In response to the perspectives of a few I will let everyone in on 4 secrets. Please note that this is not necessarily how I would like the world to be but how it clearly is. Foreign degrees import just fine. Except when there are issues concerning licensure, there is absolutely no reason to automatically shun a foreign alternative. There really is not that much bias against DL. Many of our most prominent universities offer courses and degrees via DL. There are also numerous respected foreign universities that do the same. Even residency is not as large an issue as some might suggest. There is much bias against some DL degrees. Specifically: a)“do-it-yourself” or “individualized” degrees tend not to hold up well b)“accelerated degrees”, and the more accelerated the worse the degree c)profit-oriented schools (automatically assumed dollars over standards) d)alternative public spin-offs (automatically assumed to be teaching to the market) e)purely virtual schools RA is the “copper” not the “gold” standard. In other words, RA guarantees that you have something of value but in some cases you may be surprised how low that value is.
No it isn't. It's just "Jako's" crazed delusions. I will tell all of you how it TRULY is: In general, I agree with that. I think that acceptability is difficult to estimate. There is some bias against DL out there. It's probably more common in universities than in the private sector. It's probably least acute for those who top off a conventional education with additional DL study. It probably varies from field to field, and degree level to degree level. Even many prominent universities themselves are pretty upfront about using ther new DL ventures as subsidiary profit-making enterprises. They seek to provide masters level education in occupational subjects to the adult continuing education market. But they are much slower to embrace distance education as an integral part of their own fundamental scholarly mission. I tried to promote the idea of DL research and scholarship in humanities subjects in a couple of recent threads and met little more than skepticism. That was from a discussion group full of DL followers. I'm sure that the response in university faculty clubs to scholarly or teaching-oriented DL doctorates would be far more underwhelming. As for the argument that many prominent universities offer DL, it's true that they do. But it's instructive to look at what programs they are offering. There are 200 distance MBAs, but no distance doctoral programs at all in most of the usual academic subjects. That suggests that distance education still meets a better reception outside the university than within. Or, on the other hand, they hold up *especially* well. The point to these degrees is that they ARE individualized. You have to look at what the details of the specialization is and how well it meets a student's (and his or her employer's) needs. If an employer needs somebody to fill a particular role, and if you can show that you are uniquely qualified to fill that role because you custom designed a graduate program around that exact subject, you will have a tremendous advantage. "Homeland security" was an interdisciplinary subject drawn from a number of different traditional fields. Suddenly on the morning of 9-11 it became the hottest subject in the United States. Less dramatically, designing a self-designed major around civil war history and cultural resource management might be just the ticket for a manager at a civil war national battlefield park. I think that the situation here is similar to that for DL. One can make the very same arguments: Many prominent universities offer accelerated programs for their own on-campus students. Employers want fast and efficient in-and-out programs for their employees, while university faculty like the long subservient apprenticeships. The problem with that one is that it is difficult to tell which programs are "for-profit". Many non-profit universities operate their distance learning initiatives as profit-making arms. Heriot Watt brags that it is the world's largest MBA program. It has eliminated faculty and instruction entirely, reducing itself to a self-study examination-based format. That means virtually no cost to them in offering it, and approaching 100% profit deriving from it. But they are non-profit and Phoenix is... Here in North America, the fact that so many ostensibly state and private non-profits have jumped into DL with visions of dollar-signs in their eyes has been what has offended the socialist sensibilities of people like David Noble. He delights in rooting out these profit-making DL ventures wherever he teaches and waving them as if they were embarassing scandals. That's why he's so unpopular with administrators. I'm not sure what "alternative public spin-off" means. Perhaps it refers to the phenomenon I referred to above. In which case, I would have to ask who opposes "teaching to the market"? The market itself obviously doesn't. So where is this opposition coming from, and why? Apparently this refers to some subgroup that feels that it is in a superior position allowing it to criticize meeting market needs. My guess is that this is implicit recognition of my point above about DL not being fully accepted among university faculty. What's wrong with purely virtual schools, apart from the fact that graduates can't hide the fact that their degrees were earned by distance education? Schools primarily known for on-campus education allow their graduates to write "MA, XYZ university" on their job applications without volunteering that the degree was earned at a distance. If there is no discrimination against distance education, why would this matter? Mention of RA being the "gold standard" occurs in a context where RA is distinguished from other alternative forms of accreditation. I am much more friendly towards recognized non-RA accreditation than many of the people that post here. But nevertheless, it IS the "gold-standard" among American accreditors. That's just a fact. But that doesn't mean that every RA degree will be of equal use for every student in every situation. That's ridiculous.
No it isn't. It's just "Jako's" crazed delusions. I will tell all of you how it TRULY is: Is everyone who contributes here this friendly? I think that acceptability is difficult to estimate. There is some bias against DL out there. It's probably more common in universities than in the private sector. It's probably least acute for those who top off a conventional education with additional DL study. It probably varies from field to field, and degree level to degree level. Let me put it this way, a MA from CSDH earned residentially will not have appreciably more value than a MA from CSDH earned via DL. Or, on the other hand, they hold up *especially* well. The point to these degrees is that they ARE individualized. You have to look at what the details of the specialization is and how well it meets a student's (and his or her employer's) needs. If an employer needs somebody to fill a particular role, and if you can show that you are uniquely qualified to fill that role because you custom designed a graduate program around that exact subject, you will have a tremendous advantage. If you could do an "individualized" doctorate in the market's response to news regarding hamburger consumption or do a traditional doctorate with your thesis on the market's response to news regarding hamburger consumption... I would advise the later for you can provide perspective employers/clients the comfort of a traditional program with the specialization they require. I think that the situation here is similar to that for DL. One can make the very same arguments: Many prominent universities offer accelerated programs for their own on-campus students. Employers want fast and efficient in-and-out programs for their employees, while university faculty like the long subservient apprenticeships. No, it is more the perception that you can only compress a program so much before the you end up with something which really is not equivalent to the traditional program. I have spoken to some deans who are very open about the fact that their accelerated programs are inferior to their traditional offerings. The problem with that one is that it is difficult to tell which programs are "for-profit". Many non-profit universities operate their distance learning initiatives as profit-making arms. Heriot Watt brags that it is the world's largest MBA program. It has eliminated faculty and instruction entirely, reducing itself to a self-study examination-based format. That means virtually no cost to them in offering it, and approaching 100% profit deriving from it. But they are non-profit and Phoenix is... There is a dramatic different between non-profit/profit but obviously the difference is not that the non-profit ignores financial realities. The difference is that in non-profits finances are the means to an end (education)... in profits education is the means to an end (finances). However, I am not suggesting that in each and every case there is a difference in substance but I can assure you that there is a difference in perception. I'm not sure what "alternative public spin-off" means. Perhaps it refers to the phenomenon I referred to above. Some public systems create separate "universities" for DL. These degrees are seldom as well respected as any from the public system proper. In which case, I would have to ask who opposes "teaching to the market"? The market itself obviously doesn't. So where is this opposition coming from, and why? Apparently this refers to some subgroup that feels that it is in a superior position allowing it to criticize meeting market needs. My guess is that this is implicit recognition of my point above about DL not being fully accepted among university faculty. Amazingly there are still those in academia (and business) who beleive that you should teach to standards and not the academic ability of those who happen to show up in your classroom. e)purely virtual schools What's wrong with purely virtual schools, apart from the fact that graduates can't hide the fact that their degrees were earned by distance education? Schools primarily known for on-campus education allow their graduates to write "MA, XYZ university" on their job applications without volunteering that the degree was earned at a distance. If there is no discrimination against distance education, why would this matter? The perception is that virtual schools have low standards... the issue is not DL but the perceived quality of the schools. quote: Mention of RA being the "gold standard" occurs in a context where RA is distinguished from other alternative forms of accreditation. I am much more friendly towards recognized non-RA accreditation than many of the people that post here. But nevertheless, it IS the "gold-standard" among American accreditors. That's just a fact. But that doesn't mean that every RA degree will be of equal use for every student in every situation. That's ridiculous.
Hi Jako Thanks for your posts. It would be helpful when responding to a post to identify the the parts that are qoutes. Otherwise it is very hard to determine what you are actually stating. It is clear that the ideas you posted are a combination of both fact and opinion which is of coarse fine. For many people reading your position along with others will give them a better perspective on this situation. Again thanks and good luck. Dave
