Opinion: US Students should stick with RA programs

What exactly is "Lewchukian"... is it good... is it a dialect like "I think that sounds Lewchukian" or is it more a philosophy like "I believe that is a combination of Platonic Lewchukianism".

I have very seldom heard / experience bias against DL as separate from certain schools / programs which were not perceived to be adequate.

As I have noted, the issue with DL tends to be associated with perceived inferior schools and programs. If you have a solid school and program, I think you can compensate for DL.

 

I disagree. If you attend an "obscure" school in the US it probably is because it is actually obscure. However if you attend an "obscure" school in Australia it could be because it is simply is unfamilier in US.

First, you may find that the Australian school is not so obscure (I have a fellow in my group who did a foreign exchange in Australia) or that it is easy to demonstrate that the school is not obscure.

If you go to an obscure US school... you are stuck with what you got.

 

When it comes to the subject matter of this thread, I believe I'll defer to the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do as ye wilt." I'll enjoy earning my 100% nonresidential AQF-approved Ph.D., and I intend to get a great deal of mileage out of it. (I'm confident that I can, and nobody can accuse me of not researching my options thoroughly enough.) Those of you who feel a greater affinity to residential or semi-residential programs have a right to your affinities, just as I have a right to mine. As for the fortune-telling game of which doctorates will be more marketable, the only thing I can suggest is to wait and see. I'm more than comfortable with the idea of being a test case.


Cheers,

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

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

Dear Jako,

Yes, I agree. Thus, in essence, you are proving my point. The easieast of all courses of action is to go to a more of less famous university (that is, famous in the United States). And if this university has a good reputation, the much better.

Best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Drop the "a" in "easieast".

K>A>L

 

And change verb agreement.

 

Hello, folks!

After taking a nice shower with my Lifebouy soap and my Head & Shoulders shampoo, I feel in a better position to explain my point of view (say what?).

In all seriousness, I firmly believe that a US student who is planning to remain in the Unites States is better off studying at/from a university that:

a) it is known in the U.S.A. (a good number of RA plus some GAAP) and that has a good reputationn, which is better than a university that...

b) it is not known in the U.S.A. (some RA plus a good number of GAAP), but that it has a good reputation, which is better than a university that...

c) it is not known in the U.S.A. (some RA plus a good number of GAAP), and that it has a less-than-stellar reputation.

It is my opinion that it is better to study, even at a distance, at/from any university in group a.

If any of you disagree or has a different perspective, please post to the baord.

Cordially yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Having checked into this thread a few times, I'm delightfully surprised to find that I'm still talked about despite my ongoing retirement from the wacky world of D/L. (Thanks for the kind comments, guys.)

I fully concur with the arguments raised by Barry Foster, but would add one point (as someone with an RA Ph.D. already in hand for several years) . . .

When all is said and done, we get to sit back, kick our feet up, and laugh at the rest of you.

Alright, that may seem flippant, but in the end run, such discussions are akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And the bottom line, at least for U.S. students, is that no one has been able to argue with the credibility of an RA doctorate (or master's, or bachelor's), while there have been many arguments raised about the credibility of non-RA degrees.

And I, for one, would rather be stuck with a degree that cannot be questioned in terms of its recognition and legitimacy than one that can.

Which, of course, is why I can now go back to sitting back, kicking up my feet, and laughing at the rest of you.

 

Dear Doctor (with Capital D):

Welcome back, Steve! I hope that you stay with us for at least a few days. Your opinions are always refreshing to read.

Generally speaking, I agree with Barry and you. However, there are some well-known and reputable non-US institutions that the mere fact of having a degree from them neutralizes the fact that they are not RA. For example, I can name the "University of Toronto", the "University of London", and some others.

Before somebody asks me, no, I cannot produce a list. This will definitely involve some subjective selection. However, all of you know what I am talking about.

But in the end, yes, the safest choice is going the RA route. As you say, a RA degree cannot be questioned in terms of recognition and legitimacy.

All the very best,


Karlos Alberto "Mr. Caballero" Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Your experience with apologetics should tell you that anything can be questioned; the issue is whether or not it should be. If my primary concern in life was that people might not take me seriously, I'd work for the IRS.

Besides, it's not like nobody has ever questioned the recognition and legitimacy of RA degrees earned by distance learning; you and I have both heard some very unkind things said about the Union Institute over the years, and David Noble and Susan Fungaroli practically make a career out of expressing how much certain brick-and-mortar types disapprove of online degrees.

To wax Levicoffian: You're laughing your ass off at me, but they're laughing their collective asses off at you, and I'm laughing my ass off in general because I still can't believe that people still care about this sort of thing, and we're all one big happy (albeit assless) family.

You and Barry Foster have Ph.D.'s, and the rest of us are mere Ph.D. students at most. So a round of applause for our regionally-accredited-nontraditional-Ph.D. holders, who clearly had the fortitude to do what they wanted to do, and not to worry about people who don't like nontraditional doctorates. One good precedent deserves another.


Cheers,

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

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

Dear Brother Tom,

I don't know what to tell you...in fact, this is the second time I am writing this message because I didn't know what to write the first time around.

No, Br. Tom, we are proud of you, and as I told you before, you are my favourite writer. You have accomplished many things, and you have been an inspiration for many students. The fact that you are going to study an Australian Ph.D. doesn't delete the fact that you already have a RA bachelor's and a RA master's. Additionally, what about if your Ph.D. is from an excellent institution that is more or less known in the United States? Then, RA shouldn't be a concern. And kwowing you as you are, I am sure that you picked an excellent institution. And, for example, most people know what Queensland is. On the contrary, if some people don't know what Queensland is, then what do they know, anyway?

In closing, if anybody should be laughing, you and everybody should be laughing at me: remember that I just have an AA and am still struggling with my certificate.

Keep up the good faith, Brother Tom!

Most sincerely,


Karlos Alberto "El Caballero" Lacaye
[email protected]

 

It's okay, Br. Caballero, and thanks for the kind words--no offense taken. This is really a very old sparring point between me and Steve, and probably will remain one for years to come (which is fine with me because, heck, let's face it: arguing with Steve Levicoff is fun!).


Cheers,

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

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

But there have been many who have argued against the credibility of a RA DL doctorate (e.g., David Noble), and there are those within Ivy League academe who would sit back and laugh at Ph.D.'s from Union, Capella, Fielding, etc., simply because the degree was not earned 100% residentially.

One could perhaps argue, "But I was on campus 30 days," which may indeed cause the traditional academics to amend their opinion on DL degrees.

Russell

 

Hunh. I've been reading this thread since its inception (don't I have ENOUGH to do already?) and I think that there's an unspoken, implicit question behind the whole debate. This is, "What, exactly, does the student want the degree FOR?" Acceptability means nothing unless one determines "to whom?" and "for what?".
Tax lawyers have told me that there are two major tax law programs; NYU and someplace else, I forget where, Chicago, maybe, and if you want to do tax law you really need to get your degree from one of these two programs! Regent University's accredited, online tax LLM just WON'T do if you want to be taken SERIOUSLY. But I'll bet that the University of Washington tax law grad would look askance at the unaccredited Concord Law Center tax degree. And the Concord LLM would maybe sneer at Heed University's LLM.
Nevertheless, there are Heed Ph.D.s in academia and industry at this very moment.
Acceptable to WHOM and for WHAT?
Nosborne

 

Dear Br. Tom,

Double cheers,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye, who, unfortunately, is not as fun as Steve, but he is trying.
[email protected]

 

Dear Russell,

Greetings!

I am not sure if I would debate the credibility of any RA doctorates, DL or not. I think that the issue might be better reflected in the fact that there are some doctorates that are more reputable than others. Otherwise, these same doctorates (or the institutions offering them) shouldn't be regionally accredited, to begin with.

About the academe who laugh at some DL doctorates, I would advise them that they should also laugh at the regional accreditors (which could include the same accreditor that is accrediting their "own" Ivy League schools). Simply put, RA means achieving a minimum standard.

About residencies, I am not sure if they have an actual utitily or not in some scenarios. However, I strongly support the notion that a student should be given the opportunity to take them. In other words, these residencies should be optional. If a student wants to spend some days, a semester, a year, a year and a half, two years, etc., on campus, what would be wrong with it, even if these residencies are benefitial or not?

Stay well.

Sincerely yours,


Karlos Al "Mr. Caballero" Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Hey look! Fielding *finally* makes someone's list!!

I could ask one of my favorite Fielding faculty/mentors .... who also taught at Harvard. Maybe I could start a new career ... in a comedy show!

Barry Foster

 

There would be nothing wrong with the concept, and if a student desired the residential component I am sure it would be beneficial to them. My point is about required residencies juxtaposed to token residencies (a few weeks). Indeed, if a student has the option, and chooses to do so, by all means go for it. I just don't think the argument for requiring a token residency, when the same objective could be met via technology, is well substantiated.

Russell

 

Dear Russell,

Yes, I agree with you. I am against required residencies even if there are benefitial or not. Optional residencies, yes, which should be encouraged (perhaps giving some credit hours for a project taken on campus?), but I don't favor required residencies.

As a matter of fact, now that I remember, Upper Iowa University gives some credit hours for its optional residencies. This is exactly the model I want to follow.

Best wishes,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]