University of California System Bans Fully Online Degrees

The 10-campus system closes a loophole that could have let undergraduates piece together a degree. Experts and some inside the system say that in justifying its decision, UC perpetuated outdated claims about online learning.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/27/university-california-system-bans-fully-online-degrees

 

If they perceive distance learning to be inferior in ANY way -- it's damn hypocritical of them to offer it - or, to charge millions for it. The proper thing to do would be:

(1) Stay out of the distance ed. market, or
(2) Sell it as a "different product" at a much, much lower price

Don't expect either. This stinks. I don't know how or why anyone is supposed to respect a University System that adopts this kind of underhanded policy.

But of course, -- if you're in prison, you're exempt. Tempting...

 

Backwards. Reminds me of when NYS decided to reduce online self-paced CASAC education to 50% of the requirement, forcing the rest to be instructor-led with scheduled webinars, never mind the major drug crisis and the fact that this decision only leads to more and unnecessary time being tacked-on to the path for those to help people in said crisis. It never ceases to amaze me how people in positions of power concoct new ways to make simple matters difficult, and use rationalizations (and I mean that definition in the negative, psychology sense) to legitimize it.

There are a lot of people in charge of things that have outdated thinking. People in positions where they're supposed to be compassionate and understanding often lack compassion and understanding, so when in the article the issue of those who are disadvantaged was brought up, I shook my head because I know the people who made this decision don't care.

In the end, the best thing student's can do is take their business elsewhere. There are plenty of other options. When that happens enough for long enough, UC will change its tune and step back into the 21st century.

 

One of the weird things I always noticed with most remote jobs in California is that they were "remote in California." Most companies, even if they don't allow you to work from all 50 states, will have more than their home state as an option. The whole point of remote (for many) is to escape the high cost of living while working from anywhere (in the U.S.).

 

Funny enough, I saw a lot of "Remote (except California or Colorado)" pretty frequently. I think this part of the "only in CA" is because they don't want to have to establish a presence in each state where they have employees, and part of the "not in CA" is because they don't want to have to learn a new state's labor laws.

 

The logic--if there is any--is baffling. (I'm only assuming there's a logic to this.)

In 1978, I was beginning my undergraduate studies to get a degree in business. While doing that, I took a ton of exams for credit. The school on base would accept no more than 30 credits by testing in transfer, even though the total transfer limit was 90 semester hours. Okay. I asked their representative, "What makes the 30th credit good and the 31st bad?" Instead of an answer I got a tautology along the lines of, "That's our policy because that's our policy." I worked in the base education center, and a colleague heard me talking about it and handed me the Regents External Degree Program catalog. I had an associate's in a few weeks and a bachelor's just over a year later.

If distance learning or self-paced study or whatever is bad, then the acceptable number of credits earned by it should be zero. Anything above that is hypocritical.

 

Indeed. And condemning it while continuing to peddle it is -- um, hyper-hypocritical, I guess. Is that a word? It should be, in this case.

 

RIGHT.

https://grad.ucla.edu/programs/school-of-engineering-and-applied-science/engineering-ms-in-engineering-online/

OK BARBARA. OK.

 

I agree, but it definitely seems like someone somewhere has a bee in their bonnet about this. COSC and TESU both abruptly decided that more than 90 self-paced alt credits are bad because you need at least 30 RA credits. At least TESU (unlike COSC) is still relatively liberal with acceptance of those alt credits. And you can still transfer in the RA credits to make up (most of) the remainder of the degree.

But why are 90 credits okay and not 93 or 96? Whatever.

 

Probably because 90 makes it a nice, simple fraction - 3/4. Something grade-school kids - and everyone else - can understand.
Definitely no deep thinking or data analysis etc. And hopefully, no AI involved.

 

I kind of get that. But why 90 and not the full 114 as it's been for years? It's silly.

 

This is so ridiculous and I really hope a group like the ACLU takes them to court for it. In-person courses can also have problems... inclement weather, student bullying (a friend I had in college experienced this), safety issues especially for women, and general access for people with disabilities. Also, contrary to what is stated... some people do learn better online. Not to mention that the online degree programs provide this beautiful experience of 1) having engagement from students around the world leading to more understanding and 2) forcing students to slow down and think while they are typing rather than blurting things out. In my experience, the people want to speak badly about accredited online programs are almost always bad with navigating computers and the internet. I can see that socialization could be could because we see all these movies and have stories of people coming out of college with life long friendships. For the majority of people I know who went to college in person, they are not in contact with anyone they attended college with anymore. I could probably list two people in my circle who are still friends with people from college. How about you all?

As far as the maximum transfer of credits, I usually chalk that up to how much money a college or university insists on making off of each student.

 

Looking at the study she cited for her evidence, of course, shows the truth: "a business bachelor’s degree from a for-profit online institution is 22 percent less likely to receive a callback than one from a nonselective public institution"

She conflates "online" with "for-profit" which totally misses the point. There are for-profit brick-and-mortar programs and lots of non-profit online programs.

 

I read that line you quoted and immediately thought the same thing, Dustin!

 

The 90 credit thingy stems from what schools will accept in transfer for a bachelor's degree. They typically want you to do 30 with them to get "their" degree. The Big 3 kinda smushed that. At the time, those schools didn't offer their own instruction; they were credit banks, so they couldn't have such a limit.

I get the 30-credits-at-our-school-to-get-our-degree thing. I do not get treating delivery methods as inferior or superior to one another. They should be focused on learning outcomes, not processes.

 

They are. The University of California system is considered the more prestigious of the two. Naturally, I taught in the state university system (SDSU) as an Air Force ROTC instructor and assistant professor of aerospace studies.

 

My understanding they are still going to offer DL/online classes but the entire degree can't be earned from UC system fully online.
Earning a hybrid degree is fine.
I don't see here any statement that DL or online degree is inferior.
Their "competitor" USC has a few 100% online degrees.
And also they can reverse their decision any time and start offering 100% DL degrees in the future.
Their take is that if one wants to earn a UC degree then they need to be present at campus at least
portion of the degree and have real interaction with faculty, students, facilties, labs, etc etc.

 

Shocked because that thinking is coming out of California. One of the most innovative states when it comes to higher education.