Opinion: US Students should stick with RA programs

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by barryfoster, Oct 13, 2001.

Loading...
  1. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    SURGEONS WARNING: This post may raise some eyebrows and blood pressures. This is only my opinion. That's all. Everyone needs to make his or her own decisions.

    US educational consumers should make every effort to spend their life-energy on RA degrees. If not, don't earn a degree. Learn the subject matter on your own - some other way. (Again, just my opinion ... make your own decision.)

    My concern? Regarding US students: More and more on this board, there is a growing trend towards recommending GAAP, TRACS and DETC schools. It is especially conspicuous at the Grad level (Masters and Doctorates). Quoting Paul Reubens in the very funny movie MYSTERY MEN (spoof of super heroes),

    "BIG MISTAKE!!"

    Hang on there a minute. I'm not talking about your own personal decision to earn a non-RA degree. Most of us place extreme value on our opportunity and freedom to make personal decisions! I'm talking specifically about recommending non-RA schools to 'rookies', especially *how* such schools are recommended. It can be explicit (go to this school) or it can be subtle (I'm knowledgeable on DL programs. I made this choice…). As an informed consumer, you can make any decision you'd like. Unfortunately, there are a number of 'regulars' on this board that the 'rookies' look to for advice. (Another 'big mistake'. But it happens … all the time.)

    GAAP, TRACS and DETC accreditation does not carry the utility and experiential live-ability (I just made that word up) of RA. Will it in the future? Who knows, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. Why gamble on something as important as educational credentials?

    I know. You want to argue my inclusion of GAAP. As with TRACS and DETC, I'm certain that there are excellent GAAP programs. However, most US students will *always* feel the pressure of defending a non-US degree. I'm not just talking about HR / other school acceptance. An important element is your peers, your friends and your family. Here's a sample dialogue:

    Non-RA Ph.D.: I earned my degree from So-and-So distant country.
    Peer RA Ph.D.: Oh. (Surprised look.) But you've lived in the US the whole time.
    Non-RA Ph.D.: I never met my mentor. We talked on the phone a couple of times and e-mailed a lot. I even defended my thesis over the phone. I was in my pajamas.
    Peer RA Ph.D.: (Double surprised look. A wince.) Oh. That's nice. (Walks away shaking head, thinking about matchbook covers).

    It has little to do with the quality of GAAP. It has to do with utility and acceptance. Credibility is 99% perception. Do you want to experience something like that?

    There seems to be two major under-girding, unspoken themes for these recommendations: (1) The good ol' 'faster, easier and cheaper' theme - which is at the heart of the problem that causes degree mills to flourish. We want the credential, sometimes at the exclusion of the difficult path required to creat that level of development. Most often, we get what we pay for - whether in cash or sweat.

    (2) The 'no residency required' theme. I am convinced that the absence of face-to-face is a detriment to the student's development. A part of education is socialization. Chat groups, e-mail, newsgroup-type interaction, etc. will never replace the social developmental aspects of sitting over a cup of coffee, looking committee's in the eyes, fighting and arguing over key intellectual points, etc.

    This is especially true for the doctorate level. Until I earned my Ph.D., I would have disagreed with this line of thinking. However, I would have missed a significant element of my development if I did not participate in numerous face-to-face interactions - with students, faculty, peers, etc. I would be the loser. A person doesn't simply earn a Ph.D. A person becomes a Ph.D.

    Again, hold on just a minute. I'm a proponent of DL. But DL has its limits. The real question is "What are the limits?" The trend towards completely non-resident doctorates is disturbing. We need to better understand the proper balance.

    OK, I've raised more questions than answers. I've probably not done a good job expressing my sentiments and opinion either. However, I do feel strongly about this issue - enough to post it and to hear some other folk's thoughts. Here and in AED we've had US 'regulars' defend non-RA programs, only to have them openly withdraw from the school. Others have quietly slipped into a RA program or withdrawn from this community. This is after 'rookies' have entered the program - due to the influence of the respected 'regular' (and often a well-deserved respect). The rookie is left holding the bag.

    In my opinion, we are continuing down a slippery slope. And it disturbs me. This board is a consumer-centric source of DL educational information.

    But, most of you know my thoughts on this. It's RA or the highway. :)

    Flame on! I'm putting on my silver-colored flame-resistant suit right now.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Barry Foster
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Barry,

    Sorry no blow torch here [​IMG]

    I agree that RA is the best option all things being equal. In fact, I would say that in decision making the earning of an RA degree should be weighted more heavily than some other factors. DETC & TRACS are going to have more limited usefulness. Having said that, there are some for whom the cost of a TRACS D.Min. and the convenience may out weigh other factors. In other words they are practicing Pastors who simply want an accredited doctorate to put on their letter head or for career progression (some mailine larger churches almost require a D.Min). Someone choosing to do an Oxford Graduate School Ph.D. would certainly have to have some other motivation in mind. It costs around 18,000 plus travel several times to Tennessee for residency and one residency in England.

    As for the issue of GAAP degrees I again agree that RA is nummer eins. However, there will be some who simply want an accredited doctorate and are not necessarily planning on competing in an already tight academic job market. That is not to say that they may not be able to with for instance a University of Wales Ph.D. Yes, they may well face some questions. The reality is that a Ph.D. from Walden or Capella or Argus may face questions in spite of RA status and having residencies. In such a case I am not sure that the University of Wales Ph.D. may not be in somewhat better status due to the history and reputation of the institution. I don't really know.

    For me the UNIZUL doctorate is personal growth and enjoyment. It is unusual & is accredited. The methodology fits my lifestyle at the moment. I will still have a GI Bill to use up and so will chose another program later. I will not be trying to get a job at Michigan State University (unless John puts in a good word for me) [​IMG]
    But the doctorate is cost effective, in a field that interests me, conducted by qualified faculty, and the equivalent of accredited.

    Your points are well taken and I think anyone considering non RA should certainly weigh the issues carefully.

    By the way. Where did you get your Ph.D. from? If you have posted it before I missed it. Did you recently graduate? If so congratulations!

    North
     
  3. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    If the alternative to RA degrees was simply degree-mill degrees, I would agree. But in reality there are a number of excellent non-RA programs out there that would serve some students in some cases.

    I have no problem with earning an MFA from the Academy of Art College in SF. It is accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design, but it isn't RA. That might make it more difficult to teach art in a collegiate setting, but it has nothing to do with a graduate's technical skill as an artist. The school has very strong programs in multimedia and web design, and close ties with many bay area firms doing that kind of work.

    The American Military University is DETC accredited but not RA. It offers an online masters in (American) Civil War history. Pretty clearly this is the best program of its kind available by distance education, RA or not. Again, it might not be as well accepted as an RA masters in a college teaching setting, but for anyone from a civil war reenactment buff to a historical museum employee, it might be a viable choice and probably should be considered.

    I disagree. The bay area where I live is filled with hordes of people with foreign degrees. They are on every university faculty and work for every company. While most of them are foreign nationals and immigrants, some of them are Americans who have studied abroad. I've never seen any prejudice against them. One of my professors at SF State was a native-born American with a Ph.D. from the University of Leeds. That generated some interest among his colleagues and students, but in general everyone thought it was cool.

    I agree with you regarding *easy* degrees. But I do think that cost is a valid consideration and see nothing wrong in looking for an affordable program.

    My position has always been that a program should require whatever residency is necessary to fulfill tangible program requirements. If you are in a laboratory science, that might dictate a largely on-campus program. If you are in a clinical psych program, you will need in-person clinical experiences with flesh and blood people. A law student will need to learn how to function in a courtroom. An art student will need to spend lots of time in an art studio.

    But if the 'residencies' are just a few token meetings with little purpose, then they should be eliminated.

    Tell, me specifically why looking into somebody else's eyes while arguing an intellectual point is more valuable academically than arguing the exact same point with the exact same person by means of telecommunications media.

    I am aware that for some people, the lack of face to face contact removes a sense of emotional immediacy and personal involvement. Some people feel that mediated interactions aren't *real* in some fundamental sense. This whole emotional/affective component of distance education interactions is probably a ripe topic for research.

    But all it really tells me is that some people are emotionally unsuited for distance education, and we already knew that.

    My belief is that these issues of program choice are individual issues, that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. That goes for both the RA/non-RA issue and the resident/DL issue.

    Lots will depend on the demands of one's particular major and specialty. Lots will depend on a student's age, experience, psychology and learning-style. And lots will depend on the student's reason for earning the degree in the first place.

    One size does not fit all. Distance learning is ony one educational option among many, and is clearly not suited for everyone.
     
  4. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    No raising of the blood pressure here, Barry--and you're not the first guy to say this. Steve Levicoff beat you to it a few years ago.

    The issue isn't really RA versus non-RA; the matchbook-cover issue would also apply to nonresident RA doctorates, like the ones offered by Touro and (if the accreditation clears) Northcentral.

    If you're saying that a substantial number of peer traditional Ph.D.-holders--perhaps even a majority--will wince at wholly nonresident doctorates, you may be right.

    If you're saying that a substantial number of schools will, all other things being equal, give more weight to traditional Ph.D. holders when it comes to hiring faculty members and awarding tenure, you may be right.

    Everyone who considers a nonresident doctorate should be aware of these facts--and anyone who wishes to has the freedom to ignore them, as I have.

    Credibility is a funny thing. I've found that the more I worry about having it, and pattern my actions around getting it, the less of it I end up with. I've found that doing what seems best, throwing credibility-related concerns to the wind, is the best way to ensure that I remain credible. The primary objective, I think, is to remain honest.

    When I tell people about my nonresident master's, there is no "Uhm, I guess" to it. The conversation usually goes like this:

    Him: "Where did you earn your master's?"
    Me: "California State, Dominguez Hills."
    Him: "Oh, I didn't know you were from California!"
    Me: "I'm not--I did it all by correspondence. Never visited the campus."

    Some people get a "tsk, tsk" look when I say this. And I'll be honest, Barry: I could care. If this keeps me out of the Academy, that says a lot more about the Academy than it says about me.


    Cheers,

    ------------------
    Tom Head
    www.tomhead.net

    co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
    co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
     
  5. Ike

    Ike New Member

    Fielding Institute.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Barry,

    I didn't know your Ph.D. from Fielding was in medicine! [​IMG]

    I agree with much of what you are postulating. There are indeed scenarios which would be best suited for only RA degrees. Likewise, there are scenarios where, IMO, it would make little difference whether the degree is RA or GAAP. DETC/TRACS degrees will have a more limited utility, however, they are accredited. I disagree with several points:

    1) Residency: As Bill has stated, if it is simply a token residency of a few days/weeks, then I see no reason why the same basic objectives could not be achieved via telecommunications. The Union Institute requires, e.g., a 30 day residency (not all at once) for their interdisciplinary Ph.D. If this 30 day residency is the sole criterion between a substantive Ph.D. and one that isn't, IMO, the program was not substantive enough originally. Regent University offers a Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, which requires 3 2-week residencies (some 42 days). I am not opposed to residencies, only that in some instances, for some students, it is pragmatically impossible.

    2) Peer recognition is indeed an important aspect of one's credentials. However, one will always find prejudice of some type within academe. 1) The Ivy League grad looks with disdain on the state university grad, both RA; 2) The state grad looks unfavorably upon the small private college grad, both RA; 3) The state grad frowns upon the DL grad, both RA; 4) One Ivy League grad snubs another Ivy League grad because his GPA is higher. My point here is that one will always confront bias/prejudice/academic arrogance of some kind.

    3) As North has said, even DETC/TRACS degrees have some utility. While not nearly that of the RA/GAAP degree, it is at least a USDoE/CHEA recognized degree. A few scenarios where these degrees may suffice:
    1) Someone in industry; 2) Someone in ministry who doesn't plan to pursue teaching at a RA institution; 3) Some applications within the business community; 4) etc.

    Overall, I agree that US students should, if at all possible, pursue RA degrees. I have three of them (BA, MA, DMin), and with the exception of about 1/3 of the BA they are all residential, so I am indeed pro-RA. At the same time pursuing an education is not so cut & dry, or black & white, as RA or nothing. When AACRAO states that a GAAP degree (in my case Potch) will be recognized as the equivalent to a RA degree, there are scenarios when this may indeed be a healthy route to take.

    Again, you are correct in stating that the DL student needs to be aware of the pros/cons of non-RA programs. But to negate all non-RA options, IMO, is not realistic--especially with the ever expanding options offered via DL.

    **Disclaimer** Please be aware that this is in no way a promotion for degree mills, less-than-wonderful schools, or cheap routes to worthless degrees.

    Russell
     
  7. Colin B

    Colin B New Member

    Barry,
    Good comments and intresting point of view.
    But - Are you sure?
    ------------------

    "BIG MISTAKE!!"
    --------------
    Maybe not?

    The United States with a population of 250+ million is only a small portion of the worlds population. While several of the best universities are located in the world are located in the US, we do not have a monopoly on the abilty to deliver high quality eduacation. Graduate degrees from countries outside of the USA is normally fully accepted in academic and business circles. What evidence is there for this? Check the faculty of any school of higher learning and multi-national companies. Does this mean that every insitution of higher learning or business accepts? example: Orange juice is good and healthy - however, some people still hate it.

    The average person normally takes a degree not just to have a title - but gain the knowledge that comes along with it. A degree might get in the door intially but, it your ability that keeps you there.

    It maybe a concern for some people how their degrees are perceived by others. An issue that must be addressed by each individual. However, the level learning and abilty for personal develop is more important when choosing a college or university.

    Because a school is RA is no garantee that it is better than a DETC school. When it come to distance learning students.

    The real question is! what is required of the student? and what level of learning actually takes place?

    In realtiy the average RA school is much better than any major university in the world. In the USA we are known for quality - but, we are not the only ones.

    In fact I would encourage fellow Americians to study at overseas schools providing that they meet their academic and professional needs. Why? It will broaden their prespective and enrich their knowledge.

    The reaction about distance PhDs reminder of the letter that was sent from the governor or major New York about the speed of trains.
    The letter said that the trains were scaring the cows and that God didn't mean for man to move that fast.
    The trains were running at 30 MPH.
    The problem was not with the speed of the train, but it was with perception and the unwillingness to change.

    This is just the begining of the for distance PhDs. The problem is perception and resistence to change. Tje distance PhD is here to stay. As stated earlier it is obvious that not all PhDs came be taken at a distance - however, some can.

    Why does a student attempts a degree? Is it to get an education or just a diploma?
    A US RA school is not the only place to get an education.

    If prestige is all that matters stick with an RA degree. However, do not underestimate the value of TRACS DETC.

    My opinion !

    Colin
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    FWIW, I don't often recommend non-US degree programs to US students, and even when I do it's almost always at the doctoral level. I have a couple of reasons for that.

    1) There are so many good, flexible US RA programs at the Bachelor's and Master's level that it rarely makes sense for a US student to look outside the country.

    2) I assume that someone who is preparing to study at the doctoral level has the experience and the maturity to understand the possible pitfalls and problems of going with a non-US degree program.

    Also, as mentioned already, there are a number of situations where a non-US GAAP degree will suit people fine. Not everyone is interested in entering academia.

    In my own situation, I decided that an RA program was the way to go, as I would like to teach full-time after I retire. Just based on what I know about human nature, I think a US RA doctorate would serve me better than say, a British research doctorate with a hiring committee. The lack of an English accent & the fact I've never been to the UK would raise a lot of questions. But, that is my situation only.


    Bruce
     
  9. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Barry - to me it sounds like you're taking a situation, a decision, that is typically quite complicated and trying to simplify it down to a "black or white" level. Your argument is similar to saying, "Since automobile X is going to make the best impression on the neighbors then you should buy that automobile, regardless of other circumstances. If, for example, you can not afford automobile X then you should resign yourself to walking."
    I am considering a non-US doctoral program, primarily because of the cost differential. I understand that if I ever decide to try teaching for a living then I may experience some difficulties in landing a job. I also know that if I don't get that non-US Phd then I will experience even more difficulties in landing that job.
    You argument seems to rest largely on two points: 1) that people with non-US doctoral degrees are at a disadvantage when it comes to being hired, and 2) people with these degrees are looking exclusively for jobs in the academic world. This first point may be true but I have seen no data to support it.
    Your second point is clearly untrue as there have been many postings to this forum from people involved in various industries who have benefited from earning a non-us PhD. I have previously stated on this forum that my own first choice would be a US RA school. Several factors have combined to make this an unrealistic option for me so I am aiming at the next best option. I, for one, am unwilling to abandon my goal simply because some academic snobs might cop an attitude.
    Jack
     
  10. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    The two keys to thinking about this stuff are (1) usability, and (2) probability.

    The only reason for choosing any program is whether it will meet your needs, current and future. Whether it is promotion, more salary, new job fooling the public, massaging your ego, decorating your bathroom, whatever.

    And no matter what your choice, you enter a realm of probability. Terrible degrees are occasionally accepted (Brunswick's boat division, I believe, still defends its choice to pay for 3 employees to buy the totally fake degrees of Columbia State). Excellent degrees are sometimes rejected (the Heriot-Watt MBA had 98% acceptance at US companies during the 7 years I was involved in marketing it, but if you worked at that pump manufacturer in Texas that rejected it, you'd be an unhappy puppy).
     
  11. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    Tom, I remember when Steve first emphasized that grad-level education needs a face-2-face (F2F) component. (Unfortunately, I've been hanging around for a long time! :)

    At that time, I was still in the early part of my MBA (City U, 1996). At that time, I didn't think Steve was right.

    As I've completed my Ph.D. last year (Fielding HOD, 2000), I realize that Steve was right. The F2F component of my transformation to doctor was critical. It would have been *very* shallow without it. Seriously shallow.

    So here it is. Before I experienced the Ph.D., I devalued F2F and didn't think it was too important. Now that I've completed it, I realize it was an invaluable component of my development.

    Perhaps it's one of those things that needs to be experienced. I'm not saying that a person can't be creative in how this happens!! It's not simply interaction with faculty either. It's other students, experts in the field, etc. There are lots of ways to create F2F without flying around the world. Experts, students, etc. can be right in your own backyard.

    Barry Foster
     
  12. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    Hi Bill. Unfortunately, I've got little urge to put a lot of effort into answering this question. To misquote Dr. McCoy in StarTrek:

    "Dammit, Jim! I'm a sociologist, not a psychologist!" :)

    But I'll take a quick shot at it as I've done some reading here. If you are truly interested (and this is not just a rhetorical straw-manish-type question), take a look at some of the more recent research regarding virtual teams and the negative impact to a group's social capital. Some pretty interesting stuff and it really has application with DL (truly a virtual team).

    If I'm paraphrasing correctly: The bottom line is that the lack of F2F negatively impacts levels of trust, collaboration, personal/group/emotional development, etc., etc. Lack of these restricts personal transformation - which is what we are really talking about. Trying to remember offhand, it involves stuff like tacit knowledge, modeling, observation - involving the deeper, richer interaction of multiple 'entire' persons (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual) - including the mix of many-to-many interactions of these 4 - creates a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

    But again, I'm no psycho guy - tho I've been called worse - :). (I'm sure the psycho folks on the board can and will correct me.)

    For a simple example, I'd rather see my friend F2F than talk over the phone or e-mail. I get much more from the interaction. You can see this - even on this board. We tend to be short with people (the road-rage-syndrome of blindly 'typing' our message). There is *minimal* opportunity to understand the person's emotion, passion, 'real' perception, etc. All we see is the typed words. It misses the continual stream of give-and-take that happens when parties are physically present.

    The at-a-distant 'typing' or even 'phone' type of interaction leaves *much* to be desired. It is not rich at all. It is about as poor as an interaction can get. It takes a much more work, more than many are willing to put into it. Esp. in 'typing', I feel that people are misinterpreted as much as they are understood. It's a very real and significant limitation.

    Dang it. I've spent too much time on this!!!

    Barry Foster
     
  13. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    Hi Jack. Thanks for your thoughts. I apologize for my inability to express my thoughts on this extremely complicated subject adequately enough to keep me from being misunderstood. However, I don't have a lot of time (or interest) to keep trying to say this in a way that solves this problem.

    But you misunderstand what I am feeling on this subject - and are misrepresenting my thoughts (again, my fault). If you've followed my postings in the past, I emphasize the critical nature of individual choice, situation, etc. Each person needs to decide. It is definitely not black or white.

    Barry Foster
     
  14. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    Hi Colin. Thanks for your thoughts. However, I don't believe (nor did I say) that the US has any kind of monopoly on quality education. Perhaps even the best DETC school has an edge on the worst RA school (maybe). This isn't my point.

    My point has little to nothing to do with quality. And it has nothing to do with the exceptional case. John pointed out a couple of the key issues here - use-ability and probability. (I'm certain there are more key issues, tho.)

    Plus, I'm talking specifically about the normal, average US student - who often as little understanding of use-ability or their future (who does?). For an example of the non-normal: If I wanted to study French social development, I'd go to a French univ.

    Barry Foster
     
  15. barryfoster

    barryfoster New Member

    Thanks Bruce. I appreciate your admin efforts on this board and your thoughts on this subject!!

    I know that many readers have either forgotten or not been exposed to my own somewhat-embarrassing educational history. (I don't like to bring it up much anymore ... it is in the past. It embarrasses me and I like to leave it behind - so I won't be answering further questions on this.) Starting in the early '80s, I had earned (3) non-RA degrees before I read Steve Levicoff's Name-It-Frame-It. Thanks to some further dialogue with Steve, I finally understood *why* I had experienced the humilation of constant rejection of my 'degrees'. In the very early '90s, I took up the challenge of re-earning my degrees - all RA. Goal achieved. (Thanks Steve).

    Way back in the '80s - even after I had finished my last non-RA degree - I didn't understand accreditation. I was naive and never even thought to look into it - seriously stupid I know, but that's what naive is. Steve's book was my first exposure to the subject and shocked/humilated me into action. Nor did I understand the twists that my life would take - as *none* of us do. I feel that I am pretty average, so I'm reluctant to assume anything about educational consumers.

    Steve's emphasis on the importance of RA for US students holds firm today. Plus, his thoughts on the need for grad-level F2F is very real. Steve performed an important service to the future direction of DL - esp. among consumers, although I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for this. Many of us learned much from him. And we continue to share what we know.

    Barry Foster
     
  16. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Agreed. I think it's safe to credit Steve for:

    1) Inspiring literally hundreds of TESC applicants/graduates to go the portfolio route.

    2) TRACS's "weight loss plan" in 1996, which eventually made its CHEA accreditation possible.

    3) Better awareness of accreditation issues in conservative Christian circles.

    And any number of other things.

    He didn't sell as many DE-related books as Marcie Thorson (or anywhere near as many as John), but he definitely made an impact, and he's one of few authors in the field to actually put his stuff online.

    So, yeah, he certainly deserves more credit for all this (and for my part, I wish he'd write some new books). But that doesn't mean he's right about Ph.D. residency requirements.

    He had success with F2F programs--Vermont College and Union--and you had success with at least one very F2F-intensive program, Fielding (congratulations, BTW!). You both have every reason to favor the approach; you went on and actually earned a partial-residency doctorate, and the experience was clearly a valuable one for you.

    And I certainly agree on the general value of F2F networking, though I don't see exactly what this has to do with Ph.D. program requirements. My point has to do with the value of F2F residency requirements, not the value of networking.

    If I seem a little presumptuous, Barry, it's only because I already know I'm in the right. When I was homeschooling, all sorts of people expressed concern that the approach might have kept me from socializing; it didn't. It just meant that I got to socialize on my own terms. When I did my B.A. nonresidentially, there was concern that my not going off to college would interfere with my individuation. It didn't. It just meant that I had to individuate on my own terms. When I did my M.A. nonresidentially, there was concern that the lack of residency would prevent me from making scholarly contacts. It didn't. It just meant that I had to make scholarly contacts on my own terms. When I got the "Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead" gig, many of my friends expressed concern that I wasn't up to this research-intensive line of work, and what do I know about IT degrees, anyway, being a liberal arts major. I wrote my part of the book on time with days to spare, and then I got new friends. This is the Old Story for me, and probably for a good many other people (I don't know how many times John Bear--or Steve Levicoff or Barry Foster, for that matter--has heard the phrase "You can't possibly do that!," but I think they probably get the same primal thrill out of hearing it that I do).

    But a partial-residency doctorate does have a higher normalcy value than a completely nonresidential doctorate, for folks who actually care about that sort of thing. [​IMG]


    Cheers,

    ------------------
    Tom Head
    www.tomhead.net

    co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
    co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
     
  17. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    Barry, in general I agree with you, but I would state it a little differently:

    If a U.S. resident EVER intends to use the degree as a job credential, especially if that degree is required to be considered for a position, then an RA degree from a U.S. institution is very, very strongly recommended.

    There may be a handful of exceptions, like the Heriot-Watt MBA and certain Univ. of London programs.

    But if the degree is being pursued for other purposes, and particularly if it won't be listed as such on a resume or c.v., then I think we're getting too caught up in RA vs. GAAP vs. unaccredited vs. state approved vs. DETC distinctions.

    To illustrate: Perhaps a small business owner wants to learn more about management. Any legitimate MBA program, including foreign program or perhaps even a state-approved program, could help that person. Or perhaps a lawyer with an ABA degree wants to learn about health law. Concord's new LL.M. may be the right option, though I would advise that individual to think twice (maybe thrice) before listing the degree on a resume.

    I am biased, of course, because of my own choices. After earning three RA degrees (BA, MA, JD), I'm pursuing a Ph.D. at the Western Institute for Social Research in Berkeley, a Calif. approved but not RA school. Far from being "less than wonderful," I actually find it to be a wonderful institution. But assuming I finish, I will not tout myself as a Ph.D. for reasons that are continually discussed on this board.

    Someday I hope that I will be able to enroll in an RA DL Ph.D. or ABA DL LL.M. program that meets what I'm looking for in terms of content, convenience, credential value, and affordability. I think those days of more graduate-level options are coming, but it may take another 5-10 years.
     
  18. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I don't; I think the distinction is very important and plays a practical role in how the degree is accepted, and the academic side of the Bear-Douglas data seems to confirm my suspicions. A residential RA/GAAP degree from a credible institution (I assume you're talking about nonresidential foreign programs) will probably be almost universally accepted. A nonresidential GAAP degree will probably have less acceptance, a DETC degree less than that, and an unaccredited degree even less than that.

    That said, I see nothing wrong--and have never seen anything wrong--with earning an unaccredited degree for its own merits, and if there were a credible unaccredited school that offered a nonresidential Ph.D. in one of my fields, I would give serious thought to pursuing it (after all, nobody told John Gray "We won't accept your book because you have an unaccredited doctorate"). Best of luck on your own Ph.D., and please keep us posted!


    Cheers,

    ------------------
    Tom Head
    www.tomhead.net

    co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
    co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)
     
  19. Neil Hynd

    Neil Hynd New Member

    Hi,

    What bothers me about these posts is that the focus remains on what applies to potential DL students in the USA, when the DE issue is much larger and wider. And, of course, representing the US RA solution as some sort of model is totally meaningless for the rest of the world - especially when the RA's themselves continue to be very reluctant brides as well as picky for DETC qualifications (which major in "distance" capabilities).

    DL is here to stay - I even heard a US Government official mention use of DL for training medical staff in case of emergency requirements to do with chemical and biological attacks.

    IBM has moved 70% of its training online over the last two years, saving US$200 million per year, including direct expenses such as travel accommodation etc. A friend of mine lives in the English Yorkshire Dales, yet works directly for Cisco San Francisco in their 24-hour follow-the-sun web support team and gets all of his training online.

    So yes, there will be plenty of anecdotal evidence - and ultimately the numbers in $ terms will start to tell.

    All that seems to be happening here in the "push RA" approach is that road blocks such as residency, equivalency, eyeballing and anything else you can think of - as well as downright discrimination - are thrown up to prevent or at least dissuade potential DL students from non-RA methods of learning.

    Something or someone needs to rise above this level of gainsaying and start to think about providing a world-class structure on a world scale, since DE really should know no boundaries.

    Maybe it's no coincidence that the previous Vice Chancellor of the UK Open University, Sir John Daniel, is now a senior figure in UN education circles.

    And yes, my own beef about the availability of low-cost, 100% non-resident, highly accessible programs such as the US SL/SA offerings helps to make the case - because business if not academe appears willing to see the learning benefits of such programs in the same way that using internal online training proves both efficient and cost-effective for people like IBM and Cisco.

    What's really needed is an objective, pragmatic DE/DL model that can be applied around the world, and without being loaded with overheads and unnecessary baggage, instead of harping on about RA and other local US issues.

    Regards,

    Neil

     
  20. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    Tom, I guess where I'm agreeing with Barry is that if acceptance of the degree will ever become an issue, then U.S. students should indeed stick with U.S.-based RA programs.

    Particularly if one is in a field where credentials may count for a lot, I wouldn't want to spend valuable interview time trying to explain GAAP or DETC to a prospective employer. In some cases, it may be tough enough to sell an RA DL degree if someone jumps to the immediate conclusion that *any* DL degree is suspect.

    We seem to be running in opposite directions on the acceptance of DL degrees. The explosion of RA DL programs certainly has opened up educational options. But every time a DL degree mill is exposed in the media, it has the ironic potential effect of tarring all DL programs.

    (This thread is a very thoughtful one, by the way.)
     

Share This Page