than the students at many politically conservative colleges, but that is merely indicative of academia, not the specific campus culture or institutional policy.</p>

<p>In response to your objections, I add to my definition of a “religious” student the criteria that when asked (whether directly or by a campus organization), s/he admits/professes to being a Christian. I would think that might be self-evident, but I’ll make it explicit for you.</p>

<p>To me theology and philosophy are distinct academic disciplines. I consider theology synonymous with religion; philosophy of religion = theology, but theology != philosophy.</p>

<p>

@Baelor

…an acknowledgment that religion is in some way significant when studying mankind.

And there is the crux of the matter. In a secular environment, religion is not any more significant than history or logic or science. Many colleges recognize the importance of a broad liberal arts education through core curriculum or distribution requirements; however, I reiterate that I have only ever seen “religious” schools (by my definition) single out the discipline of religion as worthy of special attention.</p>

<p>My definition of a “religious” college is the utter opposite of “very strict.” If a campus environment is explicitly supportive of religion, some non-religious students will feel uncomfortable; therefore, some degree of religious-ness must be indicated, because such an environment is qualitatively different from that of a historically secular campus. Oftentimes what makes an environment “religious” to an outsider is not “active” evangelism but simple assumption–asking a friend, for instance, what church s/he attends.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>I vaguely remember the OP saying something about this… Hmm… oh yes!</p>

<p>

Granted, this is a hard one to define, but don’t use this thread to do so. No parsing, please. We’re just looking for names and rationale.

</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

im just lost how do i create a thread

</p>

<p>vlatski: Go to the forum you want to put your thread in – College Admissions, Financial Aid, etc. Above the list of topics already going, you’ll see a button “New Thread.” Just click that; it will give you a box for your text, and you get to give your thread a title.</p>

[atomom]

<p>BTW, I would consider the atmosphere at ND quite religious.</p>

<p>Even if their beliefs aren’t totally in line with Rome.</p>