Opinion: US Students should stick with RA programs

In retrospect, I would rename this thread. I've created some confusion.

Barry Foster

 

Dear Jako,

Greetings!

I would like to point out that the "University of Glasgow" doesn't apply to what I am saying because Glasgow is a fairly known city in the United States (plus the university is of good quality). I am taking about universities in British cities that are unlikely that an American have heard of, regardless of the qualify of the institution themselves. In this vein, I bet that the graduate would have received a different reaction if s/he had graduated, for example, at the "University of Paisley", the "University of Teesside", or the "University of Wolverhampton", even if his/her degrees where earned totally residentially.

All the best,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Yes. Remarkably, it is in Phoenix.

Rich Douglas, noting that the University of Beverly Hills operated from Iowa, La Jolla University from Louisiana, and University of Northern Washington from Hawaii. (At least Golden State University changed their name to Honolulu University of Something-or-Other when they fled California's jurisdiction.)

 

Dear Rich,

I didn't know that, so thank you very much for you information.

Very best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacayo
[email protected]

 

Some notes:

a) Change "institution" to "institutions".

b) Change "where" to "were".

Regards,

K>A>L

 

These 3 institutions are certainly considered to be on the lowest tier in the U.K. All are "new" universities (since 1992) and amongst the less well regarded of these (unlike, for example, Westminster, Robert Gordon, Hertfordshire, Oxford Brookes).

 

At the tenure track level, yes, it's a definite uphill battle. Consider that a single, typical tenure track opening attracts dozens, if not hundreds, of highly qualified applicants sporting Ph.D.s from prestigious residential schools and impressive c.v.s. Add to that the general bias against DL amongst traditional academics, who happen to be the ones doing the hiring.

That said, a few DL schools, notably Union, find some of their graduates securing full-time teaching posts. But the DL doctorate is not an easy route to such a position.

I'm not defending this state of affairs; in fact, I think schools are losing out by being so obsessive over limited types of credentials. But for now, at least, anyone who undertakes a DL doctorate for the purpose of someday snagging a full-time, esp. tenure track, teaching post should be aware that the chances of success are slim.

 

I agree with that. I think that if the student's ultimate goal is to land a tenure-track university teaching position, he or she probably should not choose distance education in the first place.

There may be exceptions. It may be easier to break into some fields than others. There are issues of who the student is, and what the rest of his or her resume looks like. And there is always who you know. But in general, certainly in the competitive humanities fields that I am acquainted with, a distance doctorate is probably a bad choice for a prospective professor.

I find it ironic that despite all their left-wing posturing, university faculty are perhaps the most conservative profession on earth. Their interest in subtle distinctions of title and rank resembles that of faded European aristocracy.

Only after DL is established in the world beyond the cloister will educators embrace it. Until then we will have to endure the unpleasant situation where universities offer more and more DL as a revenue-generator, but not-so-subtly despise it at the same time.

There is a revolution taking place in higher education, driven by the educational needs of the economy and the public. Unfortunately, the academic profession have been reluctant followers so far, rather than enthusiastic leaders.

 

I would advise the student to consider that a degree is usually a large investment of time, effort and money and to cast their net widely (across national borders) in investigating options... it is unfortunate which any student pursues what is, for them, a second best degree.

Ironically, if you are trying to protect a newbie you could argueable advise them to puruse opportunities in the UK/Australia/Canada. There systems are much simplier... ours is much more complex with a multitude of government recognized accreditors, some equal and others not, various types of government recognition (state approved).

 

I would disagree that our generally level of world geography actual has much of a role to play. It is generally simple to ascertain the reputation of a school or a faculty whether or not it is named after a city recognized in the US.

 

Yes and no. If you have a "DL degree" or a degree from a "DL school", I would most definetly agree... slim to none.

However, if you have traditional degree from a reputable traditional school earned via DL... I believe your chances increase exponentially.

 

I would argue that. US accreditation is more complex (only if you care about the reasons behind it), but that is a pill one takes only during the selection process at the beginning. It can be explained in half-a-page: "RA, never mind the rest...DETC if you're desperate...add ATS for Christian education" would work for 99% of the population.

Much more complex are the sometimes baffling variations in national education methods. Even the vocabulary seems designed to be confusing:

SA course = US degree
SA module = US course (more or less)
SA tuition = US teaching
SA fees = US tuition
etc.

 

Dear Jako,

Greetings!

Fine, that is your position, but I don't share it. In my personal case, I wouldn't study (even residentially) at a university in Britain (or Canada, South Africa, Ireland, Australia, etc.) if the university is virtually unknown in the United States. I don't care if the university has a good "national" (that is, within its own country) reputation or not. Aside from explaining its reputation, I don't feel comfortable to explain its location, sort of "Well, you know, I studied at the 'University of Teeside'. Yes, I know that you don't know what that is. But believe me, it is a beautiful place. And it is located in Britain in Europe....And also...".

Best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Jako,

Could you please expand on your definition of:

1. A DL degree

2. Traditional degree earned via DL.

If both degrees were earned via a brick/mortar traditional institution, what, in your opinion, would the criteria be which differentiates the two?

Russell

 

Hi, Karlos.

Wouldn't that same kind of argument also apply to American schools here at home?

There are something like 1500 RA schools in the US and few people know all of them. I agree that there is a "name-recognition effect", and it contributes to the desire of many people to graduate from "name" schools.

The "name effect" is probably more important in casual conversation than professionally, though. It depends on people actually being ignorant of the details of a particular 'lesser known school', but having the illusion of knowledge because they associate something with some feature of its name. It also depends on people assuming that schools that they have never heard of can't be very good.

Professionals would be less apt to be misled that way, and more apt to recognize good programs from schools that are more obscure to the general public.

I mean, few people on the street know anything at all about Harvey Mudd College, and many would laugh and sneer because of its name. But scientists and engineers would recognize one of the best undergraduate science and engineering schools in the United States, up there with Cal Tech.

I think that many schools kind of create the impression that they are well known because they are located in well known locations. I have gotten some mileage out of that myself. Although most people know next to nothing about San Francisco State University, everyone knows San Francisco, so that creates a bit of "virtual" pseudo-reputation that Harvey Mudd College just doesn't have (except to those who actually know what they are talking about).

Bottom line: I don't see that taking a DL degree from a British university that is not well known in the US is any worse than taking a similar degree from an American school that is not a household name.

 

I would agree, Bill, at least in terms of name recognition. Several people have asked me about Potchefstroom, usually saying they have never heard of it. It only takes a few minutes to provide details, for those few who even ask.

Then again, just the other day a peer of mine was reading through a set of Old Testament reference volumes, and told me he noticed under the list of contributors, one was a faculty member at Potchefstroom.

Russell

 

Hi Russell.

That comment of "Jako's" certainly had a 'Lewchukian' sound to it.

The idea seems to be to earn a distance degree from a school primarily known for on-campus programs, put down "Ph.D., XYZ U." on your job application, and never volunteer that it is a DL degree.

 

Dear Bill,

Greetings!

As always, you are right. So, yes, my position applies to the United States as well, but as Steve once said, it is easier to defend an unknown US school here in the United States than to defend here an unknown school from, let's say, Australia. But again, it is not the best scenario to study at/from an obscure school here in the United States.

My best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Let me provide a bit of a rambling response which I hope will, somewhat indirectly, answer your question.

Of course in reality things are not this black and white but I think this is conceptually correct. Lets say that the value of a degree is based 60% where you got it, 30% what you did and 10% how you did it. So the most important issue is the school / faculty you study at / through, followed by the program / curriculum and finally how you pursue it.

A degree from an alternative school is less likely to be accepted than a degree from a traditional university (i.e. where you got it). Of course a more reputable / prestigious university will increase the level of acceptance further.

A non-traditional or accelerated program is less likely to be accepted than a traditional curriculum or program (i.e. what you did).

A non-resident or low-resident program is less likely to be accepted than a traditional residential program (i.e. how you got it).

If you pursue a traditional program from a traditional school, you have a pretty good chance of compensating for DL in almost any environment... IMO.

 

I am sure this happens sometimes but personally I have never worked anywhere so unsophisticated that credentials, if important, were evaluated by name recognition of the general public.