College Chaplain

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong.

Easy. We look at the underlying real world causes of these peoples problems and see if chaplaincy sessions actually help deal with these causes, or if it is just a placebo that makes people feel good for a few days. Its no different than homeopathy, nothing more than the placebo effect, which we can scientifically determine.

Truley wrote: »

Even if it was possible, then what?

Then you do what we always do when we find that a service we provide doesn't work, we replace it.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Easy. We look at the underlying real world causes of these peoples problems and see if chaplaincy sessions actually help deal with these causes, or if it is just a placebo that makes people feel good for a few days. Its no different than homeopathy, nothing more than the placebo effect, which we can scientifically determine.


Then you do what we always do when we find that a service we provide doesn't work, we replace it.

I look forward to reading the outcomes of this study

nozzferrahhtoo

hivizman wrote: »

I find it significant that universities and colleges, even avowedly secular institutions, find no contradiction to their goals in providing financial support for chaplaincy services. The implication is that the persons on whom the onus of the management of resources fall (who will be much better informed than we are about the benefits and costs, both financial and non-financial, of a chaplaincy service) have answered the question "is the allocation of resources to chaplaincy services justified?" with a "yes".

I find it interesting too, considering there has been no benefit shown and it IS a resource drain. Any resource drain failing to provide a benefit relevant to the organisation is indeed a curiosity. I am as curious as you why it is not addressed.

However unlike your claim here, they have NOT answered us with a "yes" or any justification for a "yes". You are assuming that the fact that they ARE spending that money means they have good reason to do so. I am afraid I do not share your faith in good management to that degree. Unless good reasons for this expenditure are presented and adumbrated to us, I am not simply going to assume they have good reasons for it like you do.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

You complained that she could only base her reasons on personal anecdote and criticised her argument because of this. I merely pointed out that the poster never claimed to be basing their argument on anything other than personal experience, albeit good personal experience given her profession.

I am aware of what my own points are, thanks for reminding me. I am also aware that if someone throws around baseless opinions that genuinely affect a whole section of our society, then the onus is on us the reader to point this out and to suggest (s)he go and get some actual basis before throwing opinions about.

This is, after all, a forum for the discussion of opinions where we get to evaluate the opinions of others and, more importantly, evaluate whether they are opinions we should be sharing. I shall therefore not be pandering to people butting in and suggesting there is some issue with me choosing to point out the weakness of another’s position, thanks.

If someone does not want their opinion pulled apart, reverse engineered, and critiqued, I would peacefully suggest they reconsider the use of this forum.

Truley wrote: »

If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

You are engaging in the fallacy of "argument from authority" right here. You might want to address that for your own sake if not ours. Something is not correct merely because of WHO is saying it, we have to evaluate WHY they are saying it, and contrary to your and his claims... this has NOT been addressed.

Nor, I should add, should you put faith in total strangers that they are qualified in the area they say they are just because it happens to fit the thread topic. I see no conformable credentials on here.

If he or she is so "qualified" in the area of discussion then he or she should be able to adumbrate the reasons why X is not replaceable by Y, instead of you and they just declaring it by fiat.

Truley wrote: »

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing

Nice big IF there. I have seen no studies of figures to say that many people are claiming what you say they are. Do you?
`

Truley wrote: »

, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong. Even if it was possible, then what?

I already suggested a study, 4 or 5 times on this thread.

First get a group of students with no known issues. Then get a group with medical issues. Then get a group with mental issues. Compare the results of them at the end of the year. This should show you whether addressing the physical and mental needs of students is conducive to improved results.

Now get a group of Atheists, of Christians with a chaplain and of Christians without. Compare their results. This should tell you if pandering to the religious whims of Christians is conducive to improved results.

Now compare the relative comparisons between both studies.

This is the kind of study that needs to be done to justify the expenditure of OUR money in OUR colleges and universities. I imagine such a study is nothing something they will rush to partake in however because my own guess, subjective as it is, is that you will find it shows that maintaining the physical and mental health of students has massive implications on end results...... while having a religion, or maintaining a religion if you have one, is entirely irrelevant.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find it interesting too, considering there has been no benefit shown and it IS a resource drain.

Nobody has shown a cost-benefit analysis of any resource provided in a university in Ireland thus far - even in respect of resources which those who are against the chaplaincy support. For example, no poster has shown that the provision of an STI clinic has either,
i) diminished the prevalence of STI's on university campuses, or
ii) that those making use of a subsidised STI clinic could not otherwise afford the service, or
iii) that those who make use of the STI clinic on campus would not otherwise participate in screening off campus.

It isn't only chaplaincy which is being talked about on this thread without recourse to a cost benefit analysis - nobody has produced such a study in respect of any service provided by Irish universities. Quite likely this is because nobody here is privvy to any such study, not being a member of a university administration. If you wish to frame it in such terms, it appears quite likely that nobody on this thread has any knowledge of such analyses and thus cannot have make an informed judgment either way. The only poster who has make reference to such an analysis is hivizman who demonstrated that such analyses do take place within university administrations. In the absence of such data, in respect of all student services, what is being discussed here is purely personal philosophy.

However, on a forum of skeptics, it is somewhat humorous that posters are assuming a positive answer in respect of some campus services, and assuming a negative answer in respect of other services despite there being no evidence being proffered either way in respect of any campus service.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

I think you missed a point by the way that way made many times on the thread.

I am perfectly aware that you can not "replace" the chaplain as such on Campus.

As I said, if you had a practicing Octologists on Campus you could not replace him with a GP wither.

The question is NOT one of "replacing" the Chaplain. The question is one of whether there is any benefit at all with maintaining one on Campus using College funds.

A counsellor of even the most basic training can diagnose a students needs and refer them on to the relevant external sources for further help and assistance.

There is NO justification for maintaining a college Octologist. The GP can diagnose an "ear problem", reach into his drawer, and come out with a pamphlet on ear problems and contact information for an Octologist and job is done.

Similarly, you might not be able to "replace" the chaplain, but you are wholly assuming you need to? Any Counsellor can diagnose a "spiritual" issue, and pull out the relevant pamphlets and contact numbers for the relevant person and institution to speak to.

This is of course entirely secular, and would avoid issues such as.... a Muslim or Wiccan finding himself in a college with only a Christian Chaplain to talk to. ALL faiths can be pandered to at one point with one good Counselor possessing a good selection of contacts.

So as I said, it is not about "replacing" a chaplain, but about whether his presence is justifiable in the first place to even worry about whether to "replace" it or not.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

Nobody has shown a cost-benefit analysis of any resource provided in a university in Ireland thus far -

It isn't only chaplaincy which is being talked about on this thread without recourse to a cost benefit analysis - nobody has produced such a study in respect of any service provided by Irish universities.

Well if you feel the existence of such clinics is not beneficial then start a thread on it and it can be discussed with as much gusto as this "service" has been.

This thread is about the Chaplaincy Service however and just because you can point out that ONE is not justified, that does not somehow excuse the fact the OTHER is not justified either.

Your whole post smacks of “Leave X alone as Y and Z are doing it wrong too!!!!”. It sounds like trying to justify politicians lack of declaring expenses by saying "Ah but no one else was doing it either".

No, this is NOT a reason to leave it alone. If the other services need to be discussed also then so be it, start a thread on them and have them discussed. I have no interest in a “They aren’t doing it so why should we” mentality though.

It is OUR money going into the colleges and the administration should be justifying all of its allocation to us. The Chaplaincy just happens to be the one I am focusing on. If you have an issue with STI Clinics or anything else, then I invite you to do the same as I.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if you feel the existence of such clinics is not beneficial then start a thread on it and it can be discussed with as much gusto as this "service" has been.

This thread is about the Chaplaincy Service however and just because you can point out that ONE is not justified, that does not somehow excuse the fact the OTHER is not justified either.

Your whole post smacks of “Leave X alone as Y and Z are doing it wrong too!!!!”. It sounds like trying to justify politicians lack of declaring expenses by saying "Ah but no one else was doing it either".

What shrill. Your comments might make limited sense if I had argued against the provision of an STI clinic, which I don't. I fully support the provision of any student service which ensures the wellbeing of the student body.

The point remains though, that a cost benefit analysis only seems to be necessary in respect of the chaplaincy, and is to be presumed in respect of other student services. Furthermore, that in the absence of a cost benefit analysis being proffered on the thread, its outcome is to be presumed. Finally, that even if a cost benefit analysis were produced (as was made reference to by hivizman) and if such an analysis were to favour the continuance of chaplaincy services (as that referenced by hivizman at a UK university did) then its results would continue to be ignored on the basis that the provision of chaplaincy services is an erosion of secularism (sic).

It is clear that you are less interested in a cost-benefit analysis and, rather, that you are predisposed against the provision of such services on the basis of your philosophical understanding of the concept of secularism. You raise issues like cost-benefit, which naturally should be carried out in respect of all services, in order to couch the philosophical nature of your posts, with a pseudo scientific language.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

What shrill.

Decorum please. Stick to the points, not the name calling.

johnfás wrote: »

I fully support the provision of any student service which ensures the wellbeing of the student body.

As do I, where such well being is beneficial to our vested interest in the college.... namely the good results of the students in the courses there.

The issue is that no one here is showing that the maintenance of Religious positions in the student body IS even a little beneficial. This is why I am questioning it.

This is not the same as an STI clinic, as the benefits to students results of keeping them STI free is clear.

johnfás wrote: »

The point remains though, that a cost benefit analysis only seems to be necessary in respect of the chaplaincy, and is to be presumed in respect of other student services.

Heartily disagree, I think it should be necessary on an on going rolling basis across the board. It just happens that THIS thread is about the Chaplaincy, hence me focusing on it. I am not suggesting we ask these questions of just this one service to the exclusion of all others. I am just saying that I wish to stay on the topic of the thread.

There is a massive difference, which you would do well to note, between saying "We do not need to do X" and "The discussion of X is off topic for this thread".

johnfás wrote: »

Finally, that even if a cost benefit analysis were produced (as was made reference to by hivizman) and if such an analysis were to favour the continuance of chaplaincy services (as that referenced by hivizman at a UK university did) then its results would continue to be ignored on the basis that the provision of chaplaincy services is an erosion of secularism (sic).

I never knew you were both Psychic AND could see the future! Wow.

No, until such a study is done and presented, you have nothing on which to base a presumption of how people will react to it. Pretending you know how people will react to the existence of something that apparently does not exist yet is, at the very best, guess work on your behalf and at worst is an arrogant presumption to pre-react to peoples impressions of something before having the decency to let them form one.

johnfás wrote: »

It is clear that you are less interested in a cost-benefit analysis and, rather, that you are predisposed against the provision of such services on the basis of your philosophical point of view on the issue of secularism.

False and you are now engaged in Ad Hominem ignoring of the points I am making, by instead attempting to establish a straw man bias on my part that you hope will allow you to bypass my points. My points that I have made stand independent of any imagined bias you want to invent for me. You either can address them, or you can not, but do not engage in this level of dishonesty please. You owe yourself more.

Not to mention that even if I did have such a bias, right to my very core, it still does not affect whether what I have said in the previous posts is true or not. So not only are you establishing a false bias on my part, it is also an irrelevant one.

johnfás

Oh dear, it appears a raw nerve has been hit. Shrill was a reference to your statements, not your being. I have no interest in offering an opinion on your nature, which if I did would be more likely based on your call for people to consider thieving on another thread in this forum, rather than any position you might hold on the provision of student services.

It is quite clear that you have a bias (your term, not mine). I used the term philosophy. That your position is based on your philosophical point of view on the concept of secularism. This is not based on your personal characteristics, but rather the contradictory nature of your comments on this thread.

You agree, that a cost-benefit analysis is necessary in respect of student services. Yet in the absence of such an analysis in respect of STI clinics you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear". You have no basis for making this statement without reference to studies as to the efficacy of on campus STI clinics. Such studies would surely have to compare the provision of these clinics as compared to investing the money in ongoing sexual health awareness campaigns (you have identified that resources are limited so choices are necessary). A study would also have to take into account the three questions which I outlined above - i) has a reduction in prevalence occurred ii) could the students who attend afford to attend elsewhere iii) are students anymore likely to attend because the service is on campus. Yet on the absence of such a study you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear".

Personally, I agree with you, the benefits are "clear". This is however, only anecdotally clear as you have not produced any firm analysis. Based on the personal testimony of people I know who have benefited from the chaplaincy services, and of Kooli on this thread, who works in the provision of student services, it is equally "clear" that the chaplaincy services are also beneficial to the student body.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

Oh dear, it appears a raw nerve has been hit. Shrill was a reference to your statements, not your being. I have no interest in offering an opinion on your nature

Irrelevant. Stick to addressing the points, not the tone you imagine them said in.

johnfás wrote: »

which if I did would be more likely based on your call for people to consider thieving on another thread in this forum

Irrelevant to this thread, off topic, ad hominem. Again please stick to the relevant points of this thread. Anway I am unsure what is wrong with asking people to consider things. I ask them to consider things all the time. It is a lot better than not considering anything at all.

johnfás wrote: »

It is quite clear that you have a bias (your term, not mine).

Again false. If you keep insisting on presuming to know people that you do no know, you will continue to be this wrong, this often.

johnfás wrote: »

That your position is based on your philosophical point of view on the concept of secularism.

Again false as this is not what my position on this thread is based on. My position on this thread is based on the fact that colleges have a limited pool of resources and that therefore there should be an onus on them to spend and allocate those resources in a beneficial way to the ends that the college wishes to meet.... namely the education of students and the achievement of good results.

Given that there is nothing on offer here to even suggest that pandering to the spiritual whims of the students by maintaining an on Campus representative... I therefore think the service should be removed.

Nothing to do with secularism OR your imagined biases for me there at all. So when you feel like addressing my actual points, rather than inventing new ones for me, I am here for you.

johnfás wrote: »

You agree, that a cost-benefit analysis is necessary in respect of student services. Yet in the absence of such an analysis in respect of STI clinics you maintain that the benefits of such a clinic is "clear".

It is clear as the effects of contracting an STI are themselves clear. They are massively expensive to treat, they are detrimental to the students ability to engage in study, and they are massively contagious to other students on the campus. Making ANY attempt to stem their contraction is therefore in my opinion a good thing.

However with the maintenance of a Chaplain and the pandering to students Spiritual whims nothing is so clear. There is no sign that Religion is required in order to achieve good results, nothing about it is contagious, no benefits are to be seen and a lack of religion is not a huge financial drain as is an STI.

So even before we get on to the subject of how effective STI clinics actually are... we are already a massive step ahead in the conversation in that the very attempt itself is justified, where as it is not with a Chaplain.

If STI clincs fail in achieving this, I would of course be sitting here calling for their discontinuation. I am of course intrested in studies to find out what their effectiveness is. And if no effectiveness could be shown I would call for their closure. However I am not discussing or asking for such things here, because it is not the topic of this thread. Start a thread on this topic and you will find me over there demanding to hear how we know the expenditure has been justified just like I am here.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am aware of what my own points are, thanks for reminding me. I am also aware that if someone throws around baseless opinions that genuinely affect a whole section of our society, then the onus is on us the reader to point this out and to suggest (s)he go and get some actual basis before throwing opinions about.

If someone does not want their opinion pulled apart, reverse engineered, and critiqued, I would peacefully suggest they reconsider the use of this forum.

Personal experience was the basis for her points and there is nothing wrong with her sharing them. Her points were not 'baseless,' any more or less than yours.

However you are critiquing her opinions with ... more opinions? Absolutely no problem with that. But the difference is you think your opinions are more valid and factual. When in fact they are not, they're just more opinions with no scientific (or even anecdotal) evidence.

You are engaging in the fallacy of "argument from authority" right here. You might want to address that for your own sake if not ours. Something is not correct merely because of WHO is saying it, we have to evaluate WHY they are saying it, and contrary to your and his claims... this has NOT been addressed.

Well only the poster can say why they are saying it. What ever her motivations, at least she can back her argument up with personal experience, giving it a bit more weight than yours which is entirely opinion based.

Nor, I should add, should you put faith in total strangers that they are qualified in the area they say they are just because it happens to fit the thread topic. I see no conformable credentials on here.

Do you think that real life counsellors would agree with what you said? Have you any experience of employees in University health services complaining about a chaplaincy? Or calling for its closure? You appear to be speaking on their behalf when you say what they can and should do. What's your real life experience with college mental health services? I've already outlined mine.

Nice big IF there. I have seen no studies of figures to say that many people are claiming what you say they are. Do you?

Nope purely based on personal experience. In my three years in Uni I worked with the chaplaincy once because of my dying mother, another two times due to the death of a classmate, and maybe another two or three times with various charities and fundraisers. So in my experience with one university, at one period in time, I've seen a few hundred students use the chaplaincy services. The service in case of memorials for my friends was universally welcomed, and I know there were no complaints from a class of 300+. In fact I have never heard of a significant formal complaint being made by students against chaplaincies in Ireland. You should really get on to that.

I already suggested a study, 4 or 5 times on this thread.

First get a group of students with no known issues. Then get a group with medical issues. Then get a group with mental issues. Compare the results of them at the end of the year. This should show you whether addressing the physical and mental needs of students is conducive to improved results.

Now get a group of Atheists, of Christians with a chaplain and of Christians without. Compare their results. This should tell you if pandering to the religious whims of Christians is conducive to improved results.

Now compare the relative comparisons between both studies.

Your study sucks tbh.

This is the kind of study that needs to be done to justify the expenditure of OUR money in OUR colleges and universities. I imagine such a study is nothing something they will rush to partake in however because my own guess, subjective as it is, is that you will find it shows that maintaining the physical and mental health of students has massive implications on end results...... while having a religion, or maintaining a religion if you have one, is entirely irrelevant.

While it didn't go as far as looking into students' brains hivizman already demonstrated how a university conducted a cost benefit analysis which showed that the benefits to having a chaplaincy outweighed the costs. Whether you think the services themselves are legitimate is really irrevelant, we could prove that having a rag week isn't condusive to good end results but it benefits the university from the point of view that it attracts students, makes them happier and makes them more likely to stay. Consequently more profitable for the institution and its students in the long run.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

Personal experience was the basis for her points and there is nothing wrong with her sharing them.

Nor do I think there is. But similarly there is also nothing wrong with me pointing out exactly how and why her personal experience is irrelevant, is useless to submit as evidence, and useless to us in evaluating a real and useful answer to the questions at hand.

I am not sure why you have decided to step up to play the “her hero” role as she is more than capable of speaking for herself, but if your entire point is to tell me there is nothing wrong with her saying what she wants then I agree. Just do not expect me to pander to this in such a way that requires me to point out how and why what she chose to say is useless, irrelevant and likely wrong.

Maybe when you finish defending her uselessly, you can let her speak for herself and get back to posting your OWN evidence and arguments on the topic at hand. You will likely be more successful with this approach too.

Truley wrote: »

they're just more opinions with no scientific (or even anecdotal) evidence.

If you require something I say to be backed up simply tell me what and ask.

Truley wrote: »

she can back her argument up with personal experience, giving it a bit more weight than yours which is entirely opinion based.

Anecdote is not evidence or back up for anything I am afraid, so no, she can not thus far back up what she has said. This is before you even consider the problem that you are taking her "personal experience" to be true on face value. It may be entirely made up. We can all go around simply making up personal experience to fit whatever argument we wish to espouse. It is not hard.

I have literally seen people make up vast amounts of personal experiences as a scientist, only to then come out and say things like: the reason we have gravity is because the earth is spinning.

If you want to be gullible enough to accept anecdote as evidence, especially entirely unverifiable possibly made up personal experience, then so be it, that is your choice and more power to you. Just do not sit there acting like the problem lies with me when I do not make the same questionable choices as you.

Truley wrote: »

Do you think that real life counsellors would agree with what you said? Have you any experience of employees in University health services complaining about a chaplaincy? Or calling for its closure? You appear to be speaking on their behalf when you say what they can and should do.

Irrelevant. It is not their decision either. What one department think should or should not happen to another is of no concern to me. My concern lies with the university itself and the fact that it should be spending OUR money in ways that are demonstrably beneficial and useful to the ends that university is presumed to strive for: The education of the students.

Thus far no one can make any such argument AT ALL and what little arguments there appears to be on face value evaporate when you realise that they can be just as easily, if not actually better, served by a counsellor trained to diagnose the requirements of a student and then refer them on to external sources of that help. JUST LIKE, I add not for the first time, the college GP diagnoses the medical requirements of the students and refers them on to specialists outside the college where necessary.

Truley wrote: »

Nope purely based on personal experience.

What a shame. Come back to me if you ever do find evidence that is not purely anecdotal and unverifiable.

Truley wrote: »

Your study sucks tbh.

Wow, really in depth critique there. Blown away. You really added to the discussion there. Maybe we can conduct the entire rest of the conversation at this level? It would certainly be easier, and quicker. How should I start? "You suck and everything you have said so far sucks, so go suck somewhere else you sucky suck suck".

Seriously, you feel smarter submitting arguments of this caliber? Do you really think it representative of your knowledge, wisdom, experience, education and upbringing all added together?

Truley wrote: »

While it didn't go as far as looking into students' brains hivizman already demonstrated how a university conducted a cost benefit analysis which showed that the benefits to having a chaplaincy outweighed the costs.

Er no he did not. He discussed that the costs were. That is all. The single only "benefit" that he mentioned was that some number of the students in his unverified opinion wanted such a service there. That is, however, not a benefit, that is just pandering to whims, which is not what the management of our funds should be engaged in.

Evidence? Well lets look at his most recent post paragraph by paragraph shall we? I will break it down one paragraph at a time and simultaneously show you how to treat other peoples arguments with actual long thought out critique and argument, rather than just saying "Nah that all sucks" or whatever intellectual diarrhea you want to apply today.

Post number 324. I will show how it not only mentions NOTHING about “benefits” but also lays out a LOT about costs and in fact supports my position very strongly.

First paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, just a sum of how many people are in the college and a generalised break down of just how complex and expensive it is to offer such a service (not just the salaries of the chaplains, but resources such as rooms are used, office costs, administrative assistant and more). It also does not mention all the associated expenses, but leaves much of them out as you will see in a later paragraph.

Second paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, in fact quiet the opposite. He speaks here of how the facilities normally used by the chaplaincy are actually most beneficially used for NON chaplain events. This is exactly my point, that maintaining a chaplain involves diverting resources that can… and according to hivizman usually are… beneficially used in other ways.

Third Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, Same as paragraph two, showing that the same facilities actually bring money IN when not being used by the chaplaincy service itself. This further proves my point. Not only is the diversion of limited resources a COST, but it also causes negative earning potential by taking up the resource that otherwise can be a money draw.

Fourth Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, in fact quiet the opposite. Now that the college has gone as far as providing a chaplaincy service with a full-time Anglican chaplain and a part-time RC chaplain the college must now divert further resources to going on to recognise other faiths in the form of full time dedicated prayer rooms for other faiths, and part time (Fridays) dedication of rooms generally. There is a flood gate effect here which is very important in that once you start pandering to one faith for no reason at all, you then have to throw good money after bad pandering to the others.

Fifth Paragraph: Nope nothing to do with benefits here, and in fact there is a dishonest attempt to justify the expenses by appealing to the money made back by renting the rooms out. However this is useless to us as renting the rooms out can still be done in the absence of the chaplain expenses. The paragraph also mentions, but fails to quantity, a whole HOST of other expenses which I think it important to have quantified.

Summary therefore: We can see that every college resource can be used to bring money in. We see that diverting that resource to other uses therefore not only costs money, but costs earning potential too. This supports my argument that if you wish to use college resources then the onus should be on us to use it only in ways that are demonstratably beneficial and so justify the costs and loss of earnings. However NOTHING in hivizmans post mentions any such benefit at all.

Summary for the not so gifted: Your argument apparently "sucks"

hivizman

I just wanted to mention that the analysis in post #324 was provided in response to Truley's statement "Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all." There is no mention of benefits because Truley didn't ask for information on benefits.

My post #208 reports on a rough-and-ready cost-benefit analysis of a university's chaplaincy service, where the university authorities were satisfied that an economic case (that is, ignoring any spiritual case) for the continued support of the chaplaincy service had been established, on the basis that support provided to students by the chaplaincy service reduced the drop-out rate and consequent loss of fee income.

Kooli

OK so personal experience of having clients helped by the chaplaincy is not acceptable. Personal experience of being personally helped by the chaplaincy, and having classmates helped by the chaplaincy, is not acceptable. Accounts that an economic basis for the continued use of the chaplaincy has been established in a university are not acceptable.
Comparisons to other student services that have just as little 'scientific evidence' to back them up as chaplaincy are not acceptable.

I know you want scientific evidence that a chaplaincy is beneficial. I don't have any. So can we drop it now? Or do you want to keep asking the same question over and over again?

I look forward to your campaigning to also shut down other services that lack evidence. Oh no wait, this is an ideological issue, not a pragmatic one.

I work in a counselling service, and I don't know if we have any direct scientific evidence that our service is beneficial to the college, although we have plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is. But that's not enough, so we'd better shut up shop!!

And Mark Hamill, I'm baffled by your constant reference to placebo - what exactly would a 'placebo' be in this situation? Someone pretending to be a priest? I know you're determined to compare chaplaincy to homeopathy, and placebo is very relevant to homeopathy because homeopaths provide a pill and claim that it has physical/medical effects, but what is the 'placebo' that would perform just as well as the chaplaincy? And what exact and specific claims by the chaplaincy would you actually be testing with this placebo??

I'm annoyed I've been dragged back into this thread but I didn't want to leave Truley to have to defend my points in my absence (because apparently that's not 'acceptable' either!!)

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

OK so personal experience of having clients helped by the chaplaincy is not acceptable. Personal experience of being personally helped by the chaplaincy, and having classmates helped by the chaplaincy, is not acceptable.

First of all no it is not acceptable unless it is verifiable. You might be wholly making it up this anecdotal evidence so how CAN I accept it???

Secondly no it is not acceptable because it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am making.

Why?

Because you could just as effectively helped in the same way with a counselor who diagnosed that a chaplain was required and provided the students in question with a valid external source.

In other words, you are missing my point which is: There is no argument here in your anecdote for maintaining such a contact ON SITE. Or put another way: I am NOT denying that a chaplain can help SOME students and you might find anecdote to this effect. What I AM denying is that this is enough on its own to justify maintaining such a person ON SITE.

I already gave the example that we could maintain an on site Octologist to help with students ear problems and you might even find anecdotal evidence that students were happy to avail of this service should you provide it. Does this mean maintaining an onsite octologist is therefore justified? Of course not.

What we DO instead is maintain an onsite GP, who diagnoses the need for an octologist and refers the student to one externally. Or an optician. Or some other specialist.

I will now put the parallels here in brackets to make them even clearer:

All I am espousing here therefore, which directly means your unverifiable anecdote is irrelevant, is that you can achieve the same thing by maintaining a counselor (like A GP) who can diagnose the requirements of a student and refer him to a Chaplain (octologist), Imam (Optician), Wiccan (Dentist) or whatever else is required without maintaining one of each of those specialists on site.

Is the parallel here really so opaque to you, and therefore the reason why anecdotes of a few students who were happy a chaplain was there are wholly irrelevant????

Kooli wrote: »

I know you want scientific evidence that a chaplaincy is beneficial. I don't have any. So can we drop it now?

Wow, you just want me to convieniently drop the one part of my argument that is the most inconvenient to you? Would you walk into a court of law and act like this? "Sorry your honor, I know you want a murder weapon and a witness, I dont got them... any chance we could just, you know, drop it?"

No I can not just drop it. The lack of evidence that providing such a service is beneficial IS MOST OF MY ENTIRE POINT here. How can I "just drop it"?

Kooli wrote: »

Oh no wait, this is an ideological issue, not a pragmatic one.

Back to playing this record are you? You run back to it every time you can not answer my actual points. I adumbrated my entire argument for you last time you played this record and you were unable to find a single idealogical link or bias with in. Should I do it again? Do you like going in circles this much? Show me ONE part of the points I have raised in the last handful of points that are idealogical in nature. When you fail to do that I will note this post number so I can refer to it NEXT time you run back once again to this wholly inaccurate straw man of my arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo

hivizman wrote: »

on the basis that support provided to students by the chaplaincy service reduced the drop-out rate and consequent loss of fee income.

Which is nothing at all but your assumption. You simply say in post #208 “allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out“.

That is a big massively huge whopping wholly assumed “might” on your part.

Have you any evidence whatsoever to suggest a lack of a chaplaincy would have resulted in any such thing?

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

First of all no it is not acceptable unless it is verifiable. You might be wholly making it up this anecdotal evidence so how CAN I accept it???

Secondly no it is not acceptable because it is wholly irrelevant to the point I am making.

Why?

Because you could just as effectively helped in the same way with a counselor who diagnosed that a chaplain was required and provided the students in question with a valid external source.

In other words, you are missing my point which is: There is no argument here in your anecdote for maintaining such a contact ON SITE. Or put another way: I am NOT denying that a chaplain can help SOME students and you might find anecdote to this effect. What I AM denying is that this is enough on its own to justify maintaining such a person ON SITE.

I already gave the example that we could maintain an on site Octologist to help with students ear problems and you might even find anecdotal evidence that students were happy to avail of this service should you provide it. Does this mean maintaining an onsite octologist is therefore justified? Of course not.

What we DO instead is maintain an onsite GP, who diagnoses the need for an octologist and refers the student to one externally. Or an optician. Or some other specialist.

I will now put the parallels here in brackets to make them even clearer:

All I am espousing here therefore, which directly means your unverifiable anecdote is irrelevant, is that you can achieve the same thing by maintaining a counselor (like A GP) who can diagnose the requirements of a student and refer him to a Chaplain (octologist), Imam (Optician), Wiccan (Dentist) or whatever else is required without maintaining one of each of those specialists on site.

Is the parallel here really so opaque to you, and therefore the reason why anecdotes of a few students who were happy a chaplain was there are wholly irrelevant????



Wow, you just want me to convieniently drop the one part of my argument that is the most inconvenient to you? Would you walk into a court of law and act like this? "Sorry your honor, I know you want a murder weapon and a witness, I dont got them... any chance we could just, you know, drop it?"

No I can not just drop it. The lack of evidence that providing such a service is beneficial IS MOST OF MY ENTIRE POINT here. How can I "just drop it"?



Back to playing this record are you? You run back to it every time you can not answer my actual points. I adumbrated my entire argument for you last time you played this record and you were unable to find a single idealogical link or bias with in. Should I do it again? Do you like going in circles this much? Show me ONE part of the points I have raised in the last handful of points that are idealogical in nature. When you fail to do that I will note this post number so I can refer to it NEXT time you run back once again to this wholly inaccurate straw man of my arguments.

OK I'll try to answer what you've raised here.

So in the above post you have said that you are not infact arguing that chaplains are not helpful, you are just saying that they should not be provided on site whether they are helpful or not. But then you go on to say that lack of evidence for their helpfulness is the crux of the issue for you?

Please choose which point you are actually making:

a) Whether a chaplaincy is helpful or effective for students is actually irrelevant. Either way, there is no need for a university to provide them when that support is available off campus

OR

b) The helpfulness or benefit of the chaplaincy is the important point. I need to see evidence that the chaplaincy is effective or beneficial and you're not giving it to me.

That would clear things up for me, because in the above post you seem to be saying both things. They're both relevant arguments, but I'm not sure which one you are going for.

As for your next point, that a counsellor could easily refer to a chaplain. Yes, I suppose they could, but as I have said time and time and time again, why on earth would a student looking for spiritual guidance, or any of the other services offered by a chaplain, turn up in a counsellor's office in the first place to get that referral? They are completely different services. Do you really think a student would go to a university counsellor looking for religious guidance? For this reason, I don't think the 'referring on' issue is as simple a replacement as you do.

And I do understand your octologist comparison. But I think that enough people required or used or benefited from the services of an octologist, there would be a hypothetical argument for bringing this service on campus. I imagine this is what happened with the STI services.

If there are enough students using the chaplaincy, then I have no problem with it continuing. If the numbers are dwindling, then it should be gotten rid of, same as any service that is no longer relevant to the institution and is not getting value for money anymore. But you don't seem to be concerned about how many students use it, or whether they find it helpful, or whether it prevents dropout. Which to me make it sounds like an ideological issue, rather than a pragmatic one (which is why you don't like the comparison to the STI service, I imagine).


And by 'drop it', I just meant stop asking for scientific evidence repeatedly when I'm not going to give you any!! Asking again isn't going to make any difference!

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Please choose which point you are actually making:

I am making both. Here is some further clarification which should help you.

I am saying that there is no argument I have heard strong enough, even if someone students are happy to have the service, to justify having one on site.

Of course no matter what service you offer SOME student somewhere is going to be happy about it. Try an on site auto mechanic for example!!! Show me how half the faculty would not be happy about THAT? I imagine they would be over joyed at the prospect.

The fact is however we can not pander to every single whim that some student somewhere would be happy to see on site. We have to only cater to the ones that are relevant to the vested interest and goals of our investment in the college: Namely the successful education of students with good results.

Just because some students are happy, or helped, in some way by this service is therefore not enough. We need to demonstrate they were helped in such a way as to positively effect their course completion and improved grades.

No one has shown any such thing, except for hivizman pulling out of thin air that without the service in questions students would have dropped out... a claim he seems to base on nothing except he knows how to claim it.

Kooli wrote: »

as I have said time and time and time again, why on earth would a student looking for spiritual guidance, or any of the other services offered by a chaplain, turn up in a counsellor's office in the first place to get that referral?

Quite a lot of reasons actually. Here are random ones:

1) People seeking help from a counselor are not always aware of what it is they need. That is half the use of a counselor. They are trained to diagnose the kind of help people need even if those people do not know it themselves.

2) In my scenario a counselor would be known as a point of contact for private issues and information that others may not have. If I have spiritual issues and I do not know who to talk to, and it is too private to me just to go around asking people who I should talk to willy nilly... the counselor would be a trusted source for such information on the QT.

3) Also I must add that who says they HAVE to go to a counselor. I have already stated that if there is a society of people in the college who want religious services then why not allow them to come together, form a college society, and apply for funding like every other society in a college does every day. If they are successful, let them pay for their OWN chaplaincy contact to come in occasionally and talk to them. One of my main objections here is that one societies whims are being given a free ride over that of others who DO have to follow the standard red tape procedure. What is it that makes these people think it is one rule for them and one for everyone else?

Kooli wrote: »

But I think that enough people required or used or benefited from the services of an octologist, there would be a hypothetical argument for bringing this service on campus.

The IF there is the problem. Where is the data to suggest that "enough" people are using the chaplaincy service? So far I have seen nothing but anecdotes on this thread, and even if I did accept those anecdotes (which clearly I do not) we can not be talking about more than a handful of people.

Kooli wrote: »

But you don't seem to be concerned about how many students use it, or whether they find it helpful, or whether it prevents dropout.

I am not concerned with how many people use it unless it can be shown to provide a service that is relevant to the vested interests of the college. Even 100% of people using it still does not justify it if the "benefits" it provides can not be shown to have any useful relevance to the successful education of students or an increase in their grading.

You talk of dropouts for example. OF COURSE this would be relevant, if you could show it. However nothing has been offered on this thread AT ALL (ok save for hivizmans wholesale assumptions) that this is the case.

Kooli wrote: »

Which to me make it sounds like an ideological issue

Change the record would you? I have explained my position at length in this post and the last one, and nothing about it is idealogical in nature. It is about finances, justifiable use of finances, and successful education of students. No more.

Kooli

Firstly, you can't really be making both points. Either it DOES matter whether the services are helpful or not, or it DOESN'T. You can't just say 'yeah, both of those things'

So you still don't have an issue that there is no concrete evidence that the student counselling service prevents dropout? Or the careers service? It only matters if it's the chaplaincy that is lacking in evidence.

If a study was done that showed that use of the chaplaincy prevents dropout (let's say for a number of students per year whose fees outweigh what the college spends on the chaplaincy), would you still be arguing that it should be abolished? Just hypothetically. In fact, you probably don't have to answer that. You've made it very clear that this is not an ideological issue for you, so of course you wouldn't. You'd be happy for it to continue, funded by the college. Right?

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Change the record would you? I have explained my position at length in this post and the last one, and nothing about it is idealogical in nature. It is about finances, justifiable use of finances, and successful education of students. No more.

Your positions, though pronounced at length, are not explained to the satisfaction of those other posters on the thread who support the provision of such services. Such posters are not convinced that your differentiation between services such as STI clinics (or counsellors for that matter) from other services such as chaplaincy is legitimate, particularly given your ostensible acceptance of one and non acceptance of the other - in the absence of "evidence" in respect of either.

Furthermore, posters won't change the record. They won't change the record because they are entitled to question the veracity of your assurances that you are only concerned with finances in just the same way are you are entitled to question the veracity of Kooli's "anecdotes". You made reference to the term witness above in respect of trials. It is quite clear that Kooli considers herself a witness to the effectiveness of chaplaincy provisions. If one were engaging in a qualitative study of chaplaincy services, one would engage focus groups including service providers such as Kooli, who is an on campus counsellor. Their anecdotes combined would serve to form the basis of the "evidence" in any cost-benefit analysis.

Just because you say your arguments are not philosophical, Kooli does not have to accept it. She is perfectly entitled to make any conclusion based on the substance of your posts, rather than the headings which you ascribed to them. Just as you do not have to accept Kooli's contention that her own experience is evidence of the efficacy of chaplaincy provision.

In respect of financing - surely your argument would be best served by bringing it to its natural conclusion. We could remove all services and create a computer programme. Students could tick boxes about how they feel and it would direct them towards the appropriate off-campus service provider, whether that is a dentist, a chaplain or a dressmaker. However, we don't do this because students have particular needs which are best served on an individual basis. Myself and other posters believe that the provision of such services on campus, where there is a reasonable demand, is quite legitimate - including where that service is chaplaincy. You disagree. And frankly, the argument is as simple as that.

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

I've been following this debate with great interest. Several years ago, I was working for a university-level institution in the UK, when the issue of whether to replace the college chaplain, who had moved on to another post, came up. I was a member of the working group set up to discuss the issue, and we did a sort of cost-benefit analysis.

This college had been established in the 1890s as an explicitly secular institution, but there had been a salaried college chaplain almost from the beginning (as far as we could tell, this was largely because having a chaplain was simply one of the things that universities of the time had, but it is interesting that having a chaplain was not seen as inconsistent with the secular ethos of the college).

The college put a lot of effort into the pastoral care of students, many of whom came from outside the UK. Students were encouraged to go to their personal tutors, to senior tutors in each department, to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies or the Dean of Graduate Studies, to the health service, and to counsellors for personal support. In addition, the chaplaincy offered personal support and counselling on top of providing religious services for those who wanted them. The chaplaincy consisted of one salaried chaplain (who had in practice always been Church of England), as well as a Roman Catholic priest who served in a local parish and was provided with an additional payment by the Roman Catholic Church to act as RC Chaplain in the college, two non-conformist ministers who were paid by their own churches, a local rabbi and a local imam. In addition to the salary costs of the one paid chaplain (whose salary was tied to the lowest point on the lecturer salary scale), there were accommodation and other overhead costs, which came to about 40% of the salary costs.

We considered the expense of appointing an additional counsellor, but the salary costs alone of this would have been well in excess of the cost of the chaplain's salary, and there would have been no significant saving in overheads.

The chaplaincy was able to demonstrate several cases each year where individual students had specifically sought out support from one of the chaplains, rather than from academic staff or the health or counselling services, for various personal reasons, and it was clear that this support had been of great help to certain individuals, the value of which to the college (in allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out), let alone the personal value to the students, was well in excess of the cost of recruiting and paying a new full-time chaplain. We decided that having a chaplain helped to provide a distinctive student support service of value to the students and the college.

Now, this is an English case rather than directly relating to Irish universities and colleges, but it may be of some help in considering the cost-benefit issue of having a chaplaincy service.

I have quoted post #208 in full, because I simply do not recognise how this is consistent with the claim in post #348:

nozzferrattoo wrote:

Which is nothing at all but your assumption. You simply say in post #208 “allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out“.

That is a big massively huge whopping wholly assumed “might” on your part.

Have you any evidence whatsoever to suggest a lack of a chaplaincy would have resulted in any such thing?

Student support services such as a chaplaincy service quite correctly do not give details of individual students whom they have seen, on confidentiality grounds. However, I was in a working group with the Academic Registrar, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Vice-President of the Student Union and other people, many of whom I had worked with for several years. These people were colleagues whose statements I trusted. The working group was assured by these people as well as by the chaplaincy service that a particular number of students who were considering dropping out stayed on and completed their degree following consultations with and support from the chaplaincy service. The college officials were aware of this not because the chaplaincy breached confidentiality, but simply because students would tell them.

I'm off on holiday tomorrow, and I will have better things to do than follow the progress of this thread. By its very nature, because we are dealing with real people with issues and problems, and professionals such as college chaplains do not consider it appropriate to reveal personal details about people that they help, it will be difficult to obtain evidence in the public domain that will satisfy anti-clerical sceptics. However, given that virtually every tertiary level university and college in Ireland and the UK has a chaplaincy service, it should be possible (certainly in the UK) to use Freedom of Information laws to discover whether, and if so how, universities and colleges have assessed the usefulness of chaplaincy services.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Firstly, you can't really be making both points. Either it DOES matter whether the services are helpful or not, or it DOESN'T. You can't just say 'yeah, both of those things'

Yes I can, if you read what I wrote I even explained how.

The point you are likely missing, which is the one that allows me to say both, I shall repeat:

There is an important difference between “helpful” and “helpful in a way that is relevant to the ends of the organisation”.

I have no doubt at all that a chaplain will be “helpful” to some students. So would an on-site auto-mechanic. This alone however does not justify maintaining either.

If you realise that subtle difference, then the rest of my post will become clearer to you.

Kooli wrote: »

If a study was done that showed that use of the chaplaincy prevents dropout (let's say for a number of students per year whose fees outweigh what the college spends on the chaplaincy), would you still be arguing that it should be abolished?

Such a study were you to present it would be massively informative on my opinion yes and would most likely not leave it unchanged. More than that I can not say as I would merely be guessing at what a hypothetical study may or may not contain and I do not want to thread to descend into fantasy discussion over fantasy studies.

Such a study would have to clearly normalise for the question of whether said chaplaincy is required to be maintained on site in order to achieve what it does however. We can not simply assume that because the students in such a study required A chaplain, that said chaplain had to be on site.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

Your positions, though pronounced at length, are not explained to the satisfaction of those other posters on the thread who support the provision of such services.

Maybe not, but I am happy to keep explaining and elaborating on the points that I am actually making.

None of which are ideological in nature, so it serves only to lie and obfuscate to claim they are. Some people do enjoy their smoke and mirrors.

If you want my positions explained, then allow me to do so without having to defend myself from strawman lies that are nothing to do with what I am saying.

Claims that my disagreements are ideological in nature are done in an attempt to obfuscate what I am saying, not to further understand it.... and are likely done by people who find it easier to cope with what I am not saying, rather than what I am.

johnfás wrote: »

Just because you say your arguments are not philosophical, Kooli does not have to accept it.

Yea and just because you might say you are not purple with pink pokka dots does not mean I HAVE to accept it either. This does not change the fact that me saying you are would be me saying it without a single reason to think it is true.

So just because I say my arguments are not based on my idealogical issues with religion, does not mean that Kooli has to accept that either. This does not change the fact that her claims that they are, are entirely baseless.

Which is why I asked the poster to SHOW one part of my argument that actually IS ideological in nature. The poster failed spectacularly to do so, but just went back to playing the record anyway.

Just saying over and over my posts are ideological when they are not, does not suddenly make it so. Especially when the people saying it can not find a single aspect of the arguments that I am presenting that fit that description.

As usual I am back to informing you, people can say what they want, and I can reply by pointing out how massively unsupported and untrue what they are saying appears to be.

What these people are attempting to do is avoid the arguments I AM making, by attacking ones I am not. If doing this makes them feel intelligent, that’s great for them. Just do not sit there and act like I am the one with the problem for not pandering to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

hivizman wrote: »

I have quoted post #208 in full, because I simply do not recognise how this is consistent with the claim in post #348:

Saying the same thing again does not somehow change it. The post you quoted makes the CLAIM that students would have dropped out if they had not had access to a chaplaincy. However the world is full of "claims". We have to evaluate which claims are likely to be true.

However things do not become true simply because you claim they are true. Where is the evidence that this claim is true? Where is the evidence that students would have dropped out without a chaplaincy, in significant enough numbers to warrant the expense of a chaplain, except the fact you say so?

hivizman wrote: »

Student support services such as a chaplaincy service quite correctly do not give details of individual students whom they have seen, on confidentiality grounds.

Nor am I asking for individual anecdote of this form that break the privacy barrier.

I am asking for evidence or a study that shows your claim that "Students would have dropped out" to be true, or to hold any credence whatsoever even. Studies can be done, and most often are, confidentially, without breaking the confidentiality of a single person.

hivizman wrote: »

These people were colleagues whose statements I trusted.

So now the quality of your anecdotes have dropped from bad personal anecdote to "Friend of a friend who I trust.... honest" anecdotes. We can all invent anecdotes that fit our position and if people do not accept them we can all invent people who appear to agree with us.

hivizman wrote: »

The working group was assured by these people as well as by the chaplaincy service that a particular number of students who were considering dropping out stayed on and completed their degree following consultations with and support from the chaplaincy service.

I am looking for hard facts, not personal assurances by people I do not know, may never know, and given the nature of posting on forums... might not even exist.

For example I have met and read personal assurances by literally 1000s of people into the effectiveness of homeopathy, despite the lack of ANY studies showing that homeopathy performs better than placebo. Am I to take the personal assurances of people concerned regardless? Merely because they choose to make them? Come off it! You would not reduce yourself to acting in that way either, so have some decorum before asking me to do so.

If these alleged people are allegedly so convinced by the alleged voracity of the service in question, then they should be as keen as I am to see experts engage in a comprehensive study of it.

hivizman wrote: »

because we are dealing with real people with issues and problems, and professionals such as college chaplains do not consider it appropriate to reveal personal details about people that they help, it will be difficult to obtain evidence in the public domain that will satisfy anti-clerical sceptics.

This simply is not acceptable or even likely to be true. It is more of a cop out. Why do I say this. Allow me to explain....

MANY mental issues, for example, are intensely private in nature. The professionals working in these areas are bound to client confidentially by law in fact.

This does not stop the mental health industry from making and producing many many confidential but useful studies in those areas.

The world is literally full of medical and mental issues that people want kept private, and the professionals are forced to do so by law, yet studies can be done that maintain that privacy while still providing useful and effective results that help us make decisions on how to deal with those issues.

Why is this one ANY different? Why is the privacy issues here suddenly, and magically, made into a brick wall that some how prevents further study when in the other realms of discourse they are not?

I am left with only one answer, which is that people do not WANT such a study done in this case, lest it show that the service is not useful enough to warrant its existence.

wonton

I my college maynooth, i had to join the choir this year and actually had to sing in a religious service.

it was at christmas and knew we would be sing christmas songs but didnt think there wouldnt actually be readings by priets and the such.

i couldnt believe it as i was marked on attendence and the fact that at this day an age they just expect people to go along with it is ridiculous.