Viability of DL Doctorates

Folks - The attached note was recently mailed to the ISWORLD email list. This list is made of IS faculty worldwide. It is a response for information regarding the viability of folks with DL doctorate degrees. Being such a person, I take this note with great interest. Call these folks "out of touch, out of date, etc." they are the ones that make hiring decisions.

Thanks - Andy


-----------------------
Dear Folks

Several months ago I sent out a survey on ISWorld concerning the hiring of
candidates with distance learning degrees.

I received 22 responses from 22 schools. Of these, 21 schools are in the US
(15 with AACSB accreditation) and 1 school is in Australia. Out of 22
schools, all of whom have been hiring tenure-track faculty, just one school
(US, Management, not AACSB, offering undergraduate and MBA degrees, working on
a Ph.D. program) has hired someone with a distance learning degree into a
tenure track line. And the degree was from an AACSB school with a distance
learning program. The same one school has hired a faculty member with a
degree from Nova Southeastern into a non-tenure track line.

One other US School of Information Sciences has interviewed a candidate with a
distance learning degree.

5 schools with AACSB accreditation indicated they would only hire candidates
from AACSB schools. 4 additional schools have unofficial policies not to hire
candidates with distance learning degrees.

Most comments expressed negative reactions to distance learning degrees. One
was positive. A sampling of these comments is included below.

“...no way I can conceive that a person sitting at home doing an electronic
correspondence course(s) can learn the art of scholarly research, nor could
they practice (much less master) the fine art of teaching…”

“...unofficial policy is that certain DL programs are not suitable for tenure
track...would hire some DL with strong industry experience…”

“...don’t think that distance learning at the Ph.D. level fully appreciate the
academic environment…”

“...not legitimate..”

“ I would have to see a much higher evidence of legitimacy (ie multiple
publications, evidence of previous teaching skills, etc) from such an
individual.”

“Only [sic] under the most unusual circumstances…”

“…strong reservations…”

“Professors who teach in schools of business seem to be more effective
teachers if they have relevant industry experience…Most professionals are not
able … to take 3 years or more to get a Ph.D…Distance learning programs become
a practical method…to get …a Ph.D.”

*********************************************************************
*
* Diane M. Fischer, Ph.D.
* Computer Information Systems
* Dowling College
* Oakdale, New York 11769-1999
*
* phone: (631)244-3264
* fax: (631)244-5098
* email: [email protected]
*
**********************************************************************

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

What a bunch of jackasses. I personally would be *more* likely to hire the typical DL grad, since I've found them to be strongly motivated, self-starting adults with several years of *real world* experience, and are usually working in the fields in which they are pursuing their doctorates.

I'm 35 years old right now, with 13 years experience as a police officer. I'm figuring on getting my DL doctorate in Criminal Justice (if all goes mostly as planned) by my early 40's at the latest. Who would you want to be teaching you Criminal Justice, me with 20+ years experience in the field AND an RA DL Ph.D., or a twenty-something with a newly minted traditional Ph.D. who has never been outside the Ivory Tower?

Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my pet peeves...

Bruce

 

I agree totally. Fortunately I must be one of the few who achieved tenure with distance qualifications. I guess my 25 years work experience, together with many years of training experience was taken into account.

 

They are the guardians of a dying breed. I've often contended that the main purpose for the AACSB is as a "good ol' boys" club, keeping undesirables out. Besides, it shouldn't surprise anyone that AACSB-accredited schools would want to hire graduates of the same.

The facts are clear: DL is here not only to stay, but to dominate. Oh, sure, there will always be a Harvard (at least in our lifetimes). But follow the money trail and you'll find not only the "new breed," but old hands getting into the new business: distance learning. And all the hand-wringing, protectionism, elitism, and barring of doors won't change that.

On a slightly different note: we talk a lot about the usefulness of doctorates earned by distance learning in getting teaching positions. Why? DL programs are designed primarily for working professionals who wish to advance in their careers. We see many people teaching with DL degrees (accredited and unaccredited), then surmise they either earned them while in their posts and/or didn't need them for their posts in the first place. No kidding. If it was my goal to get on the tenure track (and eat academic you-know-what for years, hoping to hang on), I would attend a residential university with a professionally accredited program (if applicable). That's how you get teaching experience and meet the people who will get you started on your career. But I have a career, thank you, and couldn't care less whether or not a degree from the CEU or The Union Institute got me on faculty at Podunk U. They couldn't afford me anyway.

Rich Douglas

 

You are right Rich. Most 2nd and 3rd tier colleges cannot afford me. For me to opt for a tenure track means that I am prepared to take a pay cut. I am not yet ready for that. That's why I prefer to teach as an adjunct.

Ike

 

Excellent points, Rich. One could probably use those points (and others) as justification for pursuing a CA State-approved degree rather than RA and save on the expense and the hassles.

Bob

 

One reason behind the discussion of the acceptability of DL degrees for teaching slots is that regardless of what we think of the academic hierarchy, there is a sense that DL becomes more legitimized when the academic world accepts DL degrees for entry into the club. The Union Institute, for e.g., implicitly recognizes this when it makes available long PDF files listing alums who are in academic positions.

It's a weird and ironic dynamic, seeking approval from the very system that many legitimately criticize. I admit to being a line-straddler on this question, because I've spent the last 10 yrs. teaching in residential ABA law schools. I think there are real advantages to residential education, but I agree with many of the criticisms that are lodged toward residential institutions.

That said, I still hold to the notion that the most useful way to evaluate a DL doctoral program is one of looking at outcomes: Did the graduate learn something useful while completing a quality program? And does the degree help the graduate reach the objectives that brought her to the program in the first place?

 

I would tend to think that many of the respondees are out of touch with scholarship in the Information Age. Especially in light of the many Ph.D. articles I have read over the past couple of years in the Chronicle and other journals. These article show problems where academia is trying to shorten the time to a traditional doctorate, retain doctoral students, and train them to be in industry as opposed to just academia. What many of these articles fail to realize is that DL education already addresses these concerns.

John

 

Good points. For anyone who is seeking a doctorate for reasons *other than* the long-term goal of a tenure-track teaching appointment, I think a DL doctorate program, after adding up all the pros and cons, may be a BETTER option than spending 5-8 years chasing a degree while living on subsistence earnings.

The limited DL doctorate options in the U.S., discussed elsewhere on this board, force one to qualify this endorsement. But as DL doctorate options, esp. affordable RA ones, proliferate, we may see a tangible reduction in enrollments in residential Ph.D. programs. Given the paltry number of teaching jobs available to even traditional Ph.D. holders, that could be a very good thing from a consumer standpoint, i.e., why jump through all the hoops of becoming a traditional academic if your objectives for pursuing a doctorate lie outside of academe?

 

Rich - I can't totally agree. I believe that DL will change education - but "dominate"? A year or two ago, most folks thought that on-line retailers like Amazon would "dominate" retailing. But what has happened since? We've seen failure after failure in the B2C market. Amazon isn't gone and it has changed the market - but retail malls are here to stay.

DL has a place and it is changing the educational world. But like most IT innovations, the ultimate impact is unlikely to be as great as early proponents think it will be. Even the largest of DL institutions (such as UoP with 50,000 students) has only a small percentage of the market. Further, as for the money trail, a growing chorus of academic administrators are asking - does DL generate positive cash flows? If so, how profitable is it? The answer is less than clear.

Thanks - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

I'm more in agreement with Andy on this one. I think DL will gain greater acceptance and continue to enroll more students. I don't think it will dominate the market. Quality residential programs will still have their place and a strong share of the market. DL may chip away at that share, but I think it's more likely that it will *expand* the market by serving greater numbers of students for whom residential programs are impractical or impossible.

I also believe, and hope, that the expanding presence of quality DL programs will push residential programs to better serve their students. Though I lament some of the dog-eat-dog, downsizing/merge/acquire mentality that higher ed appears to be importing from certain corners of the business world, I do think it's good for higher ed to be kept on its toes by healthy competition.

 

D-O-M-I-N-A-T-E! Okay, that's highly subjective and resistant to measurement. Oh, and also very hyperbolic. But DL is where the action is.

A co-worker gave me a copy of an article outlining the changes in eligibility for federal financial aid, including dropping the "in-seat" requirements. These changes were brought about for the express purpose of including DL programs. The url: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/jun2001/newsbytes.html#june1

The text:

New Bill Would Boost College E-Learning
Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would improve the ability of colleges and universities to offer instruction over the Internet. Representative Johnny Isakson (R-GA) has offered "The Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001," following a report issued last fall by the Web-Based Education Commission. Isakson is a member of the House Education and Workforce committee and co-chair of the commission.

Isakson said the bill provides changes to the Higher Education Act that will allow all learners to take full advantage of available technologies. "Through hearings held last year, we were able to identify specific areas that should be addressed immediately if we truly are to embrace anytime, anywhere, and any pace learning," said the lawmaker. "The bill I've introduced provides an expansion of Internet-based educational opportunities for postsecondary students, while maintaining the integrity of the federal student aid programs."

He called the bill "the first step toward making the Commission's recommendations a reality." House Education and Workforce Committee chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon are co-sponsors. The measure's three key provisions:

Modify the "50 percent rule" to allow institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their classes by telecommunications if 1) the institution already participates in student loan programs and 2) its student loan default rate is less than 10 percent for the three most recent years.
Lift financial aid limits for students enrolled in online education programs. Students enrolled in distance education courses are limited in the amount of aid they can receive if the institution offers half or more of its courses by correspondence or telecommunications.
Repeal the 12-hour rule, which governs the amount of "seat-time" students must spend in class per week. Repealing the rule also relieves postsecondary institutions of outdated reporting regulations for non-standard term instructional programs and promotes innovation and flexibility.

Meanwhile, legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to provide a tax credit for 100 percent of the first US$1,500 of IT training expenses paid for by an employer. It also amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits, making it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for IT training expenses. Called the Technology Education & Training Act of 2001, it "will go a long way toward filling the gap and providing access to additional training opportunities offered by higher education institutions and training providers," says Tina Sung, president and CEO of ASTD.

 

In the case of Ph.D.s at least, part of that "outcome" is research. Ph.D.s are granted for original dissertation research. So doctoral programs are producing research along with graduates.

I still think that distance doctorates, and expecially the institutions that specialize in granting them, won't achieve full parity in academia until they are turning out scholarship that is having a substantial impact in their fields.

When researchers and professors are unable to stay current in their subject without studying what distance doctoral scholars are doing, they will have to pay respect, even if it's grudging.

But I don't really see much sign of that distance research productivity yet.

 

Bill, I think your point about research and acceptability within academia is a very good one. I wonder if this is a case of the research either (1) not being done or being of somewhat lesser quality, or (2) being done but the DL programs/schools haven't found ways to disseminate it.

Plus, there's a whole separate issue of whether faculties in primarily DL graduate programs are producing research & scholarship that is used and respected by academia and the professions. Because of DL's heavy reliance on adjuncts who (presumably) do not have the luxury of devoting as much time to research activities as full-time faculty, this is a built-in challenge.

 

I think that DL will reach an equilibrium with on-campus education where each has its place and each specializes in different things.

The traditional role of providing undergraduate education to 18-year-olds will probably remain on-campus. Education in the hard sciences or the studio arts will remain on-campus because of the need for hands-on experiences.

But I see graduate education in the text-based humanities going on-line. Literature, history, philosophy etc. Math may acquire some heavy-duty DL programs too. The common denominator is that these are programs where students and professors spend most of their time writing and talking. Not touching things.

Picking up David's point, many of these fields are ones in which teaching positions are scarce, so it would be an advantage to make it possible to study them without "quitting your day job" so to speak. It would help promote scholarship in these areas if one could study them without becoming a scholar-monk.

But distance education's main niche will be adult continuing vocational education. Developments in technology will demand a workforce trained in ever-changing skills. You can't just earn an on-campus degree and then announce that you know everything that you will need to know for the rest of your life.

Does UC Berkeley's Altaic languages doctoral program generate a positive cash flow? If on-campus departments need not be money makers, why must distance education be held to that standard?

It doesn't seem very cost effective for universities to maintain low demand subjects on-campus in departments with very low enrollments. And academically, many of these departments are probably below the critical mass of students, faculty and resources necessary to maintain a vital academic community.

So why not roll some of the less viable ones that are in danger of termination anyway into one large international DL program? There must be any number of important research problems that are languishing because there is not a critical mass of scholars interested in them in any one physical place.

 

Bill,

As a guess, we may be seeing DL scholarship and not knowing it. Much of DL scholarship is focused on how it is applied to the work force; hence, it could be utilized by a company and become proprietary. Thus, we do not see much in the regular journal realm.

From another viewpoint and one that I haven't checked lately -- a few years ago someone asked a similar question on A.E.D. If I remember correctly, Dr. Levicoff responded as to the large amount of literature and citations to Nova education research in ERIC. NSU's Ed.D. program is one of their flagship DL programs.

John

 

I have to agree with John,

I recently completed my Ph.D. at Nova Southeastern University - School of Computer and Information Sciences.

I work for Lockheed-Martin Software Research, and two other classmates, with whom I am still close, also work for research groups, IBM and Sun respectively.

My dissertation produced three journal articles. However, the school had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I could start working on my Dissertation. My classmates had to do the same. Our dissertations were highly rigorous and each of us produced multiple papers and even a patent, however, Nova Southeastern could not benefit. It was stated that all research papers published by members of any research group within the company were intellectual property and therefore subject to all rules and constraints imposed by the corporation.

Jake

 

Yeah, there is a tremendous amount of arrogance in these schools. The "if I didn't invent it or do it myself it must not be any good" school of thought is alive and well. I got a kick out of the comment about not being able to hone teaching skills. Since when is teaching ability a concern at these schools? For tenure, teaching excellence does not count. In fact, sometimes it counts against you.

 

Jake,

Congraulations on the completion of your NSU Ph.D. (from a fellow NSU SCIS alum).

John