Mandatory Disclosure of DL Status on Diplomas & Transcripts

A professor at the Saint Leo University was discussing the future status of DL degrees and he suggested that there will probably come a time when corporate executives will want to know if the degrees that were earned by applicants were "in resident" or were "DL."

He suggested that in about five years, the regional accrediting agencies will probably stipulate that it be noted on the transcripts whether or not the classes were DL or were "in resident."

He also said that most of the DL institutions are moving to the North Central region because they are the most lax regionally accrediting agency (of the six).

Comments?

 

Most of us would say that North Central is the most flexible or most willing to adapt, rather than the most lax.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of indication on transcripts/diplomas about distance education. But, because of the growth of "blended" education, I don't think it's likely to be required. The distinction between distance education and on-campus education blurs when even the on-campus students are working through online course material and interacting online.

 

"Prediction is difficult, especially about the future." Yogi Berra.

Your St. Leo professor sounds as if he might have some unexamined prejudices against distance learning. Like Gert, I'd describe North Central as flexible -- or forward-looking or progressive, or focused on outcomes rather than media -- but not lax.

Some corporate execs may want to know whether applicants' degrees were resident or DL -- one exec may be biased against DL, another may have earned his MBA through DL and be looking for others who have done the same. It's hard to quantify. A couple years ago, there was a study of human resources execs that did reveal some bias against distance learning. It also revealed many misconceptions.

 

I agree with Kristin. I think that the professor has a bias against DL. But, if they were to go ahead and make notes on diplomas that were earned by DL, I have a few other suggestions too. There's no reason to single out degrees earned by DL and ignore other accomodations or irregularities observed for different students.

So, in that spirit, how about a note on the diplomas of those who:

--earned their degrees in part-time programs?

--had extra tutoring because of learning disabilities or difficulties with certain subjects?

--had horrible professors?

--had to retake certain classes?

--had poor class attendance?


The list could go on, but you get the idea. I, of course, don't actually favor making any such notes on diplomas. The bottom line is that many business executives will say that they prefer employees with tradtionally-earned degrees if asked, but when the ball is actually in their court they will choose the best candidate for the job. Sometimes it will be a traditional student, sometimes it will be a non-traditional student. Other times it will be a student who had additional tutoring, had to retake classes, had horrible professers, etc.

I also have a hard time believing that the professor's motive is in helping execs make hiring decisions. The issue for him is not what those execs prefer, but what he prefers.

Tracy<><

 

That's possible, if "distance learning" ever becomes associated in the public mind with "substandard". That's why the mills are so dangerous.

I think that the chance of that is about zero. My reasons:

1. DL is too intimately mixed in with traditional on-campus education. Classroom courses have webpages and on-line materials. Residential students take DL classes in order to get more scheduling flexibility.

2. The regional accreditors are unlikely to create a two-tier accreditation system, with real accreditation (on-campus) and accreditation-lite (DL). If they become dissatisfied with DL, they will start issuing warnings for schools to shape up.

That's true, but misleading.

Where the NCA is "lax" is in the fact that it is willing to accredit 100% DL schools. WASC, SACS and some of the others generally want schools offering DL programs to have a significant in-person classroom program as well.

I agree with your guy from St. Leo that things are changing. But I think that they are changing towards greater acceptance of DL on the part of the accreditors. The accreditors are still feeling their way, still figuring out how to ride this horse. We will probably see WASC and the others gradually following NCA's lead on this one.

Bottom line: I see the biggest threat coming not from the accreditors, but from growing public awareness of the internet degree mills. That could stain all of us by association.

 

Yeah; this guy doesn't sound too bright. He thinks the NCA has noticeably laxer standards than the other five regional accreditors, and yet expects all six to agree on a single new controversial policy in five years?


Cheers,

 

Years ago, the Sosdian and Sharp study found that not only did 100% of HR people questioned accept DL degrees (they were asking only about what are now Excelsior, Edison, and Charter Oak), but there was a significant subset that said they preferred them, since it demonstrated that the person was capable of independent study, unsupervised work, etc.

But there were many fewer active diploma mills at the time, and awareness of the concept of bad or fake degrees was probably much lower.

 

In 2000, Vault.com did a survey of HR professionals and found that they had a slightly lesser view of DL schools and programs, but it was pretty clear the HR people didn't really understand what it was they didn't like.

 

I believe I read about that survey and have some reservations about how it was conducted. For example, as I recall, HR officers were asked whether they considered an online degree from an "accredited institution" to be more credible than a school that was "only on the internet" (or something to that effect). It was as if the two were mutually exclusive (i.e. that DL-only schools, ipso facto, were not "accredited institutions"). That was almost 2 years ago........time to conduct another survey.

As for designating whether the degree was earned online or in residency, the only response I can formulate (which would apply in many instances) is, "Well, duh!":

"Good morning. I've read your application and resume. I see you've been residing in Tampa and working for XYZ Corp continously for the last 7 years. You recently received your MBA from Golden Gate University? Now, was that degree earned online or in residency?" Sheesh!

 

I agree with Homer. The Vault.com article was a disgrace. From what I recall, they contrasted "accredited" institutions, exemplified by Stanford and Duke, with "internet only" institutions exemplified by Jones International (which of course is fully accredited). They also suggested that HR professionals look at admissions standards as an indication of an online program's worth.

Vault.com had an opportunity to provide something of real value to both employees and degree-seekers through their survey, but they dropped the ball completely.

 

I have expressed my views on transcripts in the past. As a hiring manager, I scrutinize transcripts very carefully. I wish (but don't expect) that universities would give a lot more information. The distance/on-campus issue would be interesting, but not too valuable. I'd be more interested in some of the following:

• Person's class rank for each course (in addition to grade).
• Synopsis of course content, including assigned texts, etc.
• Summary of assessment methods.

I obviously wouldn't look through all this for every candidate, but I certainly would for applicants being seriously considered for hire.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

You'd pass out if you did, and keyboards leave an awfully funny-looking mark on your forehead.

During the 80s, UC-Santa Cruz used a "narrative" grading system. The only people complaining, to my recollection, were the professors. The grad schools loved it and the students were cool with it (it was very "alternative," of course, and made formal "rankings" virtually impossible.) It also made for some pretty fierce work by the instructors at the end of each term.. which naturally doomed the concept.

 

figuring out what is "distance learning"

When people talk about "distance learning" it sounds like we know what we are talking about. But in the modern world almost every class has a distant component. It may be very hard to categorize the amount of "distance" in the education.
Regular classroom courses often have internet websites and email accounts. Would they be rated 50% distance and 50% classroom?
Some "internet" courses start with a face-to-face class meeting and end with one. Would that be a 60% distance and 40% classroom?
The classic independent study class is often done with an initial face-to-face, then email and phone calls. Would that be a 70% distance and 30% classroom?
Interactive television has classrooms. Often there is a group of students in the studio, and other groups at various locations. Would the students who take the course in the studio get "regular" credit and the students in far off studios be "distance"? in the same class with the same instructor?
There are videotaped classes which are shipped to external students. All students communicate by email and websites. External students may also use correspondence. Would the taped classroom be about 50% distance and 50% classroom? and the students viewing the tapes be 70% distance and 30% classroom?
Would internet classes be 100% "distance" even if taken by a student on campus?
Would a correspondence course be considereed 100% distance?
The question of how to treat "evening" or "continuing education" courses would arise. Are they "distance" because they are not part of a regular semester?
I think these decisions are way too many for a college registrar to keep track of.
All the best!