Online Degrees Out of Reach

Because you can get an education just about anywhere, but you go to a university to get a degree.

Also, it is part of what you're paying for. Thought experiment: set up an institution that offers a curriculum comparable to, say, an MBA. Courses in accouting, finance, management, etc.. The whole shebang. But the result is not a degree, just a certificate of completion from the company conducting the programs. Oh, and charge the same and make it as rigorous. Everything you'd expect in an MBA program....without the MBA at the end. How long would THAT last?

The degree, like any credential (certificate, certification, or degree) acts as a proxy, speaking about you on your behalf. It matters.

 

How are they cherry-picked? Calculating an 8-year graduation rate is simple, and they chose the non-profit/public colleges with the largest online student bodies. Giving eight years is generous. Of course, if you have 100,000 online students, you're going to have a lot of graduates, even if your graduation rate is low. Also, UMPI was not one of the universities included. I think you meant UMGC?


Note: Two of the schools were not non-profit at the time.

 

With the exception of Liberty and ASU, these are career-focused schools, so ROI would be the most important factor. People don't speed through a network engineering degree at WGU because they have a passion for learning and want to help the needy.

With that said, if someone is studying a passion field with a low ROI, they should still choose the cheaper school. But, I would also say that they should choose the better school. There's no point in saving $5,000 or whatever in tuition if the exam pass rate is low.

 

I think you are misunderstanding my question - I know what a degree is, lol. I meant something more along the lines of, "Why does it matter if someone takes a couple of classes, decides college isn't for them, and drops out without completing the program - and why is that considered some kind of negative for the institution?" It stands to reason that if you open up the admissions process you are going to get a lot of people that aren't really up for the college experience giving it a try and deciding it isn't for them.

 

I didn't misunderstand. I took the opportunity to answer it from a different perspective. And now I'll take on yours reformed query.

It still matters because enrolling people in a degree-granting program is more expensive than other forms of education. By not finishing, they've paid for something (credit towards a degree) that they won't benefit from, and something they will (the education they received). In short, they're paying for a lot of unnecessary overhead.

Second, enrolling in a degree program but not finishing can have negative effects on students. The feeling of failure can be strong. We talk about the ABD syndrome a lot, but it can occur at any level. I've counseled and coached (two different things) literally thousands of people about doing their degrees. It's horrible to watch people explain why they didn't finish their degrees. It's like a badge of shame for so many of them.

Now, could someone take college courses with no intention of doing a degree, not finish a degree, and be happy with their experience? Sure, I bet it happens all the time. But again, it's an expensive way to go because they're also paying for all that infrastructure and overhead. I think that's why MOOCs and Ted Talks and Master Courses, and other forms of self-education have become popular. The education without all the other stuff--and for a lot less.

 

I wonder if the reason some colleges require you to successfully complete 2 or 3 courses prior to being formally admitted to the degree program is to keep their completion stats up.

 

I think it depends on the nature of admissions.

Harvard Extension will admit anyone to a master's program with the minimum requirements, but only after they complete 3 courses. That's their admission process; if you can complete three classes (each with a B or above), you've shown you're capable and you're in.

When the University of Phoenix first got started, they were an upper-division school only. But, they were also a for-profit business, and the pressures to grow changed that, and they began admitting undergraduates with 20 s.h. of credit to transfer. But, continuing to grow, they decided to admit people with no college credits. But....

Those students were required to take 5 preliminary courses in writing, speaking, social sciences, etc. (I can't remember the exact list.) These courses counted for credit, but you couldn't skip over them. And if you didn't complete those courses, you could not proceed. But here's the other factor: the break-even number of courses was....4. For those not familiar with break-even analysis, each sale (course, in this case) comes with a marginal (variable) cost. But the business also has to cover its fixed costs. The break-even point is when sales have covered the fixed costs and the operation becomes profitable (price minus variable costs). Thus, for UoP, the person who completes the beginners' track represents a profit already. And the school did everything it could to bring people through that track.

 

That's correct. I've hired people from there in the past, and their resumes as well as the degree validation on the background check show this.