Goddard Going Down the Tubes?

From the news article cited in today’s thread about the impending closure of Southern Vermont College, there is a hidden piece of explosive information regarding distance education:

Goddard College was an early leader in distance education, ultimately becoming one of the Big 3 in distance graduate programs – the others were Antioch University and Vermont College of Norwich University.

(Disclosure: I visited all three when I was looking for an M.A. program in the eastern U.S. I ultimately applied to both Antioch and V.C., was accepted by both, and chose V.C. I’ve discussed this elsewhere on DI. Suffice to say that I never seriously considered Goddard.)

Goddard has been in and out of trouble over many years, largely due to funding issues. It was once a comprehensive college with a sizable resident population, then they went total low residency back in the 1990s. Unlike most online programs today, Goddard retains a mandatory residency, usually eight days at the start of each semester, either on their campus in Plainfield, VT, or one of two centers they run in Washington state.

What is unique in this incarnation of their problems, if Goddard goes down the tubes, it will leave only Antioch as the remaining member of the Graduate Big 3. Vermont College was sold by Norwich University to The Union Institute, which gutted it for their desirable programs (changing their own name to Union Institute & University) and dumping the rest, ultimately selling the campus to the now thriving Vermont College of Fine Arts. Antioch College would ultimately shut down and, although they had already separated from Antioch University, the two entities continue to be identified with each other historically. Antioch College ultimately reopened and operates on a smaller scale than they previously did.

By the way, Goddard sold their nontraditional programs to Norwich in 1981, with the stipulation that Goddard could not reenter the nontraditional market for three years. Three years later, they did start new distance programs, but they were not the same caliber as the ones they sold. (In fact, the older program in which I enrolled was known for those first three years as the Goddard Graduate Program at Vermont College.)

Bottom line – Goddard has some of the oldest low-residency programs in distance ed today. If they do go down the tubes, we’ll be seeing yet another example of online programs kicking the ass of the superior low-residency program model.

 

I'm not convinced that is really the bottom line because I'm not convinced that the low-residency model is superior and I'm certainly not convinced that it's superior in this specific case. It seems more likely that the management of these older DL/non-traditional programs is weaker than the management of the newer online programs. Schools like Goddard (small, private liberal arts colleges) are having trouble in general. This seems largely due to their large price tags, and the questionable utility of their degrees in the marketplace (I personally think that programs like Embodiment Studies and Socially Engaged Art have value but, where are the jobs? That's what people want to know these days). The same thing is happening to Hampshire College as well as Sweet Briar and the now departed Mt. Ida. I hope that Goddard finds a way to survive but it seems clear that they're not going to accomplish this by doing the same old thing.

 

Kizmet I believe is correct.

There is nothing inherently better about low-residency. With modern online course work, you can have things such as live lecture videos, even synchronous delivery, where students can listen and ask questions. Students can meet with faculty online and even have shared screens. Students are even able to provide public speaking with videos, or even have students in separate parts of the country and different time zones co-present presentations. In short, there are numerous tools to enable collaboration. Is this appropriate for every type of class? Absolutely not, but for many it is far more than adequate.

I think Steve is only familiar with much older forms of online distance education that are more like a correspondence course, where the instructor doesn't provide any lectures and merely acts as just a grader, and discussions are just merely half-baked discussion board posts. That model of course would be pathetic.

The best approach probably is a hybrid approach, a flipped classroom, where students can watch lectures and then engage with it live in person. Though I suppose you can do that with online as well, i.e. have asynchronous content and then meet together to discuss it.

So back to what Kizmet was saying. I am not so sure that meeting for a week at the beginning of a semester is any better than a well put together online course, unless there is something more restrictive.

I agree that many of the liberal arts offerings may not be the best choice for students, although there are merits in a sound liberal arts education. It is great preparation for graduate school or law school. However, it may not always lead to the most, if any, opportunities for students, just simply by itself, other than checking the box as to having a bachelor's degree.

 

So I don't have to go through it again, here's my previously posted position on the issue of low-residency programs, with an expanded discussion of Goddard and the Graduate Big 3:

https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?threads/residency-requirements.53205/#post-517513

Enjoy the debate, folks - I can't be bothered. Which makes y'all lucky, since I'm smarter than the rest of you. Each and every one of you. Get over it. And have a nice day.

 

I think that at this point most of us are familiar with your position on the matter. However, it's not clear to me why your opinion on this might carry more weight than anyone else's opinion. BTW, you might have a degree that I don't have but that does not make you smarter than me, or anyone else for that matter. Many very smart people have no degrees at all. The fact that you continue to try to use that as some sort of evidence that you are correct in all things indicates that you are the one who needs to "get over it."

 

The posts do not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the issue of low residency vis-a-vis the modern online model. I had been aware of his stance on low residency, but due to various comments he has made, it seems he may have only very limited knowledge of online distance education outside a fairly outdated implementation. I would not fret, as there is no truth to his claims regarding superior intelligence.

 

Hmmm, something to ponder. Has Dr. Levicoff lost the edge regarding distance education because he is not up-to-date on the current delivery models and is stuck comparing correspondence courses from the 80s and 90s to programs he doesn't understand today? I may have to re-evaluate the weight I have been giving Dr. Levicoff's assessments.

 

Many of his arguments and assessments are absolutely accurate, particularly regarding issues such as RA vs. NA, for profit vs. nonprofit, diploma mills, etc. In fact, more often than not, I agree with him. Some of his comments he has made does indicate he seems to not be familiar with the best that can be offered via current online delivery models. Fun fact though: some schools still deliver content in an outdated fashion. There often is not adequate support for instructors teaching online. From what I have read, many for profit schools appear to be lacking in this regard. Instructors there may not even design their own content and may use pre-made assignments, following an outline, and some of the work can amount to busywork to give the appearance of rigor.

This "debate" is only really a question of low-residency versus online only. By the way, he did not qualify the comparison of low-residency and online only as being doctoral, only graduate. I agree with him that a doctoral program should have a residency component. I don't feel it is necessary for most graduate programs, nor undergraduate.

If you seek out a reputable, RA, nonprofit, all following his advice, you are far more likely to find a program with rigor.

 

OK, thanks. But just so you know, I wasn't exactly planning on crying myself to sleep.

 

If that's what you think I'm doing, then kindly do re-evaluate. I have never discussed correspondence courses in this forum at all. Nor did I ever take a correspondence course I felt had any value. (I have, however, taken a few online courses, with mixed opinions.)

Ladies, gentlemen, and transgendered whatevers:

If y'all are taking me seriously when I say that I am far superior to you, then I'd say y'all need to get a life. I don't even take myself seriously.

By the way, did I mention that I have an RA Ph.D., and you don't?​

But seriously, ya want my ultimate advice on how to pursue a degree? Do what works best for you. Period,

If y'all are taking me seriously when I say that I am far superior to you, then I'd say y'all need to get a life. I don't even take myself seriously.

By the way, did I mention that I have an RA Ph.D., and you don't? And that I laugh at you? Perhaps you don't realize that I also laugh at me.​

As for the notion that many smart people have no degrees at all, Kizmet is quite correct. Some of them can be found right here on DI. They include one moderator who probably knows more about this field than all other moderators combined (no, I'm not talking about Kizmet here, and no, I won't name names). They also include members who have been with us since their teenage years and have still not earned an undergraduate degree. They also include a few prodigies who, during their years here, earned degrees through the doctorate level in record time.

Ultimately, the most common philosophy here is that you should do it the way I did it, that what worked for me will work best for you, and you should get your degree from the school where I got my degree.

So I'll repeat it: Do what works best for you. Period. And stop taking me so seriously, even though I am better than each and every one of you.

Oh, by the way, I'm also more saved than the rest of you, and am the only one going to heaven. The rest of you are going to hell. All of you. Each and every one of you, destined to burn in the lake of fire and brimstone. (And if you're still taking me seriously, then you're in need of professional help.)

 

I'm not sure that anyone is taking you particularly seriously, especially when you say "I can't be bothered" and then turn around and continue to post in the thread. But don't worry about it Steve, I'm sure everyone is able to put it all in perspective.

 

No - I think we'll see you there, too, Dr. Steve. As long as they have musical theatre, that is.