Is there a doctor in the house???

Lawrie - Frankly, I'm not looking to you for psychological counseling. My comments were made to support the point I was trying to make - DL doctorates aren't likely to prepare one for a life of rigorous research. Please don't split hairs with me, at least not in public. If you want to talk about my "inferiority" complex - please email me.

I am a highly competent classroom teacher of information systems at a teaching oriented institution. I do academic research to keep current in my field. I'm a solid contributor to the field, but I'm not well known as a researcher (and likely will never be well known) because:

1. Quality teaching consumes a tremendous amount of time, leaving little time for research.

2. My institution doesn't provide major research support.

3. My DL education was excellent in many ways, but did not provide me the level of research skills or the proper connections to be a "world class" researcher.

If you or anyone else can complete a DL doctorate and publish in the top journals of your field - more power to you. I'm eagerly awaiting your success.

Incidently, NSU never asserted anything to the contrary. They never promised me an academic position at a top tier research school. Their program description then (and now) provided an accurate assessment of what they could deliver. When I applied they provided a complete listing of their graduates and their business cards. I called a number of these folks. I figured out where their NSU doctorate had taken them. I was satisfied then, and I'm satisfied now.

As for DL doctorates being "inferior", I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that. The big six produce many graduates that fit their intended purpose - continuing education for professionals or teachers at teaching institutions. On the dimension of academic research rigor, however, they typically aren't as strong. That's all I'm saying.

Regards - Andy

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

 

No university hires faculty based solely or largely on the source of their degree(s), but, in times of hundreds of applications for each opening, a degree from a prestigious school might help the chance of making the short list, when interview, referees, and relevant experience come to the fore.

Every time this matter has come up in talk with friends and colleagues, everyone has stories such as mine (the acknowledged most brilliant man on the Reed faculty, Marvin Levich, had only a Bachelor's degree, and that from Morningside College); or my wife's (she chose Vanderbilt over Harvard and Yale for her Ph.D. largely because of the opportunity to study with one man, Alisdair McIntyre, the only one of 24 faculty in the philosophy department with no doctorate at all).

 

How naive do I think you are? Do you really want me to answer that? Relax Lawrie, I'm only yanking your chain, once again.

As for your educational level, I honestly have no idea what degrees you have earned. I'm assuming you have at least a Bachelor's degree, since you are the author of the excellent "Earn your B.A. in __ weeks" series. Other than the more notable people here (John B., Steve L., etc.) I have no idea which people hold certain degrees. I really have better things to do in my life than memorize which person holds what degree.

Bruce

 

No one offered you psychological counseling, Andy. All I did was take you at your word. I have no interest in your inner struggle.
I find this sort of sophistry extremely irritating. It reminds me of the woman of entrepreneurial virtue, who, having volunteered that she made her fortune by exchanging sexual favors for money, then objects when someone subsequently calls her a whore.

If you feel you have been diminished in some way, it has been by your own hand. You volunteered you believe that relative to those against whom YOU chose to judge yourself, you are a mediocre talent. Now you start bleating when another takes you at your word and calls a spade, a spade. You cannot have it both ways.

In any case, it serves no purpose to continue carping on about it. You have said what you have said and others can draw their own conclusions.

 

I think Andy may be underselling himself, but regardless of that his comments raise important points.

Yes, it's probably true that, taken as a group, DL doctoral dissertations, final projects, what have you may not be as academically polished as those coming out of traditional residential programs. There are many reasons for this, but key among them are factors of time and resources. Good scholarship requires a lot of time, and many DL students don't have that luxury. Good scholarship also requires resources, including people and libraries. DL students may face challenges in that realm as well.

In addition, there is an ends-means issue. Many if not most DL doctoral students are not looking to enter the academic world on a full-time basis. They are pursuing degrees for much more eclectic reasons. The kind of obsessive attention to detail that is sometimes necessary in the academic world is necessary to these students.

My guess is that we'd also find a lot more creativity and flashes of original brilliance in DL doctoral dissertations and final projects because of the very flexibility that many DL institutions are willing to provide to their students. Graduate school in a more traditional setting often can be an oddly, and sadly, mind-restricting process rather than a mind-expanding one. Non-traditional schools, DL and residential, offer a nice counterpoint to that mileau.

 

Oops, in my second to last paragraph, I meant "NOT necessary to these students."

 

Hi, Andy. I find this whole subject interesting and here's my response to some of your ideas.

I agree with that. Which would imply that good doctoral programs are possible in those fields best suited to the medium.

You could schedule real-time faculty participation for particular periods on certain days. But in my opinion the asynchronous aspect could be an advantage. Obviously it would better cater to a world-wide student body distributed in many different time zones. But there is another more substantial advantage as well.

I have attended in-person graduate courses and seminars that I sometimes found shallow and superficial. If somebody raised a difficult issue, it was sometimes hard to produce an immediate response of value. Somebody would say something that I thought was important (or perhaps bullshit), but I couldn't get my mind around exactly why. I could sense an underlying conceptual or logical issue, but couldn't immediately articulate it. So I was stuck with a) Saying something inane, b) Worrying about the issue the rest of the evening and not following the subsequent discussion, or c) Letting it drop. Sometimes the whole rest of the evening was a discussion of something that I was sure arose from an error, but I couldn't put it together.

On the other hand, e-mail discussion allows one to carefully consider one's response and to send off what is in effect a mini-essay. So I think that the slower but much more thoughtful style of asynchronous e-mail is a new form of communication that is ideally suited to higher education. It is far more interactive than posted letters, but deeper and more thoughtful than speech.

I'm sure that the technology exists for that. But yes, it would suggest that there be times when students and instructor (or students and students) should interact synchronously.

Why must students in a quality research oriented program be drawn from the same student population that U. of Phoenix MBA students are? For that matter, why must they be full-time? If a person is contemplating a doctorate, he or she is probably already working in the field, and hence is already immersed. If I am working in a museum or a heritage site and am pursuing a doctoral degree in history, archaeology or something, I think that it could even be an advantage.

Why not? You could get grants if you were performing valuable research. You could use your virtual TAs to address that synchronicity concern you mentioned above.

I think that the economics of distance education may be particularly attractive in obscure fields in which demand is low. I mentioned Mithraic studies in another thread. How many students are there that want to study ancient Mithraism on the doctoral level? How many active scholars are there to teach them? The vast majority of universities couldn't gather together a critical mass of faculty and students to make such a thing practical. As things stand, the fact that they offer many obscure research specialities (Old Norse, Assyriology or whatever) is one of the things that gives the prestige schools like Berkeley their prestige. But even they have their inevitable limitations.

But what if you could mobilize interested people from all around the world, no matter where they are located? What may be impossible in any one place may become possible through distance education. I think that there are any number of obscure research specialities that could benefit from this kind of approach. Fields in which the economics are prohibitive in a campus-based program but where larger and more viable virtual departments could be created on the net.

 

I have all the respect in the world for Union but, that being said:

I'm looking to Australia for my Ph.D. because there's simply nothing in the States that looks workable. I don't see Vanderbilt or the University of Chicago firing up an online Ph.D. in religious studies anytime within the next 20 years, so it's time to take this bull by the horns.

Many Australian schools are actually quite open about offering Ph.D.'s by distance learning; they refer to this process as "the external mode." Normally it requires a certain number of days on campus, but this can always be waived in extenuating circumstances if the topic can be suitably accommodated without the residencies (which usually means an external mentor local to the student) and if the relevant faculty/staff approve (which is a slightly trickier matter).

I sometimes wonder why there aren't more Ph.D. programs available by distance learning, but I think it's akin to asking why there aren't any ABA-approved online J.D. programs -- there are already so many Ph.D.'s/lawyers that folks are having to give up some business, and the powers that be don't want to let any more new people in their fields than they have to. And besides that, there's still a very real stigma associated with nonresidential learning in this country, thanks in part to the many degree mills that legally flourish here and bilk students here and overseas.

I'm not so sure we should be surprised that there aren't more programs but, yeah, I definitely feel your pain.


Still hunting for that perfect (i.e., workable) Ph.D.,


------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Interesting comments Tom. Do you think there are not viable US options because your field of interest isn't offered in the US, or that the US schools who could accomadate your field of interest (Union, etc.) are not as "prestigious" as those Australian schools who could accomadate you?

At the risk of sounding xenophobic, I would venture to say that *any* regionally accredited US doctoral program would be considered superior *IN THE UNITED STATES* to any non-US doctoral program, with the exception of the top tier non-US schools (Cambridge, Oxford, etc.).

IMO, there are many valid reasons for a US student to consider a non-US program (cost & flexibility come to mind), but prestige and acceptance in the US shouldn't be among them.

Bruce

 

Dear Bruce,

I am glad that you posted this message as I share the same ideas as you do. Unfortunately, some people think otherwise vehemently, so you might get strong responses to the contrary. This happened to me on AED when I posted about it.

Take care,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

I don't know that that is true if we confine consideration to U.S. institutions whose reputations (justified or not in the case of NSU) are as distance learning (or pejoratively - "correspondence") schools.

Would a Ph.D. conferred by Touro, Walden, Capella, Phoenix, or even Union or NSU, be preferable to one conferred by the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne, or even the University of Southern Queensland or the University of New England (NSW)?

Would the indigenous assortment detailed above find greater favor than their foreign brethren that follow? If so, where? Excluding issues of professional licensing, which crop of institutions would have the greatest utility? Is it a slam-dunk that the home-grown doctorates will find greater favor in the US? Again, excepting cases involving professional credentialing, I'd be surprised if that were true.

If Tom is weighing price v. flexibility v. utility, I cannot think of a better place to look right now than Australia. However, should a suitable DL program at a traditional US university fall into his lap, that is perhaps a little less flexible and a little more expensive, it may be worth paying the extra premium in terms of inconvenience and increased cost, for the greater assurance of acceptance.

It's unfortunate that it should be so, but I'll hazard the hierarchy of utility of doctorates within the US, excluding world class institutions, would run . . .

Conferring institutions -

1)
Traditional US universities (that may have DL doctoral programs but not known for them)

2)
Foreign RA equivalent universities of the developed world (preferably the British English speaking world - Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK)

3)
Nova Southeastern University, The Union Institute

4)
University of South Africa, Potchefstroom University, University of Pretoria, University of Stellenbosch

5)
Capella University, University of Phoenix, University of Sarasota/Argosy University, Touro University International


Note that I've seen no credible evidence the bias against these DL institutions is justified, but there's no doubting its existence.

 

A brief response to a characterization that sometimes runs through this thread and others: In comparing the merits of residential vs. distance learning, it's important for us to avoid framing the discussion by comparing the worst residential learning experiences to the best distance learning experiences. Those who deny the viability of DL as an educational delivery option are doing the same thing in reverse.

There are different reasons why people choose a DL program over a residential one. For some, it may be the format in which they learn best. For others, it may be a compromise because of finances, geography, or schedule flexibility. In any event, I think the better approach for DL advocates is to establish and reinforce the legitimacy of DL, not necessarily argue for its superiority over other learning methods.

 

"No doubting" are strong words.

I don't think that the name of the
school matters very much. Nobody hires a Ph.D. because of the name of his or her
school. I don't think that the school's
nationality matters very much either.
Probably the fact that the degree was by distance education has a negative
effect, but still less than most on this thread think.

In my opinion, what matters the most is
the reputation of your doctoral
department in your particular specialty, and the names of those you worked with.

I know that's true in my field of
philosophy and religious studies, and I
have been told by my physicist friends
that it is true in their field as well.
It may be a little less true in those
pre-professional fields in which advanced degrees are more of a commodity.

But in academic subjects, the bottom
line is who is teaching where. People
move around a lot and departments are
always rising and falling in prestige
depending on who has been hired, who
retired, or who was lured to move from
one school to another. The
'Philosophical Gourmet Report' tracks
this flux in that field.

So it isn't even a matter of
departmental prestige. It's a matter of
departmental prestige in a particular
research specialty. UCSan Diego
for some time had the benefit of a
husband-wife team of philosophers, the
Churchlands, Paul and Patricia. These
Canadian imports are hot stuff in
cognitive science, putting UCSD in the
top ten in the world in that subject.
Except that isn't exactly right either,
because the Churchlands and their circle take a particular approach to
cognitive science. So if you favor their approach, UCSD is/was the best
university in the world. But if you
don't, its reputation drops a lot.

Then there's UCIrvine up the coast that
is very big in literary deconstruction
and even had Derrida on its staff for a
time. That may push it up in the
philosophy rankings too, but let me
assure you, it is a very different thing entirely. Which grants a "better" philosophy doctorate, UCSD or
UCI? Doesn't it kinda depend on what you are into?

OK, I think that these same principles apply to all research oriented doctoral programs. And that has big implications for the subject of this thread.

In my opinion, most doctoral departments are very good at something.
Original research takes place all over, and if you are interested in the subject of that research then a department where interesting things are happening just might be the best place in the world for you. Northern Arizona University is kind of obscure, consigned to the dreaded
"fourth tier", but if you are interested in the linguistics of Native American
languages, it might or might not be a
very happening place, depending on your specific research interests.

Where general departmental prestige
comes in is whether the department is
strong in areas that are currently
popular and active in the field as a
whole, whether it has some "household
names" on its staff, and whether it is
strong across the board in a number of
different specialties. University
prestige on the doctoral level is the same thing applied to departments: Is your school prominent in most of its departments or in only one or two? And, does it even offer the whole range of subjects at the most advanced level, or only a few of the most popular ones?

OK, how does all this apply to orderings like Lawrie's? Well, I think that it is
basically meaningless to distinguish
between American and foreign universities. American university A may
be stronger or better known than foreign university A in specialty X, but as soon as you move to specialty Y, then foreign university A is a better choice than
American university A. The most
important exception would be if having a foreign university on your resume made
it obvious that you studied by distance
education, and those hiring you were
immovably prejudiced against DL: "It's
inferior, that's it, case closed!"

It also casts light on why some of the
"Big X" DL schools are at the bottom of
the list. It's because a) They trade in
commodity pre-professional degrees, where the degree is basically a job-ticket rather than a research calling.

And b) Because these tend to be small
specialized institutes that do not have
offerings across the entire range of
fields and specialties. CIIS may be very strong in Buddhist studies or in
Mithraism, but it isn't even on the map
in business administration, computer
science, evangelical Christian theology
or nuclear engineering.

And finally, c) Because these small DL
institutes often take a rather
"alternative" approach to their subjects. Distance education at the
doctoral level is still considered
"alternative" in American higher
education, so those schools that are
already self-consciously alternative are more apt to embrace it. But 'alternative' is not the way to academic prestige, when prestige is something of a popularity contest. Schools move up by being strong in some specialty or approach that is at the center of the discipline, not the edge. Union Institute provides interdisciplinary degrees with a rather politicized, social-change focus. CIIS presents Asian religion from a scholar-practitioner perspective, which is different from the more distant aloof approach you might find at Berkeley. The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology is great if you are interested in a transpersonal approach to psychology, less great if you aren't.

 

Off-topic note:

Beware of backing out of a partially written post to review the thread. If you push that button at the bottom and then return to your post, the software apparently puts in hard carriage returns whenever it feels like it, and will corrupt your text format.

 

Very well said.

And quite frankly, if I had the option to do a nonresidential/low-residency CIIS Ph.D. in philosophy and religion (rather than humanities with emphasis on organizational change), I would probably jump at the chance. I like their scholar-practitioner model. Union, though a valid choice and the best one for some people, is just not the same.

What I'm doing, now, is a detailed review of Australian religion departments. I've looked at the home pages of the relevant professional associations and tried to come up with something that approaches a list of the most prestigious religion schools in Australia, with mixed results. If I don't find what I need in Australia, I'll probably move on to the UK and, very likely, Wales-Lampeter (which has a very strong religious studies department) or Glasgow (which isn't half bad, either) or London/King's College (ditto). So we'll see. But my first choice, at this point, is Australia (largely because of cost and the fact that "the external mode" is a relatively common thing over there, but also because of factors such as dissertation length, research approach, relative lack of red tape, and so on).


Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Comparing and bunching all these institutions in a way that suggests a hierarchy or ranking isn't terribly useful. I think we can agree that DL institutions in the U.S. still have an uphill battle in terms of acceptability within academic circles. The more apt question should be, do they meet the needs and expectations of their students? If, for example, Capella University is serving its students well in terms of both educational quality and the usefulness of its degrees, then it's doing a fine job by my reckoning, regardless of whether someone considers it lower or higher in prestige/quality/whatever than a non-U.S. program or Union or some other school.

 

I don't know if that is directed at me, but since I argued that e-mail-type discussion is superior in some ways to either conventional mail correspondence or to spoken conversation, I'll reply.

My intention was to rebut the very common assertion that DL presents an inferior method of intellectual interaction. I am asserting that things aren't that simplistic, and that the new media employed in distance learning have some advantages over traditional approaches as well.

In other words, arguing that distance learning has advantages as well as disadvantages, and that these are real academic advantages and not simply matters of cost and convenience, is reinforcing the legitimacy of DL.

 

Dear Lawrie,

Hi again!

I agree with everything you said, except that you are leaving out foreign US accredited institutions, either from Anglo countries or from non-Anglo countries. Where would you put them, Lawrie? I am very interested in knowing your opinions in this regard as they are always very well articulated.

Faithfully yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Dear Lawrie,

Hi again!

I agree with everything you said, but you are leaving out US-accredited foreign institutions, either from Anglo countries or from non-Anglo countries. Where would you put them, Lawrie? I am very interested in your opinion as your thoughts are always very well articulated.

Faithfully yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]