University of the Free State (South Africa)

It is indeed obvious that not all high school graduates can earn PhDs. But that's not what I'm saying.

While not all high school graduates earn PhDs, it is pretty obvious that some of them do.
So for the sake of argument, let's suppose that someone goes from high school to the doctorate via the following route:

1. High school to bachelor's, where admission to the bachelor's program is guaranteed if you meet the minimum standard.
2. Bachelor's to master's, where admission to the master's program is guaranteed if you meet the minimum standard
3. Master's to doctorate, where admission to the doctoral program is guaranteed if you meet the minimum standard

Does this scenario ever happen in real life? Of course it does -- to suggest otherwise would be crazy talk. It certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but I never said that it did. But if that scenario did to you, then maybe you would assume that the next step was:

4. Doctorate to prestigious job, where employment in the prestigious job is guaranteed if you meet the minimum standard.

I'm just saying that someone who has experienced Steps 1 to 3 might assume -- incorrectly -- that Step 4 comes next.

 

And I'm just saying that a huge number of people (the vast majority) get stopped somewhere between steps 1 and 3. The idea that some who proceed into step 4 might get stopped seems common sense and in fact, is so common that we've all made jokes about it . . . "You want fries with that?"

Some people assume that past academic success (even marginal success) will lead to future academic success. I'm sure that's true. I'm guessing that a lot of people enter PhD programs not so much because they're passionate about their academic area of interest but because they have little or no idea what else they might do. They are deferring their loans and crossing their fingers. There also are people who will rob a convenience store and, having gotten away with it once will try it again and maybe even again. Typically you can find them in jail. As for the PhD people, I'd like to think that these people, those that earn legitimate doctoral degrees from legitimate schools, know that they're taking a risk. Maybe there are a few that are so caught up in their own micro-minds that they know nothing about the world around them but most are living, breathing people who watch the news, are deeply involved in academia, talk daily to others in the same situation and know exactly what is in front of them. As far as I know there's no evidence to the contrary.

To me it would be like going to a casino and betting everything you own on a roll of the dice. If your number doesn't come up you can't then say that you didn't know there was a risk of losing.

And I'll add one more thing. Within 10 years the DBA will be as irrelevant as the MBA is now.

 

Anyone? Yes. Everyone? No.

 

It is already irrelevant, there are not many jobs that call for a DBA besides higher education jobs and the few ones that call for one, call for one from a professional accredited school (e.g. AACSB).

I agree with Caldog that the general population seems to believe that Doctorate= higher pay and prestigious job. This is based on the posts published in this forum, some people find an accredited doctorate in a far country that costs 5K and then ask if this can be the ticket to a 200K plus job. If this was the case, most people will be doing one and so far we don't see people lining up to get a PhD from UFS.

 

Everyone who has disagreed with me has made excellent points.:grumble:

 

Really? This little ol' forum?

Perhaps instead people are think that a doctorate leads to more pay because, generally speaking, it does. People holding doctorates make, on average, more than people holding a master's. The same for master's holders over those with a bachelor's. I'm sure there are other contributing factors (like experience). But again, generally speaking, higher degrees correlate quite well to higher salaries.

See this: Education pays

 

I assume that these statistics were generated by using PhDs from traditional American schools.

Can we say that these also hold for DL doctoral degrees earned from obscure Universities in SA, Mexico, Thailand, India and many other countries with cheap education discussed here?

There is a difference of 16K per year income between a masters and a doctorate according to these stats, I assume that this difference will go lower if you add other risk factors such as DL, foreign from country with less prestige, university with little prestige, etc.

As UFS has a lot risk factors (foreign, DL, etc), I could safely assume that this 16K difference might go a lot lower on average to the point that might not be even be worth it. Of course for some people still might work with no risk if they work for institutions where pay scales are dictated by level of education but this might be a small group of people.

I believe that the assumption that ANY accredited doctorate would lead to a higher pay is wrong and this is point that I am trying to make.

 

Why would you assume that? Wouldn't it be reasonable that this included a sample of all doctorate holders? The survey seems to make no distinction like the one you offer.

If those represent a different population, fine. But we don't know that. I'm also unclear on what "cheap education" means.

Your assumption, your argument to make. But simply asserting it doesn't support it. (I'm not arguing against your point. I'm saying you and everyone else doesn't know.)

Again, I don't thing you can say that with any real certainty. After all, the diploma mill industry is based on the notion that having a doctorate from a school no one has ever heard of is a good thing. (Even though what they sell is fake, it is based on that assumption. And the industry is rather robust.)

There is a big difference between "any" and "every." As we know, there is little or no quid pro quo regarding degrees. But I have to think that if going for a doctorate was likely to do little good to most careers, people generally wouldn't do it. But they do. They do a lot.

 

I will use the same argument that Kizmet made previously. We know that a lot of people go to the Casino and we know very few people win but people still keep going to the Casino in spite the little odds of winning.

I think the same logic applies to people doing MBAs from low tiers, PhDs from online schools, DL PhDs from obscure countries and universities etc. They know that there is a high risk of no gain from these programs financially speaking but they hope to be the ones that are the exemption to the rule.

If I wanted to minimize my risk of my return of my investment for my doctorate, I would go to a traditional program from a known school with professional accreditation, but this means a considerable investment in terms of time, money, etc.

People come here with the logic of "I want to pay as little as possible for my doctorate, do it online from the comfort of my home, no trips, in as little as time as possible but I also want to be able to use it to be a VP, tenure professor, high paying career etc.".

I think expectations from these programs are too high and they were never designed for this purpose.

 

You forgot to add, no GRE requirements, very little writing, no proctored exams, no comps, ah, and they take someone with a 2.25 GPA.:tongue:

 

Actually, if you score more than 700 points in your GMAT, chances are that you will be offered admission to a PhD program with full scholarship and research assistant money equivalent to a salary (some get close to 40K).

In few words, if GMAT is high then the PhD comes almost for free and with a salary.

If someone is willing to pay 50K for an online doctorate and is making a salary of 50K per year, then the full time on campus doctorate makes more sense given the lower risk to get a higher salary that represents to do it on campus from an professional accredited school.

The way I see it is that people make more money not because the degree but because they are smarter than the average person. The admission requirements of GMAT, GRE, etc just makes sure that only people that are smart can get in so then they can claim that they were able to land better jobs because the PhD but the reality is that the people were smart already so they would probably do as well with or without doctorate.

If you remove GMAT, GPA, etc requirements and you take your average Joe Smith to the program just because is willing to pay 50K and you make the program lax enough so people can graduate and avoid any legal sues because angry customers that were not able to write something intelligent for a dissertation, you will end with graduates that will probably have lot lower chances of making more money because of the doctorate.

 

Your argument holds only if the casino metaphor does. That's a pretty tough comparison--a few hours or day spent in a casino spending (likely) hundreds of dollars vs. years in a doctoral program spending tens of thousands.

 

The UFS was established in 1904 and it is a well established South African University. It has a university partnership with Cornell University and Yale:
A university is only as good as its partners, and so a process was started to build very strong partnerships with the best international universities. Two examples of which the UFS is very proud is the partnership with Cornell University which includes the placement of Prestige Scholars Programme (PSP) scholars, as well as joint research and publications in agricultural research. The other is the partnership with Yale University and its Jonathan Edwards Centre which establishes the UFS as its digital hub for theological research in Africa."
http://research.ufs.ac.za/dl/userfiles/documents/00000/143_afr.pdf

Here are some extra stats:

"Campuses
Main Campus in Bloemfontein, South Campus in Bloemfontein and the Qwaqwa Campus in the Eastern Free State

Students
Students studying on Main Campus: 26 000
Students on South Campus: 1 100
Students on Qwaqwa Campus: 3 800

Staff
Total number of staff: 2 900" University of the Free State Facts for Journalists

I guess if it is good for Yale and Cornell it will probably pass the test of acceptability. You may have to inform people about the university that's all.

 

This is priceless. However, you forgot to add that they also want a gold embossed seal on their diploma and could you please make the font a bit more Gothic and oh yeah, while you're at it, in Latin.

 

Also, make sure to defend your decision. More than one will ask you about the reason why you went all the way to Africa to get your doctorate by using distance while you are in the US with so many local options. More than one would be skeptical and think that you went there for the wrong reasons.

It is very different if a SA citizen went to UFS than if an American citizen went there, a SA citizen might not have many options.

As I mentioned before, if you want to teach on the side with the SA degree or become a full time instructor at a no name university or cc, I see this degree working with no problems. However, if you are going to use it for prestigious positions make sure to come up with good arguments to defend your option.

 

It can also be a wonderful opportunity to talk about your learning, your experiences, your research. I've found that people are truly curious (once they get past the "how'd you do it" question) about your experiences at a foreign school.

 

In general, a foreign degree can be seen as positive thing if the school in question can be justified as a good option for a chosen field.

My problem with UFS, UNISA, etc is that it seems that people want to go there mainly because the price and the perception that a research degree is easier. This is based on the comments that some students made for their reasons to want to go there.

My other problem is that with so many scams going on with people buying degrees over the internet (even legit ones), people might be skeptical that you went to get your degree from a country with a high level of corruption (ranked 69th out 176 according to corruption perception index (Corruption in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)).

If the person lives in SA, the degree wouldn't raise any eyebrows but if the person is living in the middle of New Hampshire and shows up for a VP position with a PhD from a South African school and the person has all the previous degrees and job from local places, the resume most likely go to the recycle bin before the person is asked to explain the degree.

 

Is a less-than-first-tier education nothing more than a lottery ticket or roll of the roulette wheel? For what purpose were these programs designed?

I have a career earning low-6 salary for the last decade with only "some college, no degree" and only recently decided to go back to college, get a degree and work toward my goals of an academic career. I do have aspirations of continuing on to post-baccalaureate studies, and if I'm capable, to earn a Ph.D. and to teach. I've always believed an earned degree is better than no degree. Am I wrong? Is the prevailing attitude on this forum "tier 1 or bust?"

 

The comment was not meant to discourage people to earn higher education, the comment was made because quite a few people come to the forum and ask if a PhD from an exotic place that seems to be rather cheap and accredited by their local authorities will help them to become tenure track professors, VP, high paying jobs, etc.

It is just a comment about high expectations from these programs rather than bashing them. If someone completes a UFS PhD with the expectation to be more competitive and teach on the side, I think it is a reasonable expectation but this is far from expecting that this degree would help me to get an advantage to land a 200K+ job over other candidates just because the PhD.

 

My problem with UFS, UNISA, etc is that it seems that people want to go there mainly because the price and the perception that a research degree is easier. This is based on the comments that some students made for their reasons to want to go there.



I can tell you that is not why I chose to attend UNISA. I enjoyed that fact that

a) You are on your own. You literally are on YOUR own. That is a good thing for me. It also helps that I have a dissertation coach.
b) It is not easier. I have taken doctoral classes in history at UH and Texas A&M. It is not easier. UNISA is just different than UH. Not that either one is bad or good, just different. You do not have the dealings with other students, but in my case, I like it that way.
c) Cheaper is not easier. Yes, my tuition is much lower than American doctoral students, but task is just as tough. I will tell you that July 2013 will make 4 years in the program. I am staring at 5 years easily before I finish and I would bet the farm December 2014 would be my best bet for finishing.

For example. I have two disseration chairs. One from UNISA and one from the USA. The one from the USA is an expert and scholar in my field. UNISA let me choose him and they pay him while he is chair. As my UNISA chair stated, "I am just the nuts and bolts on this end. My job is to make sure you get done". After my dissertation passes those two, the committee of those two will choose four peers in my field. Those four will be the second committee to judge my dissertation. After it passes those two, then and only then, do I earn my PhD. As of now, I am still with my first committee. I am thinking it will get passed them in December of this year.


This is me. Your mileage may vary. I know you were directing that at me, but it will help for others considering UNISA or any other institution in SA things to think about. I love the school. I really do. It can be frustrating at times, but I do love the freedom to write and research.