Also-Rans?

Walter

I hear these discussions with guys over a beer, usually from someone who is on, or is looking on, the 'fast track' and talking big and smart (no offence intended, I am describing the 'Walters' I have met over the years, not blasting off) and 'lesser' mortals who are in in the less than top squad are being put in their place - at the back of the queue. Not that it is a long one, as the number of elite Schools, Sports teams, A-teams, A-list celebrities, Presidents and Prime Ministers, CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations, best Regiments, top addresses, and Trophy titles, is, when you count them, a small proportion (very small) of the people on the planet.

The rest of us do not sit in awe, give up, stay in bed or step out of the way because between us and the people really at the very bottom of the heap, who truly have nothing going for them because they missed out, were looking the other way, stayed in the trailer, got into a fight with rednecks, Hell's Angels or Punk heads or have given up, there are millions of other people who work in business, public service, academe and schools who buy our products (an A team is worthless without a B and C, etc, Team pulling it together), join our organisations and pay us their dues. In short, we are not alone. The less than humble elite are alone and it doesn't matter too much because the world goes on whether the 'top' guys and gals flit across the screen or don't.

Frankly, I just wonder, Walter, where you are in the batting order of life. Why? Because, of all the very top people I have met, very few think they are so wonderful that the 'little' people are crap. Indeed, few would go on about being in the first eleven of life, or rubbishing those they converse with (even over a beer - I usually find these smart guys rather pathetic), or preaching in a thread about education about how it is waste of time unless you go to Harvard, or Yale or Oxford. In Britain we call people who do talk this way, Snobs. I do not believe you are a Snob - real Snobs never contribute to Degreeinfo threads - which might make you a 'wannabe'. Shame.

 

The comments suggest to me that the class system is not dead. Most people cannot get into the "Ivy League" schools because of cost. If top management is only recruited from these schools you would have to assume that the people with the assets are ensuring by an indirect method that only they get their hands on the levers.

The reality of life is that there is a process of networking. Being known to the right people will beat a resume any day. Ivy League schools definitely allow that to occur.

If you are particularly brilliant that it does not matter what school you went to. Einstein is an example of that. He could not get into university when he first tried, his marks were not good enough. He went off and developed his theory and came in through the back door. In the interim he worked as a postman.

Distance learning is a difficult lonely exercise that only the most tenacious of students will undertake to conclusion. This personality is not likely to submit to the networking dominance. They are taking their place in management, maybe not at CEO level at this time but certainly up the ladder.

Their success will force open the doors for others in the same way that women penetrated the boardroom. It is a long journey to the top from where DL people start from. It is a relatively short journey for Ivy League people. Stamina will always tell in the end.

It is only natural that the internet would challenge the power structure of schools. It has attacked the powerbase of many institutions in society why not education. Look what it has done to commerce alone. It has only been around about ten years so it is early days yet. Ivy League schools will have to embrace it to survive and are showing signs of that already.

The internet is empowering the "lower levels"to reach beyond their assigned status. Perhaps a bloodless revolution.

 

i would have to agree with the Professor....not everyone can be fortunate enough to attend an ivy league school or a top notch one for that matter, for a variety of reasons. Peoples circumstances change all the time and to imply that because a persons circumstaces forces them to pursue higher education in non-traditional means does not mean that it is worth less. The real goal of education is self fulfillment. I could personally care less about people who feel distance ed is somewhat "third tier". What matters is what i feel about the education i recieved and how it has enlightened or fulfilled my hunger for education. Walter has somewhat of a naive impression of distance learning and it is because of peoples similar views that non traditonal education is given such a bad rap based almost entirely on dumbfounded subjective evidence

 

Amen, brother, Amen! Any resemblance between that statement and myself is not purely coincidental. And I earned one graduate degree and three post-graduate diplomas/designations via distance learning.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

True, and of course like most here on this board I am part of the "rest of us". However, without trying to ascertain whether or not walter just has a superiority complex, I would ask if anyone knows how many of the CEO's of the fortune 500 received their degree via distance learning? I'm betting that the answer is none or few. So, if attaining the highest stations of business leadership is your criteria for success I can see how on the surface one might come to the same conclusion as walter. As for myself I probably fall into the also-ran category having failed miserably during my first attempt at college over 20 years ago. However, I couldn't have asked for a more fulfilling and challenging career had I imagined it -- with or without a degree. I don't have the slightest desire to wield the reigns of corporate power or play the time consuming politics required in that arena. I'm getting just what I want from a DL degree -- an admission into academia that perhaps will someday lead to a PhD and an opportunity to conduct research and teach. Oh well, I suppose my goals are very pedestrian when compared to the accomplishments of someone like Bill Gates.

 

Bill Gates does not have a college degree

If he did, it would probably be done via distance learning. Neither, I think, do Michael Dell or Larry Ellison.

 

Well said. I doff my hat for you Prof. Kennedy.


Ike Okonkwo, PhD

 

It is said above - how many CEO's of Fortune 500 co. received their degrees via distance learning.. probably none, making the assumption that the two are correlated???? How many high school drop outs are CEO's at Furtune 500 co. - I can think of a couple. With the logic above, that would mean what...... I don't see the correlation in either.... I see personality types, motivation, and many other things relevant, but the way one received a degree?

Also, I know of many executives that have attended "executive programs", where they do their work and usually visit once or twice a year... sound familar - it is called DL to us, but you know those executives, they have to put a fancy name on it.

It would be intersting to find out why students go DL. After being a night student for 7 years, I knew there would be a better way - DL!!

 

Personal Marketing Skills Play a Big Role

In viewing this particular thread I don't think that a Degree alone is going to be all inclusive. A degree opens some doors,but a persons skill level, many times is what turns the key. People in the education field may require a degree from a very famous school to secure a Tenured or Principal type of position.

Good research,good timing,a good Career Portfolio,a good Curriculum Vitae, good skills, and networking have major impact in getting a good gig.

If I were just to read the first thread and believe it to be accurate than why should I put in the effort to get a D/L degree if it does nothing. Why not just buy it from a Diploma Mill??? Traderneil

 

not being a legal type I did not want to post the link to:

Hobbes' Internet Timeline.

Certainly in this document you will see many folks, institutions and also-rans who were responsible for our very ability to discuss via this medium. Guess they didn't know they were limited by substandard education at public institutions. More importantly, they did not know they would be typed as lesser individuals for the learning and experimentation that was accomplished via distance.

 

Chris wrote:

> Re: Bill Gates does not have a college degree
> If he did, it would probably be done via distance learning.

-- which takes us right back to what Walter said: "The DL insitution that can develop a brand that can attract 1st class students for whom the qualification is absolutely the first choice, not part-time 2nd tier, is the one that will break this model."

I don't see anything snobbish about Walter. He didn't ask anyone to "sit in awe" of him. He talked of where "real 'tickets to play', in a multitude of fields" are. It's like talking about what the best way to make money is. If, at the Edinburgh Business School (where Prof. Kennedy teaches), they don't talk about the best way to make money, what do they talk about?

 

Conversely, as evidenced by the current President of the United States, as long as one goes to the right school, he need not be particularly brilliant.

 

I don't think Bill Gates would be considered a first class student, maybe a first class businessman

 

Aaa, where's Walter ?

 

Personally, the attributes I would guess have the most impact on being a CEO, socioeconomic status, peronality type, etc. also probably make one more likely to have successfully acquired their education during their early post high school years (unlike us also-rans.) These individuals are not only more valued by HR departments (I'm talking about Ivy League/top tier grads) but in addition, since they finished their education up front, they have a head start on us individuals who seek their eduation at a later date. So while there might not be a direct correlation between DL education and being a CEO at a fortune 500 company -- I would not be surprised if DL degrees by these individuals is statistically reduced over the population taken as a whole.

 

If you'll re-read this paragraph, Mark:

DL has a 2nd/3rd tier label not so much becasue of the quality of the programmes and/or schools, but because of the quality of the individuals pursuing the programmes. Very few of these individuals can honestly consider themselves high-flyers in their fields of endevour.

You might come to the conclusion that Walter regards DL'ers as the proletariat daring to try to rise up from its pre-ordained station in life and having the audacity to attempt to equate itself with the bourgeois. It reminds me of a quote by Honoré de Balzac:

"Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact."

 

I am not going to name names but I have met Excelsior grads who are very successful business people and run their own companies and have risen to executive ranks of large US corporations including one who was a VP for the Wall Street Journal, others who have become judges, and the list goes on. Out of 100,000 graduates of one prominant DL school generalizations that DL students cannot be successful or are not as successful as traditional students is hogwash IMHO.

John

 

Let's face it, most of the people going the DL route aren't prestige whores. If we were, we wouldn't be considering DL in the first place. I think most of us are more pragmatic in our approach to the education and aren't interested in the slightest about what most snobs will think about the degree. We do it because it's a means to an end, not an end to a means.

There are plenty of people doing well in their careers that are getting the degree for valid reaons from quality schools, even if they are not considered prestigious. Not all of us need it to be from a top school to validate ourselves or our careers.

More likely than not, people that can afford to go to a lesser school and still feel like they will be successful might have more "insurance" in knowing their work product will be enhanced by further education with the degree being secondary. Many of us can stand with our work product alone. Therefore, I think the original premise that lesser people take on these degrees is false from the start. I think those of us that are doing well could give a rat's ass where we get the qualification from if it brings nothing other than further competence in our chosen profession and designs by them.

 

Let's face it, most of the people going the DL route aren't prestige whores. If we were, we wouldn't be considering DL in the first place. I think most of us are more pragmatic in our approach to the education and aren't interested in the slightest about what most snobs will think about the degree. We do it because it's a means to an end, not an end to a means.

There are plenty of people doing well in their careers that are getting the degree for valid reaons from quality schools, even if they are not considered prestigious. Not all of us need it to be from a top school to validate ourselves or our careers.

More likely than not, people that can afford to go to a lesser school and still feel like they will be successful might have more "insurance" in knowing their work product will be enhanced by further education with the degree being secondary. Many of us can stand with our work product alone. Therefore, I think the original premise that lesser people take on these degrees is false from the start. I think those of us that are doing well could give a rat's ass where we get the qualification from if it brings nothing other than further competence in our chosen profession and designs by them.

 

Maybe this is why he has disappeared, maybe trying to get a debate going.... not an intelligent comment to start with.