Is DL really as good as B&M?

But the point here is that the University of London system is really minimalist in the teaching method (you're basically on your own) but NOT on the examination method.

You have to take the exact same exam that the on campus student take. So there is less questioning about the legitimacy of the degree.

 

In my opinion, it's a lot more efficient than the online interactive models that award points for things like discussions and group projects. When it's just you and the book you have to learn and you can't lean on your classmates (like at least 1 person does in every group project).

 

Some RA - B&M schools are wonderful and some are not so good.

An example:

A few years ago, I attended a course at a top B&M school, everything was conventional except the mid-term testing process which consisted of 5 electronically presented tests. You logged into the site, registered, had 45 minutes to answer 35 multiple choice questions and then went to the grading page to see where you stood versus your peers. Individual marks were shown "as achieved" and I would be near the top at the 90% level. I watched the marks roll in and suddenly, within 3 hours, there were 6 additional marks that would appear, that always beat mine!

This went on for all 5 sessions until someone finally reported this statistically errant occurrence. Turns out that 6 women were sitting with their friends and doing the test together. One after another and achieving great marks! Just an example of gaming the system, happens all the time.

Having said that, DL versus B&M in-house classes are a personal thing for me. I lived in a state of flux, passing in and out of a coma for 5 years at a B&M university. earned that degree and never went back. Then along comes DL, now I could concentrate on my studies and get more out of the system so I signed up and earned two more degrees, loved it and learned much more this time around. The programs were far more demanding and I was motivated to do my best as I was paying for it directly out of my pocket. I had also matured by this time and thought of education as a place to learn, and not solely as a place to meet hot women and drink copious amounts of beer. Maybe that was the difference, I showed up to learn the second time around. DL works for me, but it's all about choices.

For me, my education has be worth no more than 15% of my worth in my field of work, the balance my success has always been based upon what I learned in a practical sense and what I can bring to the party though experiences of the past.

 

Question: Why?

Answer: Read my post. "no one has cared where I got my degrees from" was a condition of "once they saw a name they recognized." Now ultimately, I'm sure that WGU does have some merit within the context of the meaning of my post. (As an aside: they're RA and non-profit.)

A more obvious, direct answer to your query would be: A for-profit's school's first mission is to make a profit. This creates opportunities for conflict of interest with their core business "educate people and provide a quality education that increases the value of the individual". Retention is a far more important metric for a for-profit than a not for profit, as are open enrollment policies.

Neither open enrollment or retention are bad things by themselves, but when students plagiarize or game exams and are allowed to continue in their programs against the wishes of their professors due to corporate retention and profit reasons that's bad for the reputation of the education space. Nuff said here as I don't want the above to imply anything that we as students and educators don't already know as ills of the system.

I'll also offer an opinion

Opinion: Perception is reality. So if you have a chance to go to an accredited state school in your area of the country that offers online programs, best to do it.

To the person who went or is going to AMU, they're a good school. I implore people who read what I post to take things in the context intended. Just because the reader goes to a particular school, does not mean that I'm speaking out against your particular school.

(The below is not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation)

However, if you feel bothered enough by the statements I may present now or in the future, I'd ask that you ask yourself why you feel that way, keeping in mind that I dont' know anyone on the forums and couldn't possibly intend to insult anyone I don't know. Part of conversations, and education is self-monitoring and evaluation. Good things.

Thanks,
ITJD

 

I'm not offended at your comments, I'm simply engaging in spirited intellectual discussion. The main reason I replied, however, is that you painted ALL for-profits with a wide brush when you said "There is no reason to go to a for-profit purely online school anymore. There are so many options that will serve you better (at least in the short term, and I'd bet on the long run)."

I know you weren't speaking out against AMU but you basically said that there is no reason for people to go to AMU anymore because there are better options. I disagree that there are better option for certain subjects in the current slate of DL offerings. (There aren't many DL history or intel programs.)

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it and the way you argue your opinion is very civil and intellectual. Your post doesn't offend me at all.

 

That is the way it should be done. I would be happy to face those kinds of exams. The problem with many schools is the fact that they are engaged in marketing. Just like any other business, they want to please their consumer. I'm afraid that many would object to the London style of examination and I think that's why you don't see it in the US very often. This is a shame because it would greatly of improve the quality of DL education and would bolster the respect that it would enjoy in the outside world.

 

Schools need to get back to basics and lower costs

It's also be cheaper and available to more people. There are so few good deals anymore in DL. There are just a handful of schools, like LSU or WNMU, that haven't increased their rates to something unreasonable in recent years. Seriously, even $1000 per class is a lot of money to me. I'll probably only study from London, UNISA or one of the Indian or Malaysian schools from now on, because I can't spend 10k to 20k for every new credential. I really hate the idea of paying so much for silly technologies, when I really learn from old-fashioned book readings and assignments.

Also, in my opinion, the technologies that we pay so much for just re-create the headaches of traditional education...like strict deadlines and lame class discussions. I can find new friends at the coffee shop, and don't really need to interact so much to study and learn.

 

I think you got the point, it really doesn't matter if the school doesn't use sophisticated technology as long as the quality control is there.

I had many students that never show up in class but are able to pass the exam and submit assignments, if the student is able to learn on his/her own is perfectly fine.

The problem with UoL is that student has to take "inconvenient" exams and go to write them at embassies that is also a hassle as you need to drive some distance and pay parking (even if this is only once per semester).

It is a lot easier to just participate online and submit some canned assignments. My issue is that some schools design courses to please students and increase enrollments rather than ensuring quality.

As long as the same quality controls are in place, nobody will question your education. The issues are raised when the quality controls are changed just to please customers.

 

This statement hits the nail on the head. Right on.

 

If professors, teaching and mentoring are so unimportant in the higher-education process that they can be eliminated entirely without any significant loss, then what harm is there in replacing full-time professors with poorly-trained adjuncts?

My own opinion is that credit by examination is legitimate, provided (a big if) that the examinations are really credible measures of learning outcomes. But having said that, I think that the independent-study, examination-only format is clearly a suboptimal and extremely minimalist DL model. It's obviusly not the same educational 'paradigm' that's being used by on-campus B&M programs, which returns us to the original topic of this thread.

The inconvenience of the exams is the least of it. More important is the total elimination of teaching, instruction and laboratory and hand's-on practical experiences. The absence of any opportunity to ask questions, to clear up ambiguities and misconceptions, or to explore implications and applications. The whole faculty-student community of scholars thing that's the glory of the better selective full-time B&M non-commuter universities evaporates and is lost.

Participation's typically a good thing. A good DL program will almost certainly include significant opportunities for participation. Eliminating it is a major loss. Dismissing participation as unimportant is an implicit acknowledgement that the activities being participated in are a waste of time, and that certainly hasn't been my general experience in higher education. It's been true on occasion and it might indeed be part of an indictment of bad higher education. But it isn't the case that all higher education is bad. The implicit argument in much of this thread seems to be that since some B&M education is bad it doesn't really matter a whole lot what corners DL cuts, but that's a non-sequitur, unless our goal is to produce bad DL.

Assignments during the course of a class are good things too. It's easy for students to read a textbook and essentially go 'yeah, yeah, yeah', and even be able to repeat the information back on an exam in pretty good detail. But when students are asked to apply that new information to a novel problem described in an unfamiliar way, they are apt to choke. It turns out that they hadn't assimilated the material half as well as they had originally thought. Memorizing something isn't the same thing as understanding the underlying principles or being able to use them in novel and creative ways. Assignments assist that assimilation and give students helpful mid-course feedback on how well it's going and on where difficulties persist.

Eliminating professors, teaching, classroom discussions, mid-course feedback on how students are doing, peer community, instructional practice assignments, laboratory experiences, laboratory examinations, personal mentoring, creative projects and any sort of intellectual interaction, represents a very real and very profound loss.

That's just a fact.

 

I agree, and would also point out also that "credit by examination" becomes increasingly difficult and impractical at higher and higher levels of education. It's one thing to "test out" of an introductory undergraduate course; it's another thing entirely at the graduate or professional level.

For example, in several states, it is still theoretically possible to "test out" of law school. You can qualify for the Bar Exam entirely by work experience in a law office or judge's chambers (basically "apprenticeship"), accompanied by self-study. How feasible is this route in practice? According to CalBar, these are the stats for successful General Bar Exam candidates in California in 2009:

Total candidates passing General Bar Exam in 02/09 or 07/09: 6,262
Candidates that qualified through some form of law school: 6,259
Candidates that qualified through work experience alone: 3

So for legal training in California, the minimalist, examination-only format exists, as a real alternative to B&M or DL schools. But in practice, the number of prospective attorneys that actually succeed by this route is extremely small.

 

That's an erroneous assumption, since many DL programs today incorporate interactive media, online lectures, instructors that provide assistance, as well as forums where students interact. While the method of delivery of a DL program may be different, the teaching objectives are just as sound. I just don't see it as a "total elimination of teaching" on any level.

 

I think the line between DL and B&M will continue to diminish as the things you mention above become more common. I'm expecting interactive media to make a big impact on DL in the coming years.

 

There is no doubt that the two methods of learning are DIFFERENT, but whether they are unequal depends squarely on the individual. I have yet to take an online class (I have only been testing out to date), but I will take some soon and have these questions:

Are the books not the same?
Are the deadlines not the same?
Are the assignments not the same?
Are the papers not the same?
Is the research not the same?
Are the exams not the same?

If the answers are YES down the line (with some leniency for programmatic variation) then we have our answer for the original poster.

 

I have issue with the DL schools in which they are not the same. Once again, I'm concerned over the practice of watering down some of these issues to attract more students. I think that's the major challenge that DL faces. I'm seeing a number of schools attempting to make it easier and that, in the long run, will damage the industry as a whole.

 

I do believe that DL courses are comparable to their F2F counterparts. Having had both types in many different specialties, I feel pretty qualified to make the distinction if there was one. Like all classes, there will be some profs who just don't give a damn and some profs who assign tons of homework and hold you to the highest standards. The range for all types of coursework is HUGE.

You're not necessarily immune to silly talks in online discussions. I had to read and respond (civilly) to a ridiculous number of classmates who honestly believed that alcoholics don't have a real problem, unless they abuse their spouse or drive drunk. Totally floored LOL.

The DL format forces people to really examine their thoughts on a topic and then spew them forth to the rest of the class -- mostly that's a good thing, but some people have interesting thoughts on a lot of subjects.

 

I will tell you right now my #1 issue with most schools geared towards "working professionals" like UoP. Two Words: Group Assignment. Even now the prospect of a group assignment will elicit a huge groan from me.

Because it's really quite simple; if you have four people in a group who are all expected to participate, at least one will do nothing. Something will always come up with one person. Another person will wind up doing most of the work with everyone else "me too"-ing and giving input on margins etc. And if one person cheats, everyone gets an F. That is what I think of in terms of watering down courses.

Freshman/Sophomore level courses will always be geared towards non-majors, since in the US system, you have to take a certain amount of non-major courses. It sucks to be in a class required for your major with a bunch of people who don't have a good base in the subject, but really college is designed for learning.

 

Well stated! This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but fails to consider human nature. I was paired up with a guy who just wouldn't do his part. I didn't get much help from the instructor and had no way to push the guy. When he did submit work it was low quality and late. I spent more time dealing with him than learning. In the end he got a free A. I paid too much money for the course to risk failing by waiting for him.

 

While issues such as watering-down courses to attract students, excessive use of adjuncts and similar things are obviously valuable topics for a general discussion about educational quality, they seem to be kind of irrelevant to the DL/B&M distinction. Many B&M programs water-down their classes and many DL programs don't. It may or may not be the case that a larger proportion of DL programs suffer from these kind of failings (I think that it's probably true) but it isn't really a DL-specific issue per-se. These are failings that are endemic to part-time vocational programs where many students hope to purchase degrees as if they were career-enhancement commodities. If it's a concern (and it's very good that it is) the obvious solution is to select a good solid academic program, whatever its delivery modality happens to be.

But for purposes of answering the question whether DL is really as good as B&M, the fundamental issues will be those educational differences that are directly the result of moving B&M classes to a DL format. These differences might include students' inability to actually touch and handle distant things, the consequent deemphasis on laboratories and hands-on practice, perhaps a lack of access to specialized library resources as well, and a general lack of interactivity (both student-professor and peer-peer) in some of the DL formats that can mean significantly less teaching and guidance by the professor, leaving DL students as self-taught 'lone rangers' when compared to on-campus students.

 

I think Bill was specifically referring to the exam-only programs, not to every available distance learning model.