Folks, in a recent discussion with an acquaintance who is a PHD-Finance I was startled by his view on DL. He absolutely refuses to accept DL students since they add to his workload but not to his income for the course. We discussed the teaching for teaching's sake and he was firm on his decision. For this same reason he will only do cohort programs and not individual PHD candidates. Maybe I am altruistic but do others of you share similar views? I would have thought the very nature of a PHD was to impart this knowledge to others seeking it, in whatever manner. I understand that workload plays a large part in any professor's ability to teach. His situation may be unique. Any thoughts from you folks on whether teaching at a distance is rewarding and/or actually performing the educational function for which it is designed? Kevin
I do a fair amount of teaching at a distance as well as teaching on-ground. I prefer on-ground because it allows for closer relationships with students and has more defined times (e.g. classes meet certain hours). On-line has some pluses in flexibility (I can travel while I'm teaching), but definite negatives including less closseness and the need to communicate 7 days a week. Also, many on-line classes are taught in compressed schedules (such as 6 weeks) that don't give students enough time to really learn the material. As for the income situation - it all depends on the institution. Most DL programs use adjuncts to keept their cost low. Compensation plans vary, but typically you are paid $x to teach a section of DL students. Some schools keep on-line sections small (under 15) and pay you for additional sections. Others pay based on the number of students you have. Perhaps your friend is teaching on-ground and the school he is at is trying to load him up with DL students on top for free. I can see his reservations with this. DL is a way to achieve educational needs of students. I have some qualms about the quality of such programs, but not because of the media. My biggest concerns are the lack of admission standards and use of large adjunct corps (with few or no full-time faculty). Too many schools (both non-profit and for-profit) look to DL as a cash cow instead of focusing on academic quality. Regards - Andy
Compressed schedules Andy, I must disagree with some of your generalizations here. The worst compression I ever saw for a college level class was in my wife's bachelor's degree completion program. The program was a face to face program at a B&M. She had one class that was five weeks long. It has been shown incorrect that face time always increases learning. Several schools (recent article in CHE) have found that classes taught in a variety of formats have like outcomes. It is felt that this is because the students will gravitate to the class where they feel more comfortable. Personally, I hated being limited to the pace of the dimmest bulb in the class and found DL liberating. Without a doubt I learned more because of it. Also, I have a problem with the assumption that full time professors are automatically stellar in quality. I have had classes with both real and adjunct professors and felt the attitude and knowledge of some of the full timers left a lot to be desired. I had a literature teacher once who was an absolutely clueless ditz. Hated the class, but I cruised through with an A with little effort. Worse, many schools use TA's to teach undergrads and who knows what you get there? The fact is, there are good and bad professors of every stripe. Neither are a lack of admission standards unique to DL. Many community colleges, by law, have open admissions to anyone with a high school diploma and many 4 year colleges, public and private, have de facto open admissions just to fill their seats. I work every day with B&M college graduates with way less than wonderful communication skills which leaves you wondering how they made it through college. No situation is the same as the other but I find in my contacts with "real" college professors that many are threatened by DL and the boom in adult education. One candidly admitted he was very comfortable with teaching 3 classes a semester and having 10 weeks off a year. He was concerned that current trends could place his position in jeopardy and he stated he wasn't alone in feeling that way. Without a doubt, in your position you have heard the same. Just my perspective.
Chris, TA's were one of the reasons I left UW-Madison and finished my BA at Auburn-Montgomery. Class sizes were awful, the TA's were not well briefed on the class lectures, and worse, the TA's graded the work. I felt lost. That was over 20 years ago. I notice that Wisconsin has an extensive DL system now. I completely agree with the working at your own pace. I am weak in some areas and would hate to slow a class down because of this. I am also strong in other areas. More importantly is the ability to study as time and place permits rather than at a designated time and place. But ultimately, access to the class/program at all drives me to DL. Since us adult learners have established careers for the most part, I believe that the power of the consumer will drive more DL programs into existence. Both you and Andy have made some valid points. Thanks to both for taking the time. Kevin
Re: Compressed schedules Chris - I won't disagree that some full-time profs are weak. The point I'm trying to make has to do with continuity. A faculty made of only term-at-a-time adjuncts lacks continuity and a basis for faculty governance. There are certainly good and bad profs that are full-time and adjuncts. I like AACSB's new approach to faculty. They don't care whether a faculty member is full-time or part-time, tenured or non-tenured. They are concerned, however, with the percentage faculty that are participating in faculty governance and other non-teaching faculty tasks (research, curriculum development, etc.). As for admission standards you're right - many schools face this problem. What I find ridicuous is the notion that anyone can earn a masters degree. Given the weak standards of too many colleges we find students with degrees who can't write or do even simple math. Unfortunately, DL institutions that operate with open admissions don't help this already bad situation. Regards - Andy
open admissions Andy, I am not sure that open admissions are the issue. A student should be allowed to make up for past GPA or prerequisite issues by demonstration in studies. A GPA of 2.0 will get you graduated with a Bachelors. However we all know that this is not sufficient for graduate admissions in most cases. If a student can demonstrate successfully in graduate studies then would not that justfy the open admissions. Many schools UMUC, for one, do not believe that the GMAT, or the GRE, are effective measures for folks that have been out of college for a length of time. Actually, a set of refresher requirements for any one being out for a long time (pick a number) would make good sense and provide for a measure of student suitability. Essentially, your policy is one where the learned get the education and the folks who may really benefit from additional schooling are excluded. My assumption from your comments is that you have never benefited from any deviated standard or exception on your behalf. As for anyone earning a masters, what are the numbers for folks with masters degrees? Your comment also assumes that anyone can earn the bachelors prior to the masters. But, I may have missed the point. Kevin
Re: open admissions I have no problem with people improving themself through education. What I'm concerned about is the continuing drop in academic standards. My concern lies in the fact that many DL institutions are so driven to grow enrollment that they have little concept of academic standards. Increasingly the concept is that everyone should be able to earn a bachelors and masters degree, regardless of their academic ability. In an effort to be inclusive, schools ignore basic skills and hand out degrees to poorly qualified students. No one wants to fail a student - so we passed them, regardless of how weak their abilities are. The financial incentive for DL programs is to graduate lots of students and make it easy - so that they can tell their friends how easy it is to earn a degree. I've heard ads from numerous DL programs that focus on how accessible their programs are - and how you don't have to sacrifice time with family to earn a degree. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble - but I've yet to see anyone learn without work. In our rush to see students complete a bachelor's degree in a degree completion program in one year's time with only one class per week or earn an MBA part-time in 18 months - what happened to academic rigor? What a joke! Why does it take a highly qualified student 2 academic years to earn an MBA at a top flight school like Harvard or Stanford when a poorly qualified students can earn an MBA from a part-time DL program in 18 months? I'll tell you the answer - the letters after one's name may say "MBA", but a part-time DL MBA earned in 18 months doesn't compare to a top flight MBA. A practical example - should a person be able to earn an MBA who cannot add simple decimal numbers? I routinely see such people in DL MBA courses. The skills they lack should be taught in high school. How did they earn a college degree? Almost all of the weak students I see come through DL MBA programs graduated from weak DL BA (or BBA) programs. Open admissions at the undergraduate level leads to weak BA graduates. And these weak BA graduates filter into weak MBA programs, convinced that they are capable of doing graduate work. Why not? They earned a 3.7 undergraduate GPA. The worst of it comes when I review faculty lists for DL programs. What do I see? Too many folks that graduated from weak undergraduate programs and weak MBA programs teaching another generation of students. Sorry to rant - but I sometimes I get frustrated with what I see. Regards - Andy
Andy, rant away. The process is enlightening. I hate to say it but you almost make feel guilty working on a DL degree. (notice I said almost) However, the program I am following stays within the normal semester system and will take two years. Several of my friends have MBAs from the University of Alabama or Auburn. I believe Alabama is fairly high regarded. I am not sure about Auburn, but if cost is an indication the EMBA ought to be first rate. However, I have heard some of the same comments from them. If these programs pass the AACSB accreditation is this not a measure of the quality of the program? I'm not sure that there is a solution other than this body. But if your assertions are valid then what does this speak of the accreditation process. Surely some is better than none. And to continue the accreditation, isn't the fact that a dissertation has been defended and the PHD or DBA conferred an acceptance by your own community? I don't know about enrollment pressures but in any school that offers a DL program in addition to B&M it seems a useful marketing tool. I agree with academic rigor and the work involved. But do not confuse two years spent or 18 months spent as an indicator of any individual's actual time spent on the work of education. I would venture that I put in significantly more time than a student who is on campus and has the nuances of campus life for a distraction. Having done both I am more focused now. Of course with the right professor and in the right environment I would probably glean more. But if the level of presentation has been lowered as you state then maybe I am getting more out of my self study. As for Harvard, they have a masters DL program also. One in IT. Guess technology folks aren't as hampered by the walls. I contemplated but can't justify the costs. A friend of mine has summed the issue up succinctly "It's all about the money". by the way tag....
You needn't feel guilty about working on a DL degree. I see many capable students complete such degrees due to their need for access. And many of these students perform at a high level. What bothers me is the lower end of the performance scale. Without entrance standards, many DL programs end up with bi-modal populations - a group of good students and a group of weak students. As for AACSB - it is an excellent standard for schools to aspire to. Going for AACSB forces schools to make significant (and I'd argue worthwhile) changes. What I note, however, is that so many DL programs don't go for AACSB. Why? Because many wouldn't qualify. And for whatever reason, many DL schools don't seem to care. Many mid-career students don't seem to either. As for dissertation defenses - the problem comes when schools employ their own grads (or grads of similar programs) on committees. The whole inbreeding business is a serious problem. If a person's committee is made up of all DL doctoral grads - what do you expect the result to be? There are laws about cousins marrying cousins ... perhaps DL schools could learn some lessons. As for rigor - I know many DL students live busy lives. But if a traditional, high quality MBA program takes two years of full-time study (as Harvard, Stanford and other schools do), how can a student working part-time come close? I think back to my years as a full-time grad student. There is no way I could have worked a full-time job and completed the same education. Regards - Andy
But Andy, you forget Those 2 year MBA programs have an internship element. Many excellant schools have 1 year programs for more experienced business managers who do not require an internship to validate their learning. I see some foreign MBA programs that are even longer than 2 years. Are they inherently superior? I agree with your assertion that not all programs are equal but neither are all students. Many of the students in high powered MBA programs are non-business majors changing careers. Ater 2 years they will be marketed as some kind of business wunderkind when they have zero business experience outside of school and their internship. I would be much more impressed by a graduate of a top Executive MBA program who has 10 years experience under his or her belt but EMBA's are considered by many a lesser degree even when it comes from the same school. Also, you hear the constant ranting about how the real value of an MBA is the people you meet and work with. In an EMBA you work with real business people working every day in the real world. Those are contacts! What do you get in a full time MBA? Engineers, lawyers, teachers, and who knows what else wanting to get rich with a platinum plated MBA. Knowing them is not worthless but the knowledge that can be gained from inexperienced people does not add up to experience if you know what I mean. The point here is that not all learning or learners are the same. Some will do well in school but still be worthless at work because it takes different skill sets to thrive in the workplace than it does in school. Some may be poor students but do really well applying the knowledge they gained in the real world. And no, not everyone should go on to a masters degree. Not every job requires it but that is the way our country is going so people have to adapt to succeed. A BA is almost the equivelant of a high school diploma 40 years ago. I think someone on this board called it the "Educational Industrial Complex".
MBA but not for business Chris, Andy, I agree with many points of both your arguments. Let me offer one additional thought. I did not pursue MBA classes to utilize these as a marketing tool for career. I pursued MBA classes to have a better understanding of the business process my IT folks have to support and the infrastructure needed to accomplish the business processess. Without some background of what the business side of the house faces I may actually implement in the wrong direction. I agree that the better the school perhaps the better of education. Since coming to this forum I have come to a better understanding of the quality of business degrees. However, I am pursuing a second masters in management of IS. IS often falls into the Business school in many institutions and in the Computer and Engineering in others. I am not sure where it should fall since it properly supports both. I am sure, however, that the management of IS belongs in a school of management. So, if I ever proceed towards a PHD it will be in some type of management. The other issue is that I work in government and our efforts are not geared towards making a profit. It would be nice, my agency expended about $26 billion in support of government missions. What's the going rate for profit sharing? (I think that puts us a little above the Fortune 500 arena.) While, continued education is mandated to maintain some of my certifications, I don't think I would be allowed to go to school full-time. Nor, would you folks as taxpayers want to pay for any education or training that was not directly related to the services the government provides to its citizens. The point I am trying to make is that my efforts (and personal expenditure) to better my education do not impact my income and are for my personal benefit and satisfaction, and in so doing increase my abilty to provide you folks fair measure for your tax dollars. I am sure that I am not alone in this altruism. However the continued discord from the public with civil servants has provided me with impetus to look beyond this career.
Hi Kevin -- I have taught in a classroom and online. I've been an educator for over 20 years so I've seen it all -- the huge traditional classes taught by clueless TAs or out-to-lunch professors or the occasional outstanding prof as well as online classes designed and taught by clueless profs (full time and adjunct) and those designed and taught by outstanding profs (both full time and adjunct). Personally, I prefer teaching online for several reasons, the primary ones being that I set my own schedule and I get to know my students personally much more than I would seeing them once a week for a few hours. Many of my graduate students become colleagues and friends (we are, after all, in the same profession). My students live all over the world. We communicate via discussion forum and email. I know more about my students than any on-ground prof could even begin to know about every student in a traditional course. For example, I know which of my students are married, engaged, divorced, widowed. I know how many and the ages of my students' children and grandchildren. I know when my students have illness (personal or family) or surgeries. I know when my students have personal and professional issues that temporarily interfere with their studies -- and I know what those issues are as I am often asked for advice regarding these issues. No on-ground professor could ever know students so well when seeing them for only a few short hours per week. But then, most professors wouldn't care to know students this well. Once the course is over, students move on, and professors know nothing more of their students lives. Many of my students keep in touch with me long after courses are over. Some email once a year or so to catch up on what's been going on. With some, I have developed a lasting professional and personal relationship that benefits both sides -- and we continue to share ideas and learning long after the course (and program) is over. There are a number of students every semester with whom I keep in contact on a regular basis after they leave my classes. I wonder how many traditional profs can say the same? Back to setting my own schedule -- nothing beats thatdlinstructor Sure I often work 7 days a week, but at least three of those days is nothing more than monitoring discussions and emails -- about 2 hours at most. Assessing discussions and written work is not all that time consuming -- I speed read, type 100 wpm on a bad day, and use macros and talking desktop to speed up my work process. I can listen to emails and dictate and send responses while I'm doing other things in my office. I have no need to be "glued to" to my computer. I can listen to written work, dictate comments, and save to send back to students without being anywhere near my desk I could do that while driving on a long trip (sort of like listening to books on tape, or dictating letters in a recorder, but much safer than talking on a phone or putting on make up -- or even reading the newspaper while driving which I've seen plenty!!). Teaching online has SO many benefits and I wouldn't trade my professiona life for anything So the answer to your question is -- no, not all profs are like the one you described - not by a long shot. Some of us actually love our work and enjoy getting to know our students Happy holidays -- Leslie
Hi Kevin -- I have taught in a classroom and online. I've been an educator for over 20 years so I've seen it all -- the huge traditional classes taught by clueless TAs or out-to-lunch professors or the occasional outstanding prof as well as online classes designed and taught by clueless profs (full time and adjunct) and those designed and taught by outstanding profs (both full time and adjunct). Personally, I prefer teaching online for several reasons, the primary ones being that I set my own schedule and I get to know my students personally much more than I would seeing them once a week for a few hours. Many of my graduate students become colleagues and friends (we are, after all, in the same profession). My students live all over the world. We communicate via discussion forum and email. I know more about my students than any on-ground prof could even begin to know about every student in a traditional course. For example, I know which of my students are married, engaged, divorced, widowed. I know how many and the ages of my students' children and grandchildren. I know when my students have illness (personal or family) or surgeries. I know when my students have personal and professional issues that temporarily interfere with their studies -- and I know what those issues are as I am often asked for advice regarding these issues. No on-ground professor could ever know students so well when seeing them for only a few short hours per week. But then, most professors wouldn't care to know students this well. Once the course is over, students move on, and professors know nothing more of their students lives. Many of my students keep in touch with me long after courses are over. Some email once a year or so to catch up on what's been going on. With some, I have developed a lasting professional and personal relationship that benefits both sides -- and we continue to share ideas and learning long after the course (and program) is over. There are a number of students every semester with whom I keep in contact on a regular basis after they leave my classes. I wonder how many traditional profs can say the same? Back to setting my own schedule -- nothing beats that! Sure I often work 7 days a week, but at least three of those days is just monitoring discussions and emails -- about 2 hours at most. Assessing discussions and written work is not all that time consuming -- I speed read, type 100 wpm on a bad day, and use macros and talking desktop to speed up my work process. I can listen to emails and dictate and send responses. I can listen to written work, dictate comments, and save to send back to students. I have no need to be "glued to" my computer. I could do that while driving on a long trip (sort of like listening to books on tape, or dictating letters in a recorder, but much safer than talking on a phone or putting on make up or even reading the newspaper while driving -- all of which I've seen plenty on the roads these days!!). Teaching online has SO many benefits and I wouldn't trade my professional life for anything! We travel and go on trips when we please - -I can work from anywhere. So the answer to your question is -- no, not all profs are like the one you described - not by a long shot. Some of us actually love our work and enjoy getting to know our students Happy holidays -- Leslie
Leslie, Happy Holidays. Thanks for the positive response. While debate is good, sometimes a positive perspective is nice to interject with from time to time. Enjoy the New Year. Kevin Happy Holidays to all.
