N.Y. Times Article discusses failed DL Programs

An article entitled "Lessons Learned at Dot. Com U," in todays Circuit section of the New York Times, describes how a number of traditional schools' distance learning programs have not succeeded.

Included on this list are New York University, Coumbia U. and University of Maryland. Interestingly, they note that the U. of Phoenix is doing quite well due to their marketing and branding expertise.

See below.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/technology/circuits/02DIST.html?rd=hcmcp?p=042_HJ042_Hc49HhM012000mQE4aQE0C

 

Although nontraditional DL schools have a different market niche than brick and mortar DL programs, the fact that a number of traditional schools incorporated a DL format seemed to add to the validity and credibility of these degrees.

I do not believe that the lack of success of these traditional DL programs will adversely affect the number of students who will be attracted to and attend nontraditional DL institutions. However, I am concerned about whether this trend to discontinue these programs in the traditional sector may detract from the value of these credentials in the job market or in the public's perception!

 

Also posted yesterday by Rich in this thread: Hard to Fathom.

 

My take on this is that the traditional schools tried to incorporate too much of the traditional mindset (required residencies, exorbitant costs) into their DL programs, I don't think marketing (slick or otherwise) has much to do with it.

UMass-Lowell (as traditional as you can get) offers only a couple of DL programs, but they're good ones. They don't really market them at all, once in awhile there will be a small blurb in the sunday paper, but they're doing just fine because they offer the recognition of a B&M school with the convenience of true DL.


Bruce