A closing (and hopefully ending note) on rigor

It seems I've hit a hornet's nest talking about rigor. Frankly, I'm inclined to end the discussion. But here are a couple of notes - hopefully, to close loose ends:

1. I agree that DL isn't the issue - the "No significant difference" work makes this clear.

2. My focus, problably not clearly stated, wasn't all of the DL world. I'm particularly interested in taught DL distance programs in the US leading to a doctorates in business. I care about this area because I deal with students and graduates from such programs. I'm also concerned because my degree is from such a program - and I'm interested in seeing DL have a good reputation.

3. There are all kinds of DL institutions and all kinds of DL students - some are excellent, some are not. My biggest concern is the wide range of graduates and what this does to the perception of DL programs. Weak graduates can hurt the overall reputation of their institutions specifically and DL programs in general.

4. The question of rigor seems like a relevant topic for this newsgroup. Two of the schools we've talk about here have been under increased scruitiny from their accreditors and regulators. Two others, it appears, have recently modified their policies to increase rigor. I don't this discussion as totally hypothetical - the subject is quite real.

5. The discussion has become increasingly personal and this is a shame. I talked about a strictly hypothetical case and somehow people are taking this personally and are in some crisis. Whenever this happens, it strikes me that we need to discuss ideas, not people.

6. I strongly favor accessiblity and learning opportunities for all. However, the nature of graduate work may make it difficult or impossible for some to successfully complete a doctorate. In my own case, had it not been for NSU, I wouldn't have been able to execute a career switch. The question is, however, what sort of quality controls will schools employ. Entrance exams, and rigorous, proctored exams are two ways that schools can go. The letters "PhD" should mean something - namely that the graduate can read and write scholarly work at a credible level.

7. I'm satisfied with my NSU degree. Before I started the program I called a number of graduates to check on their experiences. I've received exactly the utility I expected from my NSU degree.

I hope we can close this discussion - and move on to other topics.

Regards - Andy

 

I've mostly agreed with what Andy has said although I see him as being much more knowledgable than myself. I don't know why this topic became personalized but I believe that it must remain a topic of discussion. Bill Dayton is likely to be correct in saying that DL will not truely "arrive" until some DL scholar becomes a "must read" within his discipline. While this sets the bar quite high, I would add that this is a very subjective and arbitrary criteria. What I would like to see (this is my Social Work activist persona speaking) is for some DL student who has had to display all the positive qualities of drive, determination, etc. to push through the PhD "finish line" and continue to publish quality research within the field of their choice. They do not need to win the Nobel prize to be considered to be "legitimate." They may need to be able to demonstrate that they continue to contribute to their field of study beyond their dissertation. This would place them shoulder-to-shoulder with their B&M PhD colleagues. That's enough for me.
Jack

 

Hypothetical or Not? B-)

"4. ... I don't this discussion as totally hypothetical
- the subject is quite real."

"5. ... I talked about a strictly hypothetical case and
somehow people are taking this personally and are in
some crisis. "

Andy,

OK, I'm confused as you seem to state two opposing
comments in your above points ... as you seem to
be skirting around, what to you, IS a personal issue
by almost, but not naming REAL specific schools ... yet
then you wonder why the content of the replies?

Wonder how you might have responded when Nova
was considered to be lacking in some of the key points
you cite ... as Nova's programs were so new that most
in academics considered the school to be in low regard
back in what the 1970's (?) as I recall from past posts ...

DL is changing, as are the standards ... 10 - 15 years
from now ... DL standards might even be higher than
those of B&M ... at this point ... we really just don't know.

But the future promises to be interesting for certain.

Thanks for raising the topic for discussion.

Billy
Touro learner.

 

Re: Hypothetical or Not? B-)

I meant to say in point 4 - "I don't think that this discussion is totally hypothetical". In point 5 - "I started out talking about a totally hypothetical case and somehow people..."

Rigor is more or less an issue at all schools - B&M and DL. I was concerned that if I named schools, alums and current students might rise up in defense.

Regards - Andy

 

It's good enough for me too.

But I thought that the whole point of the other thread was Andy's assertion that good enough simply isn't good enough. Doctoral programs need to strive to be excellent, not just adaquate.

That's what I was addressing: how weak doctoral programs can more closely resemble prestige programs.

I hypothesized that departmental prominence might correlate better with faculty strength than it does with admissions selectivity. The best departments tend to be the places where leading people teach and where important work is done.

My proposed prescription was that if DL doctoral programs really wanted to emulate the prestige programs, the best way to do it would probably be to emphasize research more heavily.

I think that's probably the most direct route to "top" standing.