Okay, I tried to search for the thread on this, but it's getting harder and harder to find what you need here, what with the amount of info that passes through this site. Here's my question: What's the disadvantage, if any, of having a degree that is noted as External instead of Distant-Learning? For that matter, what is External (different than Distance-Learning)? London Bible College offers an External degree program, but they note on the degree that the accomplishments are the exact same as one who's done it brick and morter. The school is suppose to be very good, so I'm interested in resolving this. Thanks much, Keith
UofL I am a University of London advocate and the "External Programme" is distance learning with a different name. They are both the same thing.
Indeed, for the most part, where the British system is concerned, you will find "external" studies and "open learning" to be terms equivalent in meaning to "distance learning." Cory Seibel
Hey, thanks folks. I sure appreciate it. I think, then, it's settled; I think I want to do London Bible College. Way cool. Thanks again, Starkman
Externa-Distance The term 'external' existed long before the use of 'distance education' came into being. When I was a high-school studwent (I'm using US lingo here!) you went o university or (if you were demmed good enough) you wne to a college that offered full-time taught University of London degree coures and then you sat the UOL exams (externally) i.e. as a non-attendinf University of London student! Then there were (and still are) student who stuidy at home. They may just take the syllabus and learn by themeslves or take one of a number of correspondence courses (Wolsey Hall is probably the most famous) that eventually lead to you taking the unseen written examinations as an 'external' student ( you are not a full-time student at a London college). Don't under estimate the London degree - it is exacting and based solely on unseen, timed written examiantions that have no parallel in most countries, especially the US. This is not a 'swipe' at the US in any way just that all the new on-line RA programmes , in my view, don't stand up, academically, to the London University degree programmes and requirements! By the way, I've looked at most of what's on offer! telfax
Re: Externa-Distance That's obviously a matter of opinion. As for myself, I like the University of London external program. But I certainly don't consider it the best DL program in the world, or better than every American DL program. The reason is that I firmly believe that programs benefit tremendously from interactivity between students and professors, and from interaction between students themselves. The value of mentorship, guidance and thoughtful discussion can't be minimized. I can't imagine how a program that totally does away with professors and with instruction can be considered superior to programs that offer them. While I don't have a whole lot of respect for university teachers as a profession, I don't think that they are totally superfluous either. Certainly the U. of London external program stacks up very well against American degrees granted entirely by examination, like those offered by TESC. I'd agree with you in preferring London. But I wouldn't prefer it over a taught program that offers me an education as well as examinations.
mixed meanings for the word "external" Perhaps there is a historian out there who has a better understanding of the word "external". It seems to me that in England and Europe "External" tends to mean taking the exams, but not necessarily being on the main campus. Al Einstein would have been an external student submitting his paper on brownian movement to get his doctorate. In the USA external appears to have two twists. One was often used in connection with the "extension" service which often offered college courses, workshops, and trainings in "external" settings to the main campus. More recently "external" is used when a college established a "branch" office in another community. The distant offices are often (but not always) referred to as the external campus (sometimes the extended campus, sometimes the distant campus). I don't know of a college with an "external" campus which notes that the degree is external in the USA. Posters to this site have said the U. of London does it that way. However, several posters have stated they have taken college courses in the USA which were designated as "external" on their transcript. That has not been my experience in the USA. all the best!
There is a CLEAR difference between external and DL As far as the University of London is concerned there is a clear difference between 'distance learning' and 'external'. Many years ago a student could go as a full-time student to one of the London colleges. They would spend three years there as a 'resident' student. If they were successful in their examinations they would be awarded a University of Londond degree - as an INTERNAL student - i.e. they had physically attended a college of the university. At the same time many technical colleges, and other post secondary school institutions (that eventually became polytechnics in the main), sought to become an approved University of London centre to be able to teach London degree programmes and enter students for the London examinations. The students would take the examinations at the institution where they were taught. However, you could attend these approved instititions as a full-time student but not as a resident student per se of the University of London itself! Hence, the students who were successful at the non-London institutions became known as 'external' students - i.e. they were not members of the University of London itself. All students though took exactly the same examinations! However, there was also another category of 'external' student. You could study at home and plough through the syllabus and read the recommened texts and/or sign up with a correspondence school (Wolsey Hall was the big one in its hey-day) that tutored you for the London examinations. As a private, 'external' student you could register as such with the University of London and then attend one of London's approved examination centres to take your examinations. If you passed, you were awarded a London 'external' degree. I think 'distance-learning' these days really means not just studying at a distance but probably receiving some sort of material from the institution. The British Open university does this (as do many other institutions) and although the University of London does now issue course materials, etc it is still possible to study entirely on your own and register with the University and just turn up at an approved centre and take the examinations. Hence, the continuing use of 'external'! Several (very clever) friends of mine when they were at Oxford and Cambridge signed up as London external studenmts and took the London exams at the same time as they were taking their Oxbridge finals and so finished their three years at university with a London and an Oxford or Cambridge degree! It took me all my time to cope with one degree programme! In one case, one friend was studying music at Cambridge but took the London BD in theology at the same time as an external candidate. Many years later he ended up as professor of modern theology (having later completed the London MTh and a PhD at another UK university) at a major British university. His interest in music remains his prime hobby! I had another friend who started life as a ticket seller for British Railways at a train station. He took an external degree in psychology with London, ended up writing many books and refereed journal articles and came up with a system of computation that is now used throughout the world! He never went on to take a bachelor's or doctorate and when I asked him why he simply stated that he didn't need to do so! His research work and publications stood in their own right as a statement to his ability - he was right! You can have as many doctorates as you wish but it doesn't make you an original scholar. This man was. Unfortunately, he died of cancer, more than 10 years ago, at the age of 47 having attained one of the most senior professorial posts in a British university and was head of his department which eventually had a massive impact on technology driven learning - all with a London extenal bachelor's degree! I wish he had lived to see how his work has revolutionised computer delivered learning because he would still be spear-heading and driving things forward today. He was external examiner to over 20 doctoral students including some extremely well known writers today, especially inthe field of psychology! His other interest was foreign langauages. He was fluent in 11 of them including Russian and Japanese! That's clever! Now you see what he didn;t need a doctorate and wouldnot if he was alive today. Institutions would be offering him them as honorary degrees! I really wouldn't start 'navel gazing' as to whether people frown on full-time, distance-learning and external degrees. Some people may do so but in my experience most do not! In fact, I've always thought that a distance-learning/external degree is harder to achieve and, in my experience, most recruiters and academics think likewise. At the end of the day, it is the individual person applying for the job and his/her personality and ability to do the job that gets him/her the job once you've shown you can tackle the academics. Another very good friend of mine got his master's degree and PhD from one of the old UK 'polys' and so earned a CNAA degree. He could have traded it in when the institution became a university. He is a traditional academic. He is now a senior professor and associate dean of a major university BUT his publications record is impecable - and that's why he has the job, not simply because of a long list of degrees after his name that were earned years ago. It is estimated that a degree, per se, is worthless after 7 years in that knowledge is expanding so quickly. So, for me, having a doctorate after this sort of period of time simply tells me that the person had the tenacity, guts and motivation to spend a long period of time earning it and after ten years or so that's really all any degree says about a person! What have they done since and what have they published? Interestingly enought, the US is not that much different from the Uk when it comes to publications. Most doctoral degree earners do not publish after they receive their doctorate, unless they are going to be traditional academics. If you want to do a London degree as an external student then you'll be taking what is widely regarded as one of the world's leading degrees and I doubt you'll ever have any problem getting it recognised - other than possibly Itlay where they just seem to be a law unto themselves! This has gone onfar too long! Apologies. telfax
"telfax" wrote: "... You can have as many doctorates as you wish but it doesn't make you an original scholar..." Well, it should. To my mind, the principal criterion of a doctoral degree is that it DOES recognise an original contribution. If one's doctorate research did not, then I suggest the degree should not have been called a doctorate. Even professional degrees, like DBA's, should demonstrate a strong element of ground-breakingness and original thought. (My reading of the material for external Australian DBA's gave me that indication.) A doctorate should add significantly to the body of knowledge; a masters extends it or re-applies it. That's the difference. Kind regards
I disagree! I disagree Peter! Yes, I agree that a doctorate advances knowledge and/or theory and/or practice. However, generally speaking, doctoral students/graduates imagine that their work is far more advanced than is the cadse! I've been supervising doctoral degrees now for some time and students always think they've invented the 'best thing since sliced bread'! They haven't. They've 'made a contribution'....! So, endless doctoral degrees don't make a person a scholar or a real 'original thinker' and that's why, in my view, so many don't go on to publish their thesis, in whole or in part. So many people are 'scholars for a moment' until they get the doctorate and then forget all about academic research. Most theses end up collecting dust in university libraries. If I take all my doctoral students, say over the last five years, only one (my most recent) has done something with her PhD - turned it into a 'tool box kit' to be used by other industries confronted with the issue she researched. However, she could have written what has now emerged as the 'tool box kit' without having done her PhD. I'm trying to get her to write two journal articles based on her PhD. She could turn chapters 4 and 7 into refereed journal artciles almost overnight - she won't make any money as she will with her tool kit! telfax
Dear "telfax" You are better qualified to talk about doctoral studies than I, and I quite happily defer to your greater knowledge and experience. I believe we are saying the same thing: doctoral study SHOULD be about making an original contribution; clearly that is not always the case. I see your frustration in students really not progressing or developing their "original" thoughts. I think that is your main point: to have been considered to have made a real original contribution one needs to do more than write an obscure thesis. One needs to share and then develop the contribution into something of real value to scholars/practitioners in the field. That is the real mark of "significant original contribution". Kind regards
Re: mixed meanings for the word "external" My MSQA from Cal State U Dominguez Hills was an external degree. In this case it meant that the program was self supporting (no cost to taxpayers) so I paid higher fees than for an "internal" degree. All my classes were held on the CSUDH campus. An advantage to the program was that outside lecturers could be used so the students received got real world real time information. Nowhere on my diploma or transcript is the word external mentioned.
