BusinessWeek article: For-Profit Colleges Target the Military

And this particular author fuels the perception (reasonably or not). You’re correct in that we on this discussion board tend to examination this issue myopically; moreover in certainty, another’s perception is all that counts whether we agree with that perception (e.g., substandard degree assessment as regards non-traditional degrees vs. traditional) or not; perceptions are the beholder’s reality. The inertia toward DL /web-based degree holders will remain a difficult perception to overcome, I believe, for some time yet. Additionally, there are educational hierarchies (competitors) with vested interests to the contrary.

 

In my opinion, the stigma against DL degrees is based on selectivity. For the Class of 2013, Harvard College admitted 7.4% of applicants. In comparison, anyone with a pulse and a paycheck will be accepted into most for-profits. It's not that one is harder than the other, it's that so few applicants are admitted to Harvard. People will say "Wow, you went to Harvard" because getting in is so hard. No one will ever say "Wow, you went to UoP!!"

Harvard's reputation stems from it's exclusivity. A for-profit is designed to make money. Never the two shall meet.

 

And therin lies the rub. We are in competition, no doubt about it. What happens when Dr. Pina writes an article about the benfits of DL? It does not get picked up by BusinessWeek or CNN, or CareerBuilder.com or any other site like those. We are the only ones who read it. It gets dismissed by "traditional" academic followers as soon as they find out his background and who he works for (Just using you as an example Dr. P, not calling you out or anything).

Perception is key, we judge a book by its cover (despite your Mother's admonishments to the contrary) we choose spouses who are pleasing to the eye, buy car's and clothes in colors that we like, and conequently most people judge a degree by its cover. "You graduate from Harvard?" certainly has more cache then saying "I graduated from TESC." Shoot, even saying you graduated from U of Some State has more cache than soley online for profit schools.

So, yes it will be difficult for us to overcome the DL/Online degree stigma...and yes it will take some time. Are you up for it?

 

I do not agree--these points do not fall outside of the topic at all. The fact is that non-profit schools also accelerated degree paths for military, distance learning degrees, laptops and other incentives. Why mention that Phoenix allows you to earn your degree by taking a single class without mentioning that Excelsior, Charter Oak and Thomas Edison allows the degree to be awarded without taking ANY classes at their institutions?

Yes, there is a prejudice against online learning by many. However Golden is not the "average Joe" who is ignorant of educational issues. He is an experienced reporter and author on education who would have easy access to the research showing that learning online does not produce inferior student learning.

As a Harvard alum, he may be in a wonderful position to expose the admissions processes at his former school and may be expert in many areas. However, that fact that he choses to leave out the information above (that he clearly should know), shows that he is either close-minded and blinded by agenda or is not knowledgable enough to write articles and for-profits and distance learning.

 

Excellent points. It needs to be pointed out that since 1928, studies have been done comparing face-to-face instruction to instruction via various media (audio, film, television, satellite, videoconference, CD-ROM and Internet). Hundreds of these studies have been conducted and published and show, overall that students learn equally well in face-to-face and "mediated" environments. The latest meta-analysis of the last decade of studies (compiled by U.S. Dept. of Education), shows that student are actually learning BETTER infully online and blended envrionments.

So the "pro DL side" that people can learn just as well at a distance is backed up by study after study. What does the anti-DL side have? Opinion polls and articles like Golden's that show only that people have uninformed positions. As I have stated earlier, Golden provides no service by neglecting (either intentionally or unintentionally) to show that the opinions that he quotes are contradicted by the data on learning.

I deal with this stuff on a regular basis and usually end of asking my "antagonist" to give me examples of specific learning outcomes and skills that can ONLY be learned in a face-to-face college classroom. That is usually where the conversation ends.

 

I would say it a bit differently. Harvard's reputation stems from it's high academic standards. These high standards may lead to exclusivity but I believe it's the high standards that are at the core of their rep.

 

Harvard and for-profit universities cater, by-and-large to different student populations. For that matter, Harvard and most non-profit state univerisities also cater to different populations.

If a for-profit school makes money (i.e. takes in more than it spends) it is called "profit". If Harvard makes money, then it is called "endowment"

If a state university makes money, then it is called "miraculous" (I'm just kidding, of course).

 

I disagree with that. Many a state school has high academic standards. Harvard's (and other Ivy League schools) reputation comes from the fact that they accept only the best applicants, as measured by GPA, test scores, interviews, extracurriculars, etc. I would argue they have their rep because it's hard to get in, not because it's hard to do the work.

 

Anthony,

As you point out regarding opponents to DL whether it is by means of correspondence, web-based or blended – the research data disproves that argument’s intent toward superiority of face-to-face learning outcomes over non-conventional learning outcome. I personally believe at this point-in-time, the success in learning result pertaining to distance /web-based delivery is greatly enhanced due to a more mature, more focused, industry experienced adult learner. Nonetheless, over time we will see non-traditional educational methodology embraced by more and more via the characteristic post-secondary learner; it’s inevitable. Will there be resistance within the traditional higher-education establishment – most certainly? Transformation is surely expected to be met with opposition; people fear the unfamiliar and/or possess personal motive/s to the contrary.

 

Excellent observation. Since the evidence supports the idea that the delivery system itself (e.g. F2F versus online) is not what influences learning, you are correct that there is some other variable. The more mature population of distance learners could definitely be an influencing variable, even though the largest growth area for DL is the community college and the learning outcomes for DL continue to rise. Of course, a lot of mature professionals are taking classes at community colleges to upgrade their skills, so your hypothesis sounds reasonable.

Another likely contributing variable is that as the quality of instructional design of online courses increases and the technologies for providing greater interactivity also increases, we are finding that students in online classes are spending more time on task (i.e. more time involved in their learning) than students in F2F classes. This variable alone would be enough to influence achievement. If we can get students to spend more time and pay more attention to their learning tasks, they will do better.

We continue to learn more about how to do DL better. Online enrollments are growing at a pace that it nearly ten times that of higher ed enrollment in general. Thus, the future of DL looks healthy--unless, of course, some less-than-informed government officials decide to mess with it

 

Thanks Anthony; I realize you deal with and are on-top of these type issues on a daily basis.

BTW, since when did “informed” have much to do with politics and decision-making by politicians?

 

Not only did you hit the nail on the head, but you drove it right through the floor

 

No more than anyone else on this discussion board could have … but thanks anyway!

 

This is kind of disappointing. I hope not all employers feel this way. I am just starting on my B.A. with AMU. They seemed to have a pretty good reputation and good programs. I guess I can understand the concern, but what's to say that some for-profits aren't better than some non-profits?

Perhaps I'll make sure and get my MBA from a state university, just to cover my bases.

 

My usual comment is that you should try and have at least one (assuing you have multiple degrees) brand-name, recognizable to most everyone, name on your resume if you don't intend to remain in a specific location. Most universities with "state" in their name will have some reader credibility, most universities with a national sports team will be recoognizable. This method doesn't say anything about the quality of lesser known schools or even the well known schools but does provide a comfort level to hiring managers.

For instance, Complete your AMU degree then look for an MBA either in the local area you intend to work or from any number of the regional schools.

Work history, etc... often outweigh the school, except for those graduates from the top 5 schools or so, everyone else is an also ran except in the regional area of the school.

Often we lock in on the best schools, but in some regional areas these schools don't carry the same weight in the workplace. I work with a Harvard grad (AB/JD) and he has a tough time understanding why so many people don't fall all over themselves due to his degrees. The simple answer is because this is SEC territory and most folks live and breath football. Jobs are often decided by the school you either graduated from, or support. Stupid, but the graduates of these schools are a known commodity in this region. Harvard graduates just don't abound in the south, most folks here could only dream of attending Harvard.

So, my recommendation is to pick according to your career location plans and not necessarily the ranking of the school. If you can't predict your future then get a solid named school recognizable by most.

 

Yep, I feel you on this one as well. I was getting so excited that I am done with my MBA (just need to finish the comp exam) and get to be done with school. Now it looks like I have another two years to go. I'm actually sick to my stomach. Oh well, buyer beware.

 

Just wanted to add that make sure you finish the AAS degree. I never completed mine because I had a Bachelors at the time but often wish I had simply because it was a technical degree. One of the benefits to completing the degree is that the complete AAS is often accepted when the credits themselves may not fit in to another degree plan. You maximize your utility in the event your plans change.

In regards to the for-profits vs not for profits. Your point is valid but not necessarily the general perception.

Best Wishes,

 

18-credit graduate certificate in some thing or other, not as costly as a Master's, half the time, gives you the option to teach another field, plus choose a well known school = problem solved.

Or am I mistaken?

 

Perhaps academically but in the workplace not necessarily. There are a lot of certificate providers that don't carry any weight. Unfortunately some of these have clunky pseudo academic names like "Masters Certificate in XXX" which are meaningless as an academic credential. I know of many graduates of the George Washington University Masters Certificate in Project Management ( a corporate program managed by a vendor in partnership with GWU). Which is entirely different than the Masters in Project management offered by the business school. I had to enlighten several individuals who were misrepresenting (unintentionally I think) these certificates as degrees (but didn't have a bachelors). Stanford, Cornell , and others offer offer non academic certificates also. The problem is that the academic certificates get caught up in the non academic certificates (except were these help in the academic world and are vetted as such) with folks who just don't know the difference.

However, there is no mistaking a Masters degree when listed under "Education" on a resume.