Bad website = Bad education?

This schools website is actually worse than Aspen's.

I'm not real big on this one either.

I think the only reason this is a question is because of Aspen's lack of regional accreditation.

 

If I worked at Aspen University, I probably would offer to update the site (if allowed) to something much better. Here are some things that could be done that would immediately improve the image that the school projects.

1. The school's website should be moved from a sub-domain to the first level domain. That would move Aspen from www.info.aspen.edu to www.aspen.edu

2. The site is built using a popular content management system. There are many companies who sell very high quality templates that are customizable at less that $50 per template. I would use one of those high quality templates to present the schools website. Academic institutions project superior and professional web image when a good combination of "conservative yet corporate colors" make up the background of their website.

3. The new and approved logo will go on the website, likewise a navigation scheme that provides information with less clicks. The would also be consistency in information presented on the right and left navigation schemes.

 

Personally I like our website.

As an example, and we all know this has nothing to do with comparison as we sit on different planets from a prestige standpoint, but I actually have never really like MIT’s website MIT, but I sure do love the school.

Interwebtaste is a funny thing I guess.

 

You're probably right that lack of regional accreditation is the reason why the question is asked. In my opinion, the fact that the school has national accreditation is part of the reason why their web image, which is the only campus that many will see, should be paid attention too.

My points are based on the notion that online-only schools, their students and graduates, as well as other proponents of DL education in general, should collectively improve the image and perceived quality and legitimacy of degrees from such schools and format. If many employers are joining the bandwagon of "online-only schools are degree mills, and degrees from such schools are inferior," advocated by a growing number of professors from B & M schools whose jobs are threatened, why should an online-only school give them "cheap ammunition" and excuses to continue "fire" these lies and unfounded positions? It would seem Aspen's perceived image will improve if the observations from this thread are taken into consideration. Perhaps, they can confirm the image that their website projects by polling their students to see what they are think. I bet the result of such poll would not be different from what many of us say here.

I am a fan of Aspen, and I will continue to refer students to them because of their low tuition, and their willingness to make education more affordable rather than pursue "excessive profits."

 

I agree with your points, but I am blown away by your "excessive profits" quote. What does that mean? Who decides what are excessive profits? Do we just look at revenues or are we actually college educated people who can tell the difference between incomes, profits, and revenues?

The simple fact is, is that Aspen is of lesser accreditation, and you get what you pay for. It's not surprising that their website is not "good", without those excessive profits then quality has to suffer somewhere. If they ever get RA status there tuition will rise, sure as the sun rises.

 

It has nothing to do with "interwebtaste" and everything to do with the fact that you're projecting an image that says "diploma mill from 1997". Your web site is unprofessional at best and an embarrassment at worst. [ By the way, I say this out of love! ]

When looking at Breyer State University and Aspen University's websites, could the untrained eye really tell which was the diploma mill?

For fun, I just asked my wife and she guessed that Aspen was the unaccredited university. Obviously anecdotal but still...

 

I don't think any of those are worse than Aspen's. Not even close.

 

As an online student I would consider a bad website to be a problem. I would wonder, will the website work well when I'm trying to use it? Will the poor design prove to be more than aesthetics? There's nothing worse than technical issues when one is trying to do school online.

Aspen is, of course, a well known quality school. My reservations relate to the question in general.

 

You shouldn't be. We've all posited about what "excessive tuition," which is fueled by the need to turn in huge profits at the expense of student's indebtedness to government provided loans (public money) is somewhere in this forum. While many who work in B & M schools say that tuition charges rarely cover the costs of running those schools (an argument which I have come to accept, finally), would you say that an online-only school that charges as high as traditional schools do is not doing so for the sake of huge profits even when their programs do not land their graduates where degrees from B & M schools do?

Would you gladly pay $40k for a masters degree or $70k for a doctorate degree at an online-only schools - degrees that would rarely land you a teaching job at a public B & M school, or a position commensurate with that degree at companies like Google, Intel, and at some of the biggest oil companies headquartered in Texas? Many online-only schools are charging these rates, and we all know the ones that are, which is why many of us refuse to handover our tuition dollars to go there.

Before I'm accused of being anti-profit, the idea of chasing after "excessive profit" by for-profit online-only institutions is partly to blame for the mounting skepticism regarding the value or utility of degrees from online-only schools by the public (a false image that is trumpeted by professors from B & M schools). Chasing after huge profits is very American. But having students take out loans that we all know will never be repaid for degrees that is not widely accepted or is being discriminated against consciously by many, is not good for all of us. Ultimately, students are responsibly for the loans they take out and the choice of school that they hand over their tuition loans to.

If Aspen University continue what they are doing with their tuition, the school will soon become a very popular choice for those seeking degrees from online-only schools (considering that many RA for-profit schools accept degrees from NA schools presently, regardless of what they state on their website).

 

Because it's 2010 and creating web pages is no longer an exotic skill, the quality and aesthetics of any organization's website is an important indicator, at least of whether the operators have a clue what they are trying to accomplish. In my work (fraud detection) a rinky-dink website is a red flag that a business isn't legitimate.

Aspen's site isn't so bad, but the overall design is dated and the use of stock photography that looks like stock photography (and really bad digicam shots of staff and faculty) are unappealing. Wow! I might think -- they offer technology degrees. I hope the design wasn't developed by a student, or worse yet, a faculty member. (Note that I like what Aspen is trying to do and I want them to do well.)

Cheesy websites are not limited to DETC. It has improved, but Charter Oak's site is no great shakes. Excelsior's color scheme is off putting until you get used to it but the site is very informative.

Phillip

 

Yes, that WNMU website rates right up there with the lamest of the lame!

 

Both of those websites are much, much better than Aspen's.

They are crisp and refined.

 

Well known by whom? Degreeinfo members, maybe, but I'm not sure the general population is even aware of Aspen's existence.

 

I agree and I think Aspen's web site could be considered "rinky-dink" and suggest to people that it is fraudulent. As an online school, they have to get their online presence right.

I like Aspen and wish them well. As I said earlier, I criticize out of love.

By the way, do they have any plans of adding more doctorates to their lineup? I'm sure they'd be huge.

 

Wow...you should take it easy on the guy and his school. You are making it a personal mission to rip on Aspen and you seem to like to start threads to attack them or their site. Do you have some other problem with the school you’re not telling us?

You are comparing Breyer State and Aspen? What?!?!

Let it go!!!! We get it; you don't like their website. Please stop cramming it down our throats.

 

I'm not sure the general pop knows about many online schools.....but Aspen has been in many articles because of the $3,500 MBA.

 

The website image of B & M schools is not a big concern for them. Why, because no one doubts their legitimacy. The image that B & M schools with bad websites project does not have the type of effect that online-only schools with "suspicious" sites" have.

No one questions or doubts the legitimacy of degrees from traditional schools with bad sites, and HR folks will care less. On the other hand, "woe betide you" if you walk into the HR office of some of the major employers today, and then hand them a degree or transcript from an online-only school with DETC accreditation. We all know the rest.......

Traditional schools can afford to a shabby website. Online-only schools, especially, the ones that provide high quality programs that are also super affordable (such as Aspen University), that maintain an online presence, their only presence and campus that the world will ever see, project an image that confirms one thing - a degree mill (even though we all know that a school's website has nothing to do with their program quality).

 

I see nothing wrong with Aspen's website. I voted No. There are some good schools with bad websites and there are some bad schools with good websites. I would, however, add that good schools should be aware that there are some who would equate having a bad website with being a bad school.