Inferior Education or Inferior Credentials?

As someone who has had first hand exposure & experience with:
A. The on-campus traditional RA system,
B. The RA DL system,
C. The CCU/SCUPS-calibre type Californian-Approved DL system,
I must say that there is a greater gap/deference between systems A. & B. than B. & C.
The big question is - DL or not DL?
Bottom line is that GOOD, I repeat, GOOD DL programs/course do not defer too much regardless of the university & its accreditation status. DL students, in all cases have to make the most of their uni-supplied study guides, prescribed text book(s) & limited on-line/phone discussions with their lecturer/tutor in oger to get value out of their course.
What benefits do I get as, lets say, a UCLA-DL student, if UCLA happened to have fantastic libraries and student amenities in LA - and I live in Kathmandu or down-town Beirut?
Therefore I agree with “Bruce” (a regular NG user) when he said:

“I don't think that the general opinion is that you get an inferior education, but an inferior credential (degree)”

CFr

 

It's my opinion that the credential may need to be used to get through the gate (i.e., HR) before any ability or training may be evaluated by a technical manager. Therefore if you're going to pay an institution to study and earn a diploma, it makes little sense for it to not be properly accredited. My objection to places such as Kennedy Western is that you might as well take a tenth of the money you're about to give them and purchase a bunch of Sam's Guides or {subject} In a Nutshell books instead.

The way it actually works in the IT field, however, is if you know how to do something, and enough other people know that, you'll always have work.

Mark A. Sykes

 

I'll repeat what I posted in another item that the perceived credential value of a degree often depends more on how difficult it was to get accepted into the program than the work you did once you got there.

Because most DL programs, for reasons of financial necessity and/or educational philosophy, have basically open admissions, this is one reason why the DL student may actually work harder and learn more (in legit DL programs, that is) but somehow find his or her degree less valued by a prospective employer.

But before anyone gets too riled over this being an injustice to DL, let's acknowledge that this dynamic occurs in higher ed generally. I went to a law school (NYU) that is hard to get into but that doesn't (excuse my language) bust balls once you're there. The law school I teach at (Suffolk in Boston) has much easier admissions standards but requires its students to do a fair amount of work to get through. Nevertheless, the lower admissions standards have a negative effect on the school's placement in national rankings.

DL, in short, runs into the same issues of institutional prestige that affect the rest of higher ed.

 

David, don't sell Suffolk Law School short. They are the single greatest producer of Assistant District Attorneys, politicians, and politician wanna-be's that Massachusetts has ever seen.

Bruce

 

Heh Bruce, I actually love the students at Suffolk! Bright, hardworking, fairminded. But those U.S. News rankings have greatly affected the landscape of American legal education, and schools that (1) historically have had a strong regional orientation but not much of a national one, and (2) have lower median GPAs and LSATs have really suffered under them.

And God help us if U.S. News (or some other visible source) gets into the business of ranking DL institutions. Innovation and opportunity may be sacrificed in the name of fitting into the criteria defined in the rankings.

 

I was just kidding David, I actually have much respect for Suffolk Law. It's just a joke among police in the Boston area...where did your A.D.A. go to Law School, Suffolk or NESL?

Actually, one of my co-workers recently graduated from Suffolk Law & just passed the Bar exam. Give me a shout at [email protected], I'm sure you know him.

Bruce