University Accreditation Results(Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for university)

Tokyo Union Theological Seminary
Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: Private

Location: Tokyo, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2012
Accreditation Status: accredited (Accreditation Period: April 1, 2013 – March 31, 2020)

Related Links
Tokyo Union Theological Seminary: http://www.tuts.ac.jp/11/english
Full Text of the Accreditation Results (in Japanese):
http://www.juaa.or.jp/accreditation/university/result_2012.html
Accreditation Standards, Process and other related information (in English):http://www.juaa.or.jp/en/accreditation/university.html

2

Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Resultsfor Tokyo Union Theological Seminary
Notable Strengths
Mission and purposes

It is commendable that Tokyo Union Theological Seminary actively andconsistently disseminates its educational mission and purpose to students as aunique academic community of higher education seekers pursuing religious
callings. For example, a chapel service is held four days a week; student-faculty
meetings are held for students to talk about their requests with faculty and staff;
students present their ideas with a set theme related to the seminary’s philosophy;
freshman orientation provides an introduction to studying theology; and students
discuss topics they choose at class meetings.

Student support
The seminary has been offering various scholarships to support students
financially for the last twenty years. This is a commendable effort on the part ofthe seminary, considering its small budget.

Suggestions for Improvement
Mission and purposes

The seminary offers a six-year program from undergraduate to master’s education
with the purpose of cultivating persons of talent. But the mission and purposes of
the undergraduate and master’s programs have not been defined separately. Under
the School Education Law, the purposes for the undergraduate and graduate
programs differ, so the mission and purposes for these should be differentiated.

Educational content, methods, and outcome

The criteria for awarding degrees have not been clearly established in the Facultyof Theology or the Graduate School of Theology. These should be defined inaccordance with the mission and purpose of the seminary and made public.

In the Faculty of Theology and the master’s and doctoral programs in the Graduate
School of Theology, some classes are offered jointly, having the same syllabus andcontaining the same content and grading criteria. This should be improved inaccordance with purpose of each program.

In the Faculty of Theology, the maximum number of credits a student can registerfor per year has not been set. This should be improved in accordance with thepurpose of the credit system.

In the Graduate School of Theology, criteria for examining degree-seeking
dissertations have not been clarified. This should be improved, by specificallystating the criteria for students in the Student Handbook (and other handbooks).

Enrollment
The policies for student admission have not been separately clarified forundergraduate and graduate programs. These should be made public, especially for3

program applicants.
Education and research environment
The seminary does not have regulations for research ethics nor an ethics
committee. This should be improved by establishing regulations for ethics anddeveloping a system for fair ethical review.

Administration and finance

As student enrollment has never reached its cap, a mid- to long-term financial planfor education and research is needed. Donations did not reach the amountenvisioned in the 2007 financial plan, so a realistic financial review should also
take place.

Internal quality assuranceSeminary policies and attainment goals have not been clarified in the seminary’s
education and research activities, and so it is difficult to confirm that the seminary
has built a system to make efforts for improvement and reform. The seminary’s
measures to assure the quality of its education and research are insufficient. The
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle should function effectively to establish aninternal quality assurance system for continuous and substantial measures leading
to improvement.

Areas of Serious Concern
Faculty and faculty organization

As of 2010, the seminary as a whole lacks one full-time faculty member to meetthe number required by law. Moreover, in terms of the number of faculty requiredby the law, the master’s program lacks one and the doctoral program lacks one.
This must be rectified at the earliest opportunity.

Educational content, methods, and outcomeIn the doctoral program of the Graduate School of Theology, students are required
to publish a paper in an academic journal, but a research instruction plan does notexist. This must be ensured by implementing an instruction plan for research andthesis writing.

Enrollment
In the Faculty of Theology, in the last five years, the average of the ratios ofenrolled freshmen to the freshman admission cap is extremely low at 0.20. The
ratio of enrolled students to the student enrollment cap for the whole seminary is
low at 0.64. These numbers must be improved.