Online DHA - 12 months - $15k

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by chrisjm18, Aug 8, 2020.

Loading...
  1. Tlon

    Tlon New Member

    Great thread, appreciate the initial info and the insights from others. Has anyone come across a similar doctoral program with similar characteristics (cost, accreditation, online) in other than in Healthcare Administration?
    Wondering if there are any others related to Healthcare (e.g. Life Sciences), or alternatively Technology, Business or Education.
    Thanks!!
     
  2. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    Aspen's DSc in Computer Science is $27K, their EdD is similar. (https://www.aspen.edu/doctoral-degrees/)
    Taft's EdD is $20K (https://www.taft.edu/doctor-of-education-ed-d-program#financial_info)

    I'm going to guess that most NA doctorates are going to be in a similar price range (20-30K), and many/all of them online, but the time commitment will be longer - 3-5 years to complete.

    Edit: I might look on here and see which schools offer doctorates: https://www.edsmart.org/best-nationally-accredited-online-colleges/ if you're insistent on an NA doctorate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    For $27K one could earn a regionally accredited doctorate in education from the University of the Cumberlands. But it would take a lot longer than a year, which I expect is the other attraction here.
     
    Maniac Craniac and Dustin like this.
  4. Tlon

    Tlon New Member

    Many thanks for the super prompt response!! Not necessarily NA, so open.

    Does anyone know of a similar program but in the UK (online, etc.)?
     
  5. RFValve

    RFValve Well-Known Member

    Yes, but Cumberlands doctorate is in leadership and Aspens Doctorates are in Education and Computer Science that tend to have better salaries than PhDs in leadership. A Doctor in CS even from an NA school can be worth more than 100K as any computer science job pays that much after few years of experience.
    Leadership degrees can have good value for administrators, executive coaches, etc too but return of investment might be lower than CS.
     
  6. Cinephile66

    Cinephile66 New Member

    Hello! Just curious to see how everyone in the VUL program is doing; I believe those who signed up for Spring should be finishing up the first half of the term. How is the program so far? How is the course material? The accreditation is perfectly fine with my employer, so I'm very interested in hearing how other students are faring in it. If any of you have feedback, please share! Thanks!
     
  7. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    So would TRACS be considered regionally accredited rather than national accreditation? I ask because someone I know wants to teach elementary in CA and needs a bachelor's to be "regional and is considering a TRACS degree.
     
  8. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    TRACS is national, they are NA. A TRACS degree would not satisfy this requirement for a regionally accredited (RA) Bachelor's.
     
  9. newsongs

    newsongs Active Member

    Got it. I was thinking that some who graduated with TRACS degrees went on the be teachers here in CA. They require regional. Thanks for info.
     
  10. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    It's important to keep in mind that while this is still in a transitional period and will be for some years to come as schools gradually adjust their language accordingly, the U.S. Department of Education no longer recognizes the regional accreditation/national accreditation designations, those are dead:

    https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2020/03/State-Authorization-Letter-w-Diane-Signature-2.26.19.pdf

    Now, all recognized institutional accreditors in the United States are to be referred to only as "institutional accreditors".

    CHEA appears to be choosing to handle this differently and defiantly, but the U.S. Department of Education has the official government say so I'll go with their position on this and disregard CHEA's.
     
    Thorne likes this.
  11. Thorne

    Thorne Active Member

    Next we need a credential evaluator to check whether something would meet formerly-NA standards rather than sticking to RA-only. That would blow open the doors of international education
     
  12. datby98

    datby98 Member

    I also want to know the program with more information. I will consider it in the next few years when I completed my master degree in health care.
     
  13. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    I think this change is just semantics. Anyone that was making the distinction before the change is still making it.

    Universities still discriminate between NA and RA and so do licensing boards and employers (when they care at all.)
     
  14. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    I'm certain of that because most people don't even know the change was made as they don't keep up with these things like educational board dwellers do.

    Well, now they will be discriminating between one institutionally accredited school versus another as there is officially no more NA/RA. I get what you're saying though, they will know what schools were designated as what before this, but given the facts laid out by the Department regarding the change (facts that were already known to those in the know for a long time) they really should only be discriminating between accredited schools rather than the blanket way many had been doing for so long based on accreditors, since the Department never discriminated or set different criteria for approval between the two types.

    Overall, as you've expressed, employers aren't really concerned about this (and aren't that knowledgeable about it either which is why LinkedIn remains filled with thousands of people gainfully employed with fake degrees, never mind legitimate ones like we're discussing). Licensing boards have been concerned with this, but in certain professions only to a degree. In New York for example, you can be licensed in a number of health/mental health fields regardless of accreditation as long as the program meets the curriculum and contact requirements set by the state, except for when you attempt to become a licensed Doctor of Psychology in which case you have to have gotten your Doctorate from a regionally accredited school according to the exacts of the licensing language. Even that I bet will change as people will challenge that based on its language being outdated now, plus the fact that NYS actually allows licensing to Medical Doctors of unaccredited medical school programs (Part B, section 2, "License Requirements - Physician").

    To maintain their position, state(s) may move to a system of "approved schools" which they do have for some professions already, and that could allow them to continue to discriminate in the same way they always have, but quite frankly it would be silly to go to those lengths. If a person has taken the requisite courses, they should be allowed to take the state exams, and if they pass those exams they should be able to be licensed like anyone else from any other school. After all, if the exams prove what they're said to prove, then the proof of that should show evident regardless of the accreditor a student's school was accredited by.

    As I've always said, each school operates individually and differently and therefore should be judged individually, not on blanket conclusions based on accreditation terms. Schools that have had both national and regional accreditation either at different times or simultaneously like Western Governors are perfect examples of why. Their system is not much different today being regionally accredited than it was when it was nationally accredited or when it was dual-accredited, and if for some reason their regional accreditor ceased operations and they went to a national accreditor, virtually nothing will have changed with the school. It wouldn't suddenly become trash because it's no longer regionally accredited. I know you're not making that argument, I'm just speaking to what I've read many people say to that effect.
     
    Maxwell_Smart likes this.
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The distinction is no longer observed by the federal Department of Education, because their only concern is qualification for participation in financial aid programs. CHEA still makes the distinction crystal clear: https://www.chea.org/chea-recognized-accrediting-organizations
     
    Dustin likes this.
  16. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    That's always been their concern since the day they started the system, nothing has changed there, and nationally accredited schools have already been participating in federal financial aid programs for years, so that wouldn't be the motivation for this change. I think it's best to go with what the Department itself stated in writing about its reasoning behind the change:

    The Department is aware that some States have enacted laws and policies that treat institutions and the students who attend them differently based solely on whether the institution is accredited by a “national” accrediting agency or a “regional” accrediting agency. For example, some States limit opportunities to sit for occupational licensing exams to students who have completed a program at a regionally accredited institution. In other instances, transfer of credit determinations at public institutions, and other benefits provided by States, are limited to students who attended regionally accredited institutions. Because the Department holds all accrediting agencies to the same standards, distinctions between regional and national accrediting agencies are unfounded. Moreover, we have determined that most regional accreditors operate well outside of their historic geographic borders, primarily through the accreditation of branch campuses and additional locations. As a result, our new regulations have removed geography from an accrediting agency's scope. Instead of distinguishing between regional and national accrediting agencies, the Department will distinguish only between institutional and programmatic accrediting agencies. The Department will no longer use the terms “regional” or “national” to refer to an accrediting agency.

    I touched on that earlier but didn't want to get too deep into it, but since you mentioned it... I think what CHEA was doing before was crystal clear, what they're doing now is just unnecessary and blatantly defiant to what the Department of Education has chosen. I don't care for it and I won't respect it. Fortunately, CHEA 's position doesn't have to be respected because they don't get the final say on this as they are not a government organization. The Department of Education is however, and their word carries the ultimate weight in this matter.
     
    Maxwell_Smart likes this.
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Why? This isn't the Soviet Union. CHEA is the coordinating body that was set up by those in higher education itself. If anything, it's more authoritative than the Department of Education is when it comes to determining positions that are actually broadly supported by those in the field.
     
    chrisjm18 likes this.
  18. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    CHEA is a strong influencer and the information they provide is useful to the sector. Their programs and initiatives are very much needed. Having said that, you already see some schools changing their language from nationally or regionally accredited to "institutionally accredited", some have no mention of it at all anymore, they just post the logo of the accreditor that oversees their programs. I haven't seen any that are taking on CHEA's designations. That speaks volumes. Maybe they're out there but I haven't seen them and I have checked around. I'll keep checking.

    At the end of the day, what the USDE does is what's going to be the official deal whether people like it or not because they are the gatekeepers of the money pot, not the schools and certainly not CHEA.
     
  19. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    LOL! Give it time.

    I'm not against CHEA, and I actually am behind almost everything they do, I just don't support their position on this one. The Department made excellent points for why they're doing this and I can't deny it. If they hadn't I would've questioned it as I question pretty much everything they do, but this one time I'm actually on the Department's side. I feel that they did the right thing and at some point we can finally do what the citizens of other countries have to do and judge schools individually instead of concluding on them in lumps attached only to their accreditors. I mean let's face it, this whole NA/RA thing has helped lead to decades of snap judgements and misconceptions. Right here on this board we have had people show up and say nonsense like "state schools won't accept NA credits!" as if it's a law, or "nobody will hire you with an NA degree!" and other nuggets of misinformation, and that hasn't been said just here but practically everywhere education has been talked about. We know those things to be untrue, but how much damage has been done by that misinformation being taken as fact for so long by people who don't know? Anything to help fix that I have to be in favor of.
     
  20. Maxwell_Smart

    Maxwell_Smart Active Member

    I think it's a problem that the misinformation has floated around for so long. I think it was a problem that the USDE did little or nothing to dispel it until now, but I don't think it's done as much harm as some of us might ascribe to it because nationally accredited schools have survived and brought in plenty of enrollments over all of this time. I do agree that the change was necessary and long overdue partly because of the confusion it caused, and because the supposed differences with which the USDE recognized national and regional accreditors weren't factual and born greatly from online exchanges of bad info for a long time. We've all heard some doozies over the years. I think it was you who coined the term "NA Rage" in response to it because it happened so often.

    I do find it strange that when this change is mentioned in some places it draws out a certain amount of pushback, sometimes anger, lol. I see no need to hold on to a paradigm that has long outlived its useful purpose and did nothing but help spawn myths and unfair disadvantages.
     

Share This Page