Why should a DL degree be inferior to "conventional" degree

I have been reading some of the message boards and am just a little bit puzzled. Why should a DL degree be inferior to a "conventional" degree? Being a DL entails reading, studying and understanding a subject which you often knew nothing about when you started. You acquire the knowledge without a tutor helping you every step of the way.
I feel that DL entails more discipline on the part of the student. One has to be dedicated and focused. Full time students probably spend as much time on individual study as do Distance Learners.
In the final analysis they write examinations to the same standards as full time students, so why is there a difference.

 

I think the logical questions to ask regarding your concerns would be:

1. Who is the stating a DL degree is
inferior?

2. Why are they making such statements?

I can share with you as a hiring manager that I PREFER someone with has a DL degree. It tells me a great deal about someone who earns a credential via a DL program. But that is me.

 

In your answer is the first part of an answer: DL allows to study without tutors. Do you think those tutors are happy to have less job ? DL systems force those teachers to write down and structure their courses. When often those courses are a patchwork of documents, and they assure the LINK between them. Yes,many justify their job by their unability to present a commercial product, a course.
I had to work with a collegue, who earned her degree through brick and mortar school.She was able to talk a lot of the good ambiance, and how they "understand" concepts during courses. But in practice, she had not a clue how to use basic tools of economics ,statistics and organisation.
I am convinced that brick and mortar school are useful for basic education, social integration, or very intensive learning matters.
But a great part of postgrade courses could be made all in DL , or half of it.
One one the first reason that some people are against DL is that many of them could not have passed the DL exams, like the one of Heriott-Watt MBA.
And some professors are against it as they are unable to write a professional course.
Stan

 

Brick & Mortar vs. Distance Learning. I think that in general, the distance learner has to become a better student. Most of the time distance learners are presenting their opinions in a written format. The ideas must be clearly logical, consistent, and accurate. In many ways the internet requires one to focus on the quality of the idea, and not a judement about the value of the person. When an idea is presented in the spoken arena there is a great deal of room for reading, body posture, facial expression, and other hints. People often forget the oral inaccuracy and recognize the spoken truth when the presenter is someone they like. That really does not happen with the written word. I think the critism of distance learning comes from the side of learning that is the "old boys club" or "networking". In some places in academia having the interpersonal relationships is as important, or more important, than the knowledge base.
I also think that many disciplines over estimate the role of faculty in learning. I took one undergraduate psychology course as part of a 376 student lecture class (the room had 350 seats). It would be totally ridiculous to think that an internet course in the same subject would have less direct faculty contact.
I think there is also a bricks & mortar disconnect in how much class time contact a student in an typical class can have with the instructor. In a business class 25% of the grade was class participation. The class met 3 times a week in 50 minute sessions with 49 students. If each student participated for just one minute each class, there would be no time left for lecture. And the question of the early post, what kind of measurement criteria did the faculty member have for "participation"? Was there a rubric for the participation? In a distance learning class, the student participation is there in black and white, clear and obvious.
The online and distance classes have to take into account the quality and quantity of comment and discussion.
So in my opinion, when people put down distance learning it is either because they have not thought about it, or have not looked at the real comparison with an objective eye.
I do agree that there are some classes that we do not yet have the technology to offer online easily. Generally science lab courses are tough to offer online. Generally practicum classes like counseling are hard to offer online. However, with the use of digicameras and microphones it would be possible to offer many interactive counseling courses online. Medical Doctors are even starting to do operations from remote locations.
All the best!

 

I think there are two distinct issues here. One is the prestige of a degree, i.e., how that degree "sells" in the marketplace as a credential. The other is the actual quality of the educational experience. The two issues definitely are not synonymous.

In terms of the prestige of a degree, the most telling single factor is how difficult was it to get admitted into a program? The schools with the highest average test scores and gpas tend to be the ones the carry the most conventional prestige.

In terms of the quality of the educational experience, that's a whole different ballgame. My own experience in legal education is that institutional prestige and the quality of the classroom education are not necessary related. However, what can be different at the prestigious institutions is the quality of the out-of-classroom experience. The students at those schools are remarkably accomplished, and as a result the extracurricular life can be incredibly enriching.

In terms of DL vs. brick & mortar, certain comparisons are clear: A quality DL program requires a student to truly learn the material; it's much harder to hide among the throng! But the human element, the out-of-class activities, is severely diminished. E-mail, the Web, etc., can make up for part of that, but not totally.

An example of this is the Heriot-Watt MBA by distance learning. Sure, it's a fine university and all, but if you ask many brick and mortar MBA holders what was the most educationally useful part of their program, they'll tell it was the case studies that were chewed over and batted around in study groups, then discussed in class. The Heriot-Watt DL MBA requires none of that interaction; it's simply a exam program. And while preparation for those exams requires working through various problem sets, it's not the same as meeting in person to toss around ideas.

 

I don't believe a DL degree is necessarily inferior to a "conventional" degree... and I am definetly not alone (I have heard of very, very little bias against legitimate DL degrees). However, in many cases a DL degree is inferior to a conventional degree because academic standards are inferior. Here are some warning signs...

1) Life Experience
Legitimate, mainstream universities do not generally give credit for life experience (i.e. not a generally accepted academic standard) but some DL programs do.
2) Portfolio
Legitimate, mainstream universities do not generally give credit (or very little credit) for portfolio (i.e. not a generally accepted academic standard) but some DL programs do. (for the the uninitiated portfolio goes like this... tell me what you did last summmer... not sufficient, tell me what you learned last summer... to fly a kite, is there a credit course at a school somewhere on kite flying... yes, OK 3 credits).
3) Excessive Credits from Proficiency Exams
Legitimate, mainstream universities generally allow limited credits from proficiency exams (i.e. maybe 15+credits but no where close to an entire degree).
4) Unreasonable Acceleration
A legitimate, mainstream university does not allow unreasonable acceleration (i.e. lowering of standards). An average/above average person completing a legitimate 4yr degree in 3 years part time is an amazing accomplishment... 4wks is ridiculous.
5) Lack of Proctored Exams
A legitimate, mainstream university does not allow many credits earned without proctored examination.

The good news is that there are many, many DL degrees from respected schools that do not have the issues mentioned above. The bad new is that these degree actually require academic work (oh my... having to actually earn a degree... what a terrible thought).

 

Definetly a matter of opinion... I have "tossed around ideas" at a top 20ish or so (depending on the year) school in a full-time program and I have seen the HW material/exams... if I were to do it again, I am no sure I would pick a full-time/part-time/some-residential program.

 

Here is a reply to "kye"'s original note. Thanks - Andy

Originally posted by kye:
I have been reading some of the message boards and am just a little bit puzzled. Why should a DL degree be inferior to a "conventional" degree? Being a DL entails

** This doesn't have to be so - but it probably is. The medium of instruction isn't the problem so much as it is the institutions that are involved and how they conduct education. Indeed, the top U.S. universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) are based on traditional, on-campus education aimed at the brightest students. At most, they offer only a small part of their curriculum on-line. Meanwhile, the schools that focus on DL aren't in the top tier. They are mostly newer and are focused on educating the masses - not the elite. That's not to say that DL doesn't have a mission - but don't confuse the mission of DL with that of top academic institutions.
----------------

reading, studying and understanding a subject which you often knew nothing about when you started. You acquire the knowledge without a tutor helping you every step of the way.

** It is true that DL students must be more independent. As a result, there is a much higher drop out rate for DL programs than traditional on-ground programs.
-------------------

I feel that DL entails more discipline on the part of the student. One has to be dedicated and focused. Full time students probably spend as much time on individual study as do Distance Learners.

** I have to disagree here - most DL students are part-time. Many have jobs and families. They can't spend the same amount of time as full-time students. Yet many expect to earn a similar degree in the same amount of time as a full-time student. This can't be done without compromising quality.
-------------------


In the final analysis they write examinations to the same standards as full time students, so why is there a difference.

** not so - DL students write exams to the standards of the DL institutions they attend, not to the standard of traditional full-time programs.
----------------------


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

 

Andy,

You bring up a very insightful point.

One could make the point that there are two types of DL programs:
1) Those which ascribe to the standards of traditional programs (i.e. CSDH, HW, research docs and many, many more).
2) Those which do not ascribe to the standards of traditional programs but to the standards of the institutions (or individual programs).

Generally, those which have the same standards as traditional programs are more respected/ accepted but are less accomodating.

 

When I referred to DL I meant through fully accredited universities. It appears that in the USA, at least, there is no formal accreditation by the central government (as opposed to individual states, or provinces).
Where there are private, non-accredited colleges or universities, there may be problems with standards.

 

Ah, the good ol' days. I had a high school teacher who seemed to sincerely believe that high school should be postponed until teens' hormones died down.

When I entered university, I came to conclusion that university should be postponed until the need to drink 20 vodkas on the rocks in a row died down.

------------------
Quinn

 

True to a some extent, though these schools also have large special admissions categories for everything from selected racial groups to children of celebrities. These kids seem to graduate right along with those admitted competitively for scholarship. And interestingly, their SATs usually aren't even included when astronomical average test scores are given to magazines.

Which suggests that there is prejudice against the medium. If a prestige school went on-line in a big way, enrolling a significant percentage of its students remotely, could it remain a prestige school?

I made a post on another thread about the history of higher education which I think is relevant here. In the West, higher education began as a clerical pursuit concerned not with this mundane world but with the "higher things" of the next. It was an aristocratic pursuit until the 19'th century at the earliest.
The common man (and all women) had no place in a university. Universities emphasized Greek and Latin, the liberal arts, and paid little attention to applications. Things that got your hands dirty like engineering and agriculture were accepted only slowly and grudgingly. Often these subjects were relegated to separate and "lesser" institutions. Engineering was for mechanics, not scholars, and many engineering schools had their starts as mechanic's institutes.

So I think that the history of higher education is a tightly tangled mess, in which questions of perceived educational quality are tightly bound to issues of social class and the progressive secularization of Western society. Those schools that aggressively seek the "top tier" rankings are often the same schools that seek to retain the style and perogatives of an age when possession of a university degree made one a peer of aristocrats and suitable company at their table.

In that light, I will repeat:

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, does it have anything to do with DL? The question now seems to be the role and the academic legitimacy of all the "lesser" schools, regardless of whether they are DL or not. And it also raises the question of the legitimacy of even providing higher education, as opposed to trades and vocational schooling, to those of us out here in "the masses".

 

It should not. But there are distinctions.

EXTERNAL COURSES:

I’ve had the following external courses:
1. College Algebra -- B -- was hard
2. Quantitative Methods -- B -- was a nightmare
3. Statistics -- B -- was easy, but required detailed study
4. Business Finance -- C -- was extremely hard

Prior to taking these courses, I didn’t have in-depth study techniques. Each of the above courses-of-instruction taught me how to sit down and study without the aide of feedback from an instructor. That is chiefly what I got out of those courses.

INRESIDENT COURSES:

In-resident courses are of a different nature. You get the textbook ”as well as” the immediate feedback and the personal experiences of the professor.

COMBINATION:

IMO, the best degree would be a mix of distance learning and in-resident courses. I do not think that a bachelors degree that is 100% external is in the best interest of a student who is coming right out of high school. However, ror adults with several years of experience, I think that it would be okay to get a degree that is 100% DL.

 

Hi Bill Dayson,

It's a pleasure to see you in the same thread.

 

I'm referring to your last three "warning signs." Isn't there one school on the East Coast (Perhaps Excelsior) that would grant an undergraduate degree based on proficiency exams? Now, don't proficiency exams (which I believe are proctored) establish that the examinee has in fact mastered the content and has demonstrated the knowledge?

"Acceleration" is also considered a warning sign. Again, if a person can demonstrate that they have developed the knowledge base, is time terribly significant?

Finally, you speak of the absence of proctored exams as another warning sign. Many graduate programs don't have exams at all - much less proctored exams. Professors use other methods of evaluating students. Fact is, any one could "write" a paper for a student. This isn't uncommon in graduate programs in the University of California system nor the California State University system.


------------------
David F

 

A principle followed at Excelsior is embodied by the statement made by Ewald B. Nyquist, former New York Commissioner of Education, proposing to, "award undergradutae degrees to those who are able to demonstrate knowledge and abilities equivalent to those of a degree recipient from a New York state college or university, regardless of how the candidates prepared themselves." This was proposed by Nyquist at his inaugural address and stronglg supported by then Govenor Rockefeller, the president of Columbia University, and others.
Nyquist believed that equity in education should not be wasted and that the "cost of traditionalism are too high." Nyquist later stated "What you know is more important than where you learned it." These statements were then put into effect by USNY through the Regents External Degree Program, becoming Regents College, and now Excelsior College.

Source:
--- Nolan, D., Regents College The Early Years, The Donning Company Publishers, 1998.


As underpinnings of our modern DL movement no one should consider an accredited DL degree as inferior. Instead, quality must be assessed on the basis of the program offered and its outcomes. In instutions where grade inflation, quality faculty, and other factors are called into question the institution loses credibility and in essence will eventually lose its accreditation if it continues down this path.

We must also admit that the pedigree of the school plays a factor in student's decisions and I wonder if the day will come when a DL institution will be given the same
"pedigree" status as a brick and mortar institutions? If we look at outcomes and provide comparisons that day may someday come. Nonetheless, there is a lot of institutional history and traditionalism that will impede this view. To help overcome this view I believe students should stop second guessing themselves when they choose a solid DL institution.

John

 

I think that some prejudice exists. Ironically, it seems most prevalent among professors themselves. DL doesn't seem to be as well accepted in universities as it is in business and industry. The professors may sell vocational programs for the "masses", but they haven't yet fully accepted it as an acceptable qualification for themselves.

"In many cases"?

They do? That depends on how "life experience credit" is being defined. If you mean "send in a resume, get a degree", I totally agree. But no accredited DL programs that I know of do that. (Even CA-approved schools generally don't.) If you are referring to giving students the opportunity to document the learning they received during the course of their life experiences, most legitimate universities offer things like challenge exams. (University of California does.) It's a generally accepted practice.

If credit by examination is legitimate, why isn't use of a portfolio in cases in which applied skills are being assessed? If a person wants to challenge an art course in painting or design, what's wrong with assessing work that the student has already done? In fact, many universities do this. It's more practical than requiring the student to produce several new works then and there.

If that's the case, then what is your opinion of British 100% exam based programs such as Heriot Watt's MBA or the University of London external programme?

You still have a bug up your butt about Lawrie Miller, don't you? I agree that it is probably impossible to start at layman's level without significant exposure to a subject and then proceed to earn a degree in a month. But if you already know the material and have done the necessary reviews, I think you can schedule the necessary exams that quickly. It's all a question of what a student brings to the table.

I have never been required to take a proctored examination. CSUDH-HUX assesses its students almost entirely on the basis of the papers that they write. I took some on-campus philosophy graduate courses at SF State and they were largely assessed on papers written out of class too. There was usually a class participation component, expecially for seminars, and occasionally a blue-book type written exam held in class during the last meeting.

That's a non-sequitur, isn't it? How do you get from examination credit, portfolios, acceleration and lack of proctored examinations to the suggestion that no academic work has been done?

 

What you may have seen is a reference to the fact that many may perceive DL as inferior. As has been pointed out DL actually requires more maturity. Ideally an education would include both.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden