Is there a doctor in the house???

Indeed. And there are two categories of complaint here. One questions the validity and efficacy of the medium of instruction and research, the other, the character and appropriateness of the discipline(s) comprising the subject of the doctoral study.

By the way Ken, could you email me at [email protected]? I'd like to here about you experience with the H-W MBA program to date.

 

This thread makes me think of another topic really. John has made comments in "Bear's Guide" and the forum postings regarding the number of faculty at a school where they have doctorates awarded by their employer. In particular, the schools in mind are the near-degree mill/degree mill organizations.

I would be curious to know what percentage of Harvard Univ(or any other Ivy League school) faculty have doctorates from their employer. If the percentage is high then is this anything telling?

Brigham Young University has a fairly high number of profs who received their degrees(BS, MS, and even Ph.D) from BYU. As I once looked at that catalog it seemed like a great majority had at least one degree from BYU.

Bing

 

In the same vein, have to ask this question: Does a US DBA qualification qualify one for a position in US academia?

Doesn't appear to be so for British/ Australian Universities. Ran through the faculty list of around 30 British/ Aussie universities - plenty of PhDs but no DBAs.

There is the perception that due to the lower research component requirement 20% or thereabouts (DBA) versus 100% for traditonal PhD degrees. A DBA is a more 'practical' degree thus less accpetable in academia. What's the situation in the states?

Billy

 

Funny, all this talk. I just read yesterday, in a local newspaper, here in Lake Charles, LA about a Nova grad. Seems a prof in the Business Department of McNeese State University, who got her Phd from Nova was just named VP and Provost of the "Pride of Southwest Louisiana." Unfortunately, the article was written to bash the search committee's pick. It alleges that the President is continuing to surround himself with supporters, and that this appointee, a very recent grad of a "mail correspondence" school, was chosen over candidates with much more impressive resumes.

While it appears that this appointee was the least qualified candidate, I was *very* offended by the way her degree was classified.

Just thought this was an interesting coincidence, after reading this thread.

Gene Ellender
Soon to be BSBA, TESC (July)

 

Where can I start to reply to this thread?

The original question was - is there a "no questions asked" credible DL doctoral program? My answer is "no" - DL program have built into them a deree of suspicion in some academic corners. What is currently going on in the big six DL doctoral schools (NSU, Walden, Capella, TUI, Union, Sarasota) probably won't change the picture anytime soon.

DL program do fit the bill for many students. If you are a mid-career professional that is looking for intellectual growth, DL may make a lot of sense. If you want to teach at a teaching oriented school, DL may make a lot of sense.
In these cases DL doctorates may be of good quality (that is, they may conform to your requirements) and provide high utility to the students that pursue them.

But what I can't buy is the implicit assertion "There is nothing you can't do with a DL doctorate - they are just as good as a traditional doctorate". A person with a DL doctorate has definite limitations in the academic world, and the academic world is the principal place folks with doctorates go. To say otherwise is deceptive. I can say this as one having first hand knowledge in how I (and my peers from other DL programs) have been treated by fellow academics.

The golden rule applies here - "He who has all of the gold makes all of the rules". A number of rule makers in the academic world don't believe DL doctorates are as good as top tier doctorates, and besides prejudice there is probably some basis for their belief.

Several have suggested that the process doesn't matter, it is the outcome that counts. Ok - let's say I buy that for a minute. Let's consider the outcomes:

1. Consider my original observation about faculty appointments at top universities. Is there anyone with Cyber U doctorate teaching full-time at a first tier national univeristy such as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc? (when I refer to tier, I'm using the framework US News uses in their ranking lists, Bill).

2. Go at this the other way - Take a look at the alumni section of any of the "big six" schools' websites. Folks with DL doctorates do a lot of important things - serve as superintendents of school districts, serve as faculty at teaching institutions, manage businesses, etc. One thing they don't typically do - is teach at major research universities. If a person is looking into a DL doctorate, I strongly suggest they checkout the alumni of the school. Are you satisfied with the achievements of past graduates? If so, fine - go for it! Sure, you may even surpass them - but if you aspire to an academic appointment at a top school, don't be surprised if you run into a few brick walls.

3. Take a look at John Bear's AACRO survey results. This is an outcome. Registrar's (and presumably the schools they work for) don't hold non-residential RA programs in as high a regard as residential RA programs.

Bing mentioned comparable dissertations. My observation (based on reading a number of dissertations, but certainly not all 41,000 from last year!), is that dissertations coming out of Big 6 DL programs (and 3rd and 4th tier traditional schools) are of a generally lower quality than dissertations out of top tier instutions. The biggest difference I see is in the originality and level of theory development. This isn't too radical a conclusion - I'm sure my dissertation would have been a whole lot deeper if I had 4-5 years of full-time instead of part-time study.

One possible answer for schools is to label their DL degrees with a different title than PhD. In so doing, they can avoid comparison to traditional programs and simply say their programs are "different". Case Western's business school, for example, awards a PhD to traditional research focused doctoral students and EDM (Executive Doctor of Management) to non-traditional students.

So what would the big 6 DL programs need to do to move "up" in the world (assuming that academic research status is "up")? Consider how these schools are funded - all 6 are private, tuition driven institutions. Two of them are actually out to make a profit as well. They don't have state funding or research dollars to support labor intensive graduate programs. What they do isn't bad for mid-career industry and teaching types. But there is no way they can attract and maintain a community of scholars focused on state of the art research and working personally with graduate students. Even NSU which maintains a fairly good sized full-time faculty, doesn't have the luxury of having faculty focused on research and working one on one with graduate students. Adjuncts and teaching focused full-timers may be great for MBA programs and practitioner focused doctoral programs. However, do such folks have the time to provide detailed personal attention to research focused doctoral students? No way.

An other thing to consider is the quality of incoming students and faculty. A review of the AACSB Guide to Doctoral Programs shows that almost all traditional doctoral programs in business require GMAT scores of at least 550 or 600 with average scores well into the 600's. Average GPAs are usually 3.5 or above. Some of the big 6 don't require the GMAT at all for their business students. One that does has an average GMAT that is significantly lower (around 500). Typical GPA requirements are 3.0 in DL programs (and as low as 2.5 in some for-profit DL MBA programs). Further, note that the big six accept nearly everyone who meets the basic qualifications (a master's degree with a 3.0), while traditional programs constrain enrollment due to funding and faculty limitations.

I'm not saying that there aren't bright folks in DL doctorate programs. They bring valuable work experience to the classroom and are often highly motivated (if not somewhat distracted by careers and families). Given different circumstances (like mortgages and kids!) some folks in DL programs could easily be in full-time programs. But don't kid yourself - on the whole the caliber of incoming doctoral students at any of the big 6 isn't in the same league as first tier national schools. Given the DL schools' need for cash flow, they aren't likely to turn down very many students.

Finally, Lawrie commented on my "mediocrity". Lawrie - I don't see myself as a mediocre person. I've had a successful business career, and I'm now enjoying a successful academic career as a faculty member in a teaching institution. On the list of "world class Information Systems researchers", however, I'm just an average Joe. If you, or anyone else, wants to pursue a high caliber research career with a DL doctorate in hand - good luck. You'll need it.

Thanks - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

You're being a bit defensive, aren't you Lawrie? I simply stated I was curious where you earned your RA/GAAP doctorate, and asked from where. If you don't have one, a simple statement of that would have been fine with me. I don't have a doctorate of any kind, and I have no problem saying so.

Regarding Andy's comments, I would submit that "perceived" (your word) is highly subjective. In this case, I believe it is you, not Andy, who perceives inadequacies. That makes it a matter of opinion, not fact, doesn't it?

Bruce

 

This question is directed at Andy specifically, but anyone can feel free to give their opinions:

Lets assume for the sake of argument that the deficiencies that you have outlined at length are real.

Do you hold that they are inherent to distance education as a medium? In other words, is it even possible to create a top level research program and deliver it in a distance format? Suppose you chose academic subjects that are well suited to distance education, meaning that labs or hands-on practicals aren't necessary and that the subject is primarily text-based. Examples might be mathematics, philosophy, English literature, classics, history or international relations. You created some exciting research projects in those areas. You recruited productive figures with name recognition in their fields to serve as faculty mentors. Is it even possible to create a strong research doctoral program in that way, or would the DL medium make quality research impossible and inevitably consign the program to mediocrity?

Or are these assumed deficiencies in existing distance doctoral programs merely the result of the characteristics of the early entrants into the field? We have all observed that most universities still see distance education as a financially lucrative niche market primarily of interest to midcareer adults for professional advancement. Hence 200+ MBAs and few if any degrees in mathematics, English lit or history. Might that same pattern carry over into the small number of distance doctoral degrees that are offered at this time? A preferance for offering in-service Ed.D.s over research Ph.D.s in classical philology that has nothing to do with the capabilities of the medium and everything to do with marketing and ROI?

 

Well, indeed, Bruce, perception is subjective, and I was referring to Andy's perception of his abilities relative to those of his peers. You seem to have completely ignored the quoted text (Andy's own words) in order to tell us "I believe". What justifies your belief in the face of the clearly contradictory evidence of Andy's own written submission? Namely:

************
Originally posted by Andy Borchers:
"But I have some sense of my place in the world. In particular, I have no place at the table of top schools -"

"I publish - but not in the top rated journals or conferences. Why? Because the caliber of my work isn't
good enough."

***********


INADEQUACIES - means. . . insufficiency, deficiency, Bruce. Andy tells us HE believes he is inadequate relative to his peers. I do not charge that - Andy does.


What you seem to be doing is ignoring the facts simply so that you can have at it. How can you possibly justify the statement that Andy does not perceive inadequacies in himself - as they relate to this thread - when he has told us HE believes he has no place at the top table of schools, and when he tells us HE believes that the caliber of his work isn't good enough for top rated journals. HE is telling us the HE thinks HE is deficient relative to those with whom HE has chosen to compare himself. HE TELLS US HE BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE INADEQUATE. There can be no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about that. I am at a loss to understand what it is you could possibly find objectionable in my original statement.

Yes, yes, Bruce, and how naive do think we might be? I don't believe for an instant that you thought I might have a doctorate. I've been contributing to AED and now this board since 1997. You and I have exchanged views directly or indirectly over a considerable period, in many threads. The approximate "academic level" of regular contributors is known to other regular contributors. Now, do you think it possible you could address the substantive issues rather than resort to this sort of transparent, juvenile baiting?

 

Well, hold on there Andy - YOU told us YOU considered yourself mediocre relative to those with whom YOU chose to compare yourself. And when you did so, you made no mention of "world class Information Systems researchers". Not only that, but you also held that, invariably, those earning DL doctorates were academically inferior, relative to their peers who had enjoyed the benefits of a more traditional education.

In short, I do not think you mediocre, YOU think that, and I know that you think that because you have told us it is so.

***********
Originally posted by Andy Borchers:

"But I have some sense of my place in the world. In particular, I have no place at the table of top schools - I fit just fine teaching mid-career folks in a teaching oriented institution. I publish - but not in the top rated journals or conferences. Why? Because the caliber of my work isn't good enough."

AND

"How many DL doctorates will you find on their faculties? Very few. Why? You might argue that this is academic arrogance. I suspect it has something to do with the quality of DL doctorates and their dissertation (and subsequent) research.
**********

 

John Bear is right in saying that there's a lot of research to be done on the acceptability of DL doctorates, esp. among RA, residential universities looking to fill teaching slots. But my guess is that the research would confirm what many of us sense anyway:

1. Prestigious institutions -- i.e., national research universities, elite liberal arts colleges, and the like -- aren't likely to hire many (or any?) graduates with RA DL doctorates any time soon. They have their pick of the crop, and they define the standards largely by replicating the kinds of credentials they've valued all along.

2. Other RA institutions -- i.e., regional and local schools, community colleges, and so forth -- do on occasion hire graduates with RA DL doctorates. Union, Nova, and Fielding would lead the pack, I would guess, and I would be surprised to see many from Walden, Capella, Sarasota, etc. A few non-RA DL doctorate holders, particularly those from Columbia Pacific's heyday, have managed their way into traditional academe as well.

But keep in mind that all RA residential schools are deluged with applications from students and graduates of prestigious residential doctoral programs. These days it's not unusual to see a newly-minted Ivy League Ph.D. taking a tenure-track slot at a small college in a small town in Indiana or Ohio, or a Ph.D. from a very solid state school taking a full-time position at a community college.

3. Academic hiring committees are staffed largely by professors, and many of them -- even the most liberal, non-hierarchical, and open-minded -- are going to look down on holders of DL doctorates. Yes, as one poster noted, the Ph.D. is seen as a rite of passage. Those who sweated and stressed through a residential Ph.D. program (many of which are not particularly pleasant experiences) will see the DL doctorate as a bit of a "free ride" in comparison.

When I was considering applying to Union, two dear friends, one an Ed.D. from UCLA and a former tenured professor, another a Ph.D. from CUNY Graduate Center in New York and a tenured professor, were somewhat down on the place. One had seen a few TUI dissertations and was not impressed; the other had seen the TUI faculty list and was not impressed. I also got the feeling that they just didn't see Union as an attractive option, though one was more supportive about my eventual decision to enroll at the state-approved Western Institute for Social Research -- largely, I think, because it's a small, off-the-beaten path, tutorial-like school.

4. As to the quality issue, it would be interesting to collect a pile of dissertations from all sorts of institutions, residential and DL, GAAP and non-GAAP, U.S. and foreign, etc., and have some panel of experts review them without knowing institutional affiliations. I would hypothesize that dissertations from prestigious residential programs would disproportionately come out on top, but that there would a helluva mix once you get beyond that group.

So, ummmm, what's my point? I guess I'm saying that we shouldn't expect even the most enduring and respected RA DL doctoral programs to open many doors in traditional academe anytime soon. In addition, I agree with those who suggest that the real value of a DL doctorate at this juncture is what the holder of the degree makes of it. Certain options may be limited or even non-existent, but particularly for creative and entrepreneurial types, a DL doctorate can be a valuable learning experience and credential.

 

I agree with Lawrie's arguements on this thread. I also agree that the non-traditional experience is different but that the outcome is the same. If the outcome is different to traditional programs then the accreditors would have a problem. The accreditors are willing to accredited the short-residency programs and I will take their program evaluation over the apparent biases by some in this newsgroup. Obviously, there is no lesser degree accreditation awarded for DL doctorates than traditional doctorates. So what gives?

I find it interesting that no-one has pointed out that for NSU thier doctorate programs can also be earned in the traditional format if one choses to do so. Also, everyone has failed to mention the Colorado State University doctorates that are also very DL based. Probably because Colorado started out as a more traditional school they tend to draw a blank spot in our minds when we look at the programs from a non-traditional school mind-set. If you think the CSU degree earned by DL is OK whereas a NSU degree is not for whatever circumstance that you think DL is inferior then you have a bias. Here is an interesting article on a traditional program moving towards the nontraditional realm in doctoral studies:
http://www.gospelcom.net/bakersguide/unl.html

Does this create an inferior doctorate program. If no, then what is the problem with the existing accredited DL doctorate programs?

As for outcomes, when I was an undergraduate in North Dakota one of the Presidents of one of the states college was a Nova Ed.D. and he stayed in that position until retirement. You can find a write-up of in this article (reference: Kermit Lidstrom) http://www.ndonline.com/tribwebpage/news/may2000/530200071506.html

Here are some CV's of NSU grads and you can judge for yourself regarding the outcomes of the diverse university known as Nova: (additional input other than URL is made to aid in search -- as necessary)
http://www.speclab.com/donbio.htm
http://www.awc-hq.org/independents/profile3.html
http://www.medzilla.com/d-a-emma.html
http://www.pmr.vcu.edu/department/faculty/clinical/dhess.html
http://www.miseri.edu/users/kachurick/kachuric/resume/kachuric.htm
http://www.db.erau.edu/campus/departments/airscience/hampton/hampton.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~hjcombs/resume.htm

William Groat, Ed.D. an Associate Professor of Education: http://www.liberty.edu/academics/catalog/99/gs.pdf
http://www.mtech.edu/tc/Contact/joanne.htm

Professor Carla Eide: http://www.cnd.edu/education/

Anyway, the list could go on and this is the tip of the iceburg of where NSU grads can be found.

I guess my point here is not to accept the academic dribble by some academics who look upon any form of DL learning or even a DL instution as second rate. This may continue for awhile but as a DL consumer I will fight against this bias. NSU has proven itself, constantly fights this battle, and has been successful despite claims that it is inferior and overpriced. I suggest folks do some real research and present facts instead of biased opinions. Also, I will also state that my opinion is biased because I am an NSU grad but I also know that the utility of the degree is higher than what some of the posters here suggest.

In the long run I think that many want to see the more traditional schools over more DL programs so that they can calim a degree from a traditional school and not fear being questioned about how the degree was earned. Why should we even fear this question? Does it make us feel inferior for being asked the question of how we earned the degree? If it does make a person fearful then I firmly believe that the individual does not truly believe that what they have learned is equivalent to what a full-time residential student has learned. Don't be a hypocrite when it comes to utilizing an RA earned DL degree. It is for this same reason that I am against the majority, and that would be 99%, of the non-RA degree options because they cannot demonstrate that they meet the same outcomes as an RA degree.

John

 

I think that's true IF the degree is the applicant's only selling point. But if the individual has a strong record of accomplishment, I see less problem. Imagine a former Ambassador or State Department Undersecretary. I don't think that Stanford would pass just because somebody had a DL doctorate.

But yeah, I agree that such an individual would need much stronger extra-academic accomplishments than a person with an on-campus degree from what is perceived as a strong department.

True. And I agree that if a doctoral degree is the only real selling point that somebody has, one of the DL ones will be at a disadvantage in a highly competitive hiring situation.

That's obvious any time you talk to a professor. They love the status that their degree title gives them, and they love telling their war stories.

What's more, many university faculty seem to be deathly afraid of DL because they see it as a threat to their working conditions. It's also a labor issue, I think. You can see that expressed periodically in the pages of the 'Chronicle of Higher Education', where fear seems to be the subtext beneath a lot of the criticism of DL.

What's a "prestigious residential program"? It certainly isn't a "top tier" program. That's because most doctoral programs are very good at something. They have research strengths and weaknesses. One of the things that makes prestige programs prestigious is that they have strengths pretty much across the board. But lesser schools have their strengths. U. Rhode Island is "third tier" in USNews' annual snob-report, but the National Research Council rates their oceanography research efforts as some of the best in the US. The obscure and (partly) DL California Institute of Integral Studies has put out some very influential stuff in Mithraic Studies (an acquired taste, true) and generate dicussion at the periodic international Mithraic Studies conferences.

One way out of the impasse might be if legitimate distance education continues to take off and if those programs can be prevailed upon to hire their own graduates and not to replicate the prejudices of the established on-campus academic cloister. I would love to see distance education take its place alongside traditional education and not simply as its widely disdained and grudgingly accepted money-making MBA-tail. It would be poetic justice if DL openings multiply more rapidly than on-campus positions, and started discriminating in favor of DL graduates. I mean, how can somebody teach by distance education who has not had experience learning that way as a student?

 

FWIW I think there is a great deal of value in both total immersion and in frequent peer interaction, which is present in many residential programs but not to the same extent in DL programs. During the last 3 years of my doctoral study, I spent about 45 minutes most days sitting outside my office with a few faculty members discussing reseach problems, results we had seen, papers we had read, ideas for future work. Almost none of this was directly related to my dissertation, but I learned at least as much about research from these lunchtime discussions as I did from my own research. Less important, but still important where student talks, visiting lecturers etc.

I wonder if this is part of the reason schools of education are well represented in DL. Besides the obvious reasons (lower prestige, applied rather than pure research etc) Most of those getting education degrees are totally immersed in education--they teach or administer during the day, interact with peers, experiment with teaching methodologies etc.

I don't think there is any reason that a DL program couldn't produce top-flight PhDs, but I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that any of the current US DL PhD programs have reached the "top tier" in their fields.

 

Rbourg - I'm sure we could make it 8 (or ten if you include Case Western and UMUC). I believe John Bear mentioned the big six, probably based on his observation of the size of their programs. I don't know how much enrollment (or how many programs) Saybrook and Fielding have.

Thanks - Andy

 

Bill - Thanks for your good questions.

I'd summarize the available research on the efficacy of DL education as falling into 3 camps: "No significant difference" (the majority of studies to date), "what's the difference" (negative to DL - largely pushed by traditional academics that appear to be threatened by on-line education) and DL advocates (positive to DL - largely pushed by folks enamored with the technology).
Want to check this out? Go into Yahoo and enter "No signficant difference" or "What's the difference" and you'll find sites that support those persepctives. Do a search on ALN (alternative learning networks) and you'll find the DL advocates.

My take - the medium isn't the issue. There are good and bad on-line and on-ground programs. The major determinants of quality, I believe, are other factors - the quality and preparation for on-line teaching of the faculty, the quality (and prep for on-line) of students, and the subject matter (some subjects fit better on-line than others).

Quality on-line teaching is very demanding. You need to be on-line 7 days a week - or else the delays in responses really kill interaction. Even with intensive teaching, there are some topics (such as math) that really do need a whiteboard.

So is it possible to have a truly high caliber, research focused DL doctoral program? I suspect it is, but the economics are so unfavorable it won't likely happen:

1. What student can afford to be a full time DL student? There may be a few, but many are busy with careers and families. That's fine - DL really helps provide access to a large number of people. However, the lack of immersion for many students probably is a constraint on the quality of programs.

2. What institution can afford to have a high quality, research focused faculty dedicated to labor intensive work with on-line learners? Traditional schools may be able to afford such a faculty becuase they subsidize graduate study with research dollars or the use of grad students as lowly paid teaching assistants. But DL programs don't fit either of these approaches.

As for the early entrants - in a classic marketing sense they appear to "skimming the cream" off the market. They have been fueled by mid career students that are often tuition reimbursed by their employers.

But who will come next to the market? It will be interesting to see. I suspect we may see "good money chasing out bad money". The big six will have to upgrade their image or see traditional schools invade their turf.

I note that Case Western and UMUC have gotten in the business. Check out Case's tuition - $30k per year for 3 years! I have an associate that completed the Case EDM (Executive Doctor of Management) program. It is a high quality program. However, it is built in the "practitioner scholar" model - not as a traditional replacement for a research PhD. Indeed, Case runs two doctoral programs in business - a traditional PhD and a 3 year weekend executive program.

Thanks - Andy

 

John - I don't think you can support outcomes being the same just because accreditors accredit DL and first tier traditional programs.

Harvard, Stanford and the University of Chicago are all regionally accredited schools. The University of Phoenix and Devry are regionally accredited. Would you argue that a Harvard MBA and a UoP MBA are equivalent credentials? In fact, would you argue that all Harvard MBA grads are equally competent?

I'm not saying that UoP or Devry aren't creditable schools that meet their mission statements and merit RA. But be serious, there are different quality RA schools. And within a given RA school, there are different quality programs and, ultimately, graduates.

By analogy, does every pediatric surgeon have to have the skill of C. Everett Koop?
Yes, there is a minimum level of competency required to avoid being sued for malpractice, but not every doctor has to be world class. There are average doctors in the world.

John - Please understand that I'm not trying to degrade the credentials that you and I hold from NSU. They are useful credentials and we have every reason to be proud of our accomplishments. But we need to view NSU doctorates in context - NSU isn't Harvard. It has a different mission. And "different" as I have tried to teach my children isn't "bad".

Thanks - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

Even grads from Harvard and Yale hope that value will continue to be added to their degrees once they have been acquired. What's wrong with grads from the big six (or eight) wanting the same. If NSU wants to become Harvard, I say, "More power to them!"
(by the way, I earned an EdD from Nova in 1990, and never regretted it!)