Is there a doctor in the house???

Well, the two words of mine you quote clearly related to an anti distance learning bias amongst decision makers. I wish I could remember the name of the sponsoring organization, but there was a fairly recent poll (late 2000, I think) of hiring HR managers that indicated a significant anti-DL bias in hiring. Additionally, didn't the raw data collected by Bear and douglas reveal a significant anti DL bias on the part of graduate admissions officers? So my words are not too strong given the available evidence, are they, Bill?

Secondly, although it was not a major part of my argument in the post, "name" does indeed matter. Do you think a CSUDH MBA degree will have the same marginal utility as Harvard MBA degree? Obviously not. Where one earns the degree is clearly an important factor. You say no one hires a Ph.D. because of the name of their school, but in terms of marginal utility, where all other deciding factors are set to even, an M.I.T. Ph.D. Computer Science degree is likely preferable to an NSU Ph.D. Computer Science degree, and a DBA from Columbia (if they have a DBA program) is likely preferable to a DBA from Argosy University. So, Bill, if you take issue with the foregoing, are you saying that degrees from CSUDH, NSU, or Argosy have the same utility as degrees from Harvard, M.I.T., and Columbia? Are you really saying that?

And if you are not saying that, then what are you saying? That is, what do you mean when you say, "I don't think that the name of the school matters very much"?

That may or may not be true, but "utility" goes beyond acceptance in faculty hiring. It encompasses the usefulness of the degree to the holder in nabbing other employment within or out with his field of study. Try broadening your focus a bit.

 

On the contrary, I think it can be very useful, for it provides one important point of reference in the construction of a rational framework for choosing one institution over another.

Well, clearly, David, if indeed Cappella is serving students well educationally and in terms of utility, then it is indeed doing a fine job. That could be said of any institution meeting those demands. It is a universal truth. Put another way, you are saying that if Capella is doing a good job then Capella is doing a good job. Who could argue . . .

But, relative to students expectations, the utility of degrees from DL institutions IS being questioned. A degree's marketability is a crucial factor. If you received the finest education imaginable at XYZ University, but people consider XYZ U. a dog, then, in terms of the utility, it's a dog, and your degree plus 75 cents may buy you little more than a bowl of Puppy Chow. What matters is not what is, but rather what people believe is, for it is upon the basis of their preferences and prejudices that they will make decisions that affect the degree holder's life and career.

 

Hi Karlos,

I guess I left them out because I don't know much about them. Perhaps you could give us a rundown? I never thought. It will be useful to get a broader perspective.

 

Probably not. Of course, my remarks concerned scholarly research-oriented Ph.D.s, not MBAs.

Probably. But the point is, people don't just hire "an MIT Ph.D.". They hire a state-of-the-art specialist in some specific area. They may be a corporation or they may be a university, but the principle is usually the same. Pick up a copy of 'Science' say, and look at the job ads in the back. You find biotech firms looking for doctoral level applicants with specialties and experience in some esoteric aspect of cell-membrane lipid biochemistry or something like that. University departments at the top research schools don't just hire a generic faculty member, they want a specialist to teach courses in intertidal invertebrate ecology or whatever their need is.

So in your example, MIT earns its clout not because it sports a famous name or a high USNews undergraduate "tier" ranking, but because it has a pretty stellar CS faculty and hosts cutting edge work in a whole array of specialties. But almost certainly not in every aspect of CS. I'm not acquainted with what is happening at Nova, but I certainly can imagine that a few research areas are more active at Nova than at MIT. In those areas, a Nova graduate may be preferrable.

Besides that, a lot depends on what subject the candidate's dissertation is in. Even if MIT is world class in the exact area I am looking for, if the MIT graduate did his or her dissertation in something totally unrelated, while the Nova doctor is a specialist in my problem, I'd go with Nova.

CSUDH doesn't offer Ph.D.s, so it's irrelevant to this thread. I just addressed Nova, and the same considerations would apply to Argosy, I'm sure.

I'm not denying that Harvard, MIT or Columbia are stronger than Nova or Argosy in most, perhaps even in all areas. But it is a matter of departmental strength in particular specialties, not the school's name.

Put it this way. Little "third tier" U. of Rhode Island is better than U.C.Berkeley in oceanography. Geoffrey Marcy, the guy who has discovered more extra-solar planets than anyone else on Earth and a huge figure in observational astronomy, teaches at resolutely pedestrian San Francisco State.

If you are interested in arctic ecology, glaciology, the aurora borealis or the Aleut language, would you rather study at Columbia or the University of Alaska? It might not be a simple answer. I'd rather study Buddhist Studies at the California Institute of Integral Studies than at Cal Tech.

I'm saying that departmental reputation in one's specialty, what one's dissertation topic was and who one's dissertation advisors were are more important than the school's name. It is easy to imagine cases when graduates of less prestigious schools would be preferrable over graduates of more prestigious ones. It may be comparatively unusual, but certainly not unheard of.

 

Lawrie Miller wrote:
Where one earns the degree is clearly an important factor. You say no one hires a Ph.D. because of the name of their school, but in terms of marginal utility, where all other deciding factors are set to even, an M.I.T. Ph.D. Computer Science degree is likely preferable to an NSU Ph.D. Computer Science degree
.....................

We know that, but the point is that marginal utility is a measure of bias when all else is equal. I even went to the trouble of inserting a definition in the original quote to prevent this kind of non answer. We know that employers are looking for specialists, that is a given. The question related to MARGINAL utility - when all other factors are set to even.

 

One more time: the marginal utility of a school name is a measure of positive bias when all other biases are neutralized.

It does seem a lot of your argument relies on imaginings. The particular bias I addressed in my original post related to anti DL sentiment amongst decision makers. The evidence supports the contention that such sentiment exists, and that it is significant in that it will likely have an impact on hiring and admissions decisions.

I see no evidence in terms of outcomes, that a Ph.D. earned via distance learning is necessarily inferior to a Ph.D. earned traditionally.

However, I do see evidence that there is significant negative bias towards distance degrees on the part of decision makers, and that that bias has real world consequences.

 

I agree Bruce... in the US I would much rather have a doctorate from Pheonix or Touro University International than Oxford or the London School of Economics(smirk).

 

How do you think vehemently? Do you mean they believe strongly that the truth is otherwise and maybe that is because you are wrong!!!

 

I think it is pretty safe to say that a Monash Phd in Philosophy is more likely to get you a top tier teaching position than a Phd from Union, Pheonix, Nova, Touro, etc.. The assertion that individuals in positions of making decisions are so ignorant and unwilling to learn that they would take marginally accredited, fourth tier schools over the top schools in Australia is not only absurd but is contrary to fact.

 

I generally agree with a couple observations / changes:

I don't think the actually difference between the Nova group and the Phoenix group exists... you can combine them together below Potch.

"All things equal" I would agree that the US RA is "above" the foreign equivalent, however seldom are "all things equal". When comparing a "better" foreign school with a less US school, the foreign school would rate higher (i.e. take the "London School of Economics" over the "Friends University of Central Kansas).

 

Agreed, but I prefaced the list by excepting (leaving out) world class institutions. I consider the LSE a world class institution and then some. It's a given that such institutions will be preferable to the common or garden home grown variety (though not necessarily to home grown but world class institutions).

 

Lewchuck,

I am totally with Lawrie on this one. You always mention the University of London. The University of London doesn't apply to this discussion because it is a world-class institution (or most constituent colleges are).

Best,

Karlos Al Lacaye
[email protected]

 

What are you considering a "world-class" institution? Are we saying something like a top 100 in the world or a top 10 in the world?

 

Good evening, Lewchuck!

Yes, I would say that there are about 100 hundred top class institutions in the world, or probably more. In point of actuality, I believe that there are more than one hundred. However, sticking to English-only speaking institutions, the number should be from 10 to 25. Please, Lewchuck, dont't ask me to name them. I am sure that you know them.

You might have a point in saying that studying in Sorbone, France, is studying in a world class institution. You are right. However, we are talking about usefulness in the United States. In this way, if a student plans to move to the United States and only knows French, having a Sorborne degree doesn't help this student in the short run.

Yes, I think I know what you are going to say: this student can learn English in the United States, and then his Sorborne degree will help being a world class one, etc., etc. Yes, you are right; still, I myself prefer to study primarily in English. There are just some degrees or certificates that I would prefer to study in another language, in my case, Spanish. Other than those, I prefer to study all of my degrees in English.

Regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

P.S.: You might also say that it is better to study in French in Sorborne that in English in Maharishi University in the United States. Please, Lewchuck, don't take matters to the extreme. That's logical. But I am talking about well-known and somewhat reputable US institutions. You know which they are.

 

Bill, I wasn't directing my comments specifically to you, but you raise good points about the new media. The use of listserves and the like does provide an opportunity for more thoughtful reflection. Some residential schools, largely by the instructor's choice, are using these tools to enhance out of classroom dialogue. I like a lively, face-to-face in-person discussion and believe that the lack thereof in DL is a shortcoming, but I agree that use of technology (like this board) can make up for some of it.

 

OK, lets eliminate the top 10-25... you are still better in the US with a doctorate from the University of Glasgow (not a top 25) than with a doctorate from Friends University of Central Kansas.

 

Dear Lewchuck,

Thank you for your response.

I don't know the ratings of Friends University of Central Kansas, but I know that the University of Glasgow is highly regarded in some departments, so I would say that Glasgow is within or very close to the top 25. Conclusively, generally speaking, no, I would prefer a University of Glasgow degree over Friends University of Central Kansas. On the other hand, I would prefer Friends over Abertay, Bournemouth, Highlands and Islands, Kingston, Linclonshire and Humberside, Open University, Paisley, etc., but as Bill Dayson says, to a certain extend, this depends on the area of study. Also, I have to include a disclaimer here: I am speaking in general terms, like Lawrie Miller does.

My best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]