Full-time grads have an edge when firms hire. Opening sentence of this article: "THE $20,000 you spent on getting an external degree may just be money down the drain." There's a discussion forum about this article: Are distance-learning degrees worth less than full-time ones?.
Here's a couple of thoughts: The appropriate counterparts that should be compared are distance v. residential and full-time v. part-time, not full-time v. distance (although I recognize that many, perhaps most DL students are part-time). It completely neglects the students who are residential AND part-time (this is a very big group) and a smaller group that are DL AND full-time. Besides all that, and if I can be more than a bit parochial, how many people on this forum expect to be seeking employment in Singapore? If any conclusion can be made from this "study" it is that DL is everywhere and that a large percentage of prospective employers see DL degrees as valid credentials. Jack
Interesting...especially since I have been reading in the industry trades about how many HR people are favoring those who have experience with online learning, since they can provide staff development via the Internet to these employees, rather than having to hire expensive training consultants. The few real studies of the utility of RA undergraduate external degrees (starting with Sosdian & Sharp's research nearly 25 years ago) shows a high acceptance in employment and into grad schools. With the increased acceptance of DL, I do not see this trend reversing. A key word repeated in this article is "mindset". It is true that there are many who are stuck in the mindset that only full-time studies can produce quality graduates. Certainly everyone visiting this forum has had experience with someone who, due to lack of knowledge, experience or other factors, maintains an incorrect mindset. I doubt that many graduates of the online masters degree program at Stanford (for example) would have difficulty getting their degrees accepted. Tony
...and to add another - DL and double time. I choose DL because I can do it at any speed, and my speed has always been double speed. It can pose a bit of a problem at e.g. Masters level in that I had to get special authorisation each time initially. I usually study [when i was studying] a minimum of 75 hours a week, and add to that, that i study directly relative to my work so you can add another 50-60 for that. A degree can be completed in half time or less. One benefit we have out here [thankfully] is that DL is very accepted and no one would even bother to ask how someone got the degree - f2f or DL. The other issue is that to discriminate out here in how the degree was obtained, would be an offence. US legal systems seeme to work differnetly to yours... anitdiscrimiation law are not lax.
Hi Gert and Peter. My very unscientific and unstatistical breakdown would be like this: In many workplaces the idea of how and where (within limits) a degree was earned is not particularly important. If a company is the kind that would be concerned as to where the applicant went to school, they probably would care how as well, clearly favoring traditional. Many, many universities simply limit the number of distance units they will take in transfer, and probably don't give full value to DL degrees as a whole. In academic circles I think there is still a tremendous bias against any entirely DL degree. I think colleges and universities are--to say the least--disinclined to even consider a DL applicant for teaching unless it is the kind of person--reputation, publications, fame--that they would probably hire without a degree. It has never been my impression that any DL degree, except perhaps the UK research doctorate (if it involved at least limited personal contact) was in the academic world considered anything like on a par with a residential program. Mind you, I do not think this is the way it should be or will be--but the way it is right now. Craig
This seems a view restricted to US - maybe some are upset that they didn't invent DE One college I write and tutor for even predates Pitmans in UK and started operation in 1874. Their archives are amazing, and many Accountants qualified for their exams through them. I did my post graduate work with the University of New England - www.une.edu.au and it was DE essentially with optional 4 day workshops per subject per semester. It is a highly regarded university in Australia and you will find many Universities with senior faculty who are from UNE - particularly in Accounting and Education. It is a very tough school and will remain that way and its graduates will not be knocked back [by the way, in passing, we don't use the Good Universities Guide as a Guide - handy for finding addresses]. It was originally part of the University of Sydney and was orginally funded by the Federal Government to develop a specific external Post Graduate suite of degrees for senior professionals and educators. So a totally different perception, and the US is out of line, and hopefully will drop the bias, but as it seems to have 1,000 bases for its existence, the bias may out live us?
DL goes back at least to the first century with St. Paul's circular letters. Of course, this teaching was not recognized by NOOSR and was not RA. St. Paul probably didn't publish enough to receive an honorary doctorate these days, even though there have probably been many thousands of doctoral theses written about his writings.
