What do you say to distance learning/online degree haters?

Although I don't feel it, perhaps I come from an older generation? Corporations I've worked for in the past, invested a lot of resources in their employees and some still do! However, today, they seek out potential employees that can "produce the goods" from the get go with minimal investment.

The question is, how does one ultimately validate the knowledge they have and is a diploma a validation or simply a check mark on an application? For example, my brother is in "IT", a C+ language programmer more specifically. He holds down a job for an average of two years (contract work). The interviews include comprehensive tests and drills on the problems they encounter today. His validation is not from a diploma but rather can he do the job? This focused approach to hiring makes "Traditional" versus "non traditional" education not as big an issue today as we may believe! The fact is, knowledge and new discoveries are outpacing the stuff you learned in college making your diploma obsolete! Perhaps Dr. Douglas can enlighten us?

 

This has been my experience in IT as well. It doesn't matter if your degree is from the UoP, Walden, Devry, RA or DETC accredited as long as you can the job. Many of the IT jobs require a technical test that shows competency so if you can do the job you are hired.

The same holds for many business jobs. For Accounting is the CPA the main requirement and for finance the CFA so it doesn't matter much if the degree is from an unknown or online university as long as you have the main certifications required. If you hold a CPA, it is unlikely that anyone would care if your degree was earned online.

They way I see it is that unless you have a degree from a top ranked school, any degree from a RA accredited (online or B&M) can do the job for regular positions in Industry and it wouldn't make much difference where you got your degree.

As for people with online doctorates, I believe the main issue is not so much the fact that these degrees were earned online but the objective of these programs. Many of the online doctorate programs in the US are not really made to prepare academics but to develop professionals working in industry so they don't put much emphasis in conference presentation, publications in peer reviewed journals, teaching, etc. On the other hand, many doctoral programs in the UK and Australia are meant to prepare academics so the focus is different. I believe there is a need to have a non residential doctoral program in the US that is meant to train academics.

 

I'm going as far to say that even a degree from a "top ranked school" may only have some moxie for the first 3 to 5 years after graduation. Technology, science, medicine, etc. is changing so rapidly, the working adult really needs to reinvent themselves and constantly keep up to date on the current knowledge! If I were on a hiring board or in human resources, the applicant who went on to earn an additional degree even "non traditional" would spark my interest! That kind of applicant recognizes the need to make learning a lifelong commitment in this rapidly changing and competitive world.

 

Or perhaps not. I don't think I have a unique perspective on this subject. But here are my takes:

1. You get two forms of capital (as Bourdieu describes it) from a university experience: an education and a degree.

2. The degree part of this can vary tremendously in value. But that said, we obsess too much on the differences between individual schools. My opinion is and has always been that there are a few schools everyone's heard of, and a whole bunch no one has ever heard of. Graduating from one of the latter is just about the same as graduating from any in that class. There are some famous (and infamous) schools with national reputations, and there are certainly local variances. But by and large, it doesn't matter what school you attend.

3. Accreditation status matters, but differences between forms of accreditation aren't that big of a deal, especially with employers. (There are differences, and we find many situations where national accreditation isn't acceptable to some employers.)

4. It works both ways. A school can really mess up the value of its degrees' capital. I believe this to be the case with UoP. Students who graduate from there really do earn their degrees. At least, that was my experience when I was a Campus Chair for a year and an adjunct for another two. But I wouldn't recommend UoP to anyone. First, there are many other alternatives. Second, the team-based learning isn't always a good experience (and makes up about a third of your grade). And most important, UoP has become the face of many not-so-good themes used by the press (and employers). It's like fast food. If you want to make a sly comment about fast food, you use McDonald's as your example, not Subway or Burger King. And if you want to make a crack about schools like UoP, you don't use Strayer as your example. It flies under the radar.

5. Schools in the local area can vary more dramatically in reputation, but this disappears once you're outside that area. For example, the University of San Diego MBA program is superior to Chapman University's. People in Southern California know this. But people in Kansas City do not make that distinction.

6. The quality (perceived or real) of the school lessens in importance as one's experience level goes up, unless one is using that degree as an entry-level credential. With a thin resume, the employer is looking hard at the degree. But as you advance in your practice/occupation/profession, the degree serves more to prevent a door from being closed than it does as a door-opener. Not that those most prestigious degrees are unimportant at that point, but it matters less.

7. Education is dicier. Employers really don't know about what graduates learn at different schools, unless they have a particular inside track. That's why the issues around the degree are so important.

8. Experience is what matters, followed by knowledge and ability. The more of these, the less it matters if your degree is "nontraditional" or comes from a school no one's ever heard of.

I'm 53 years old. All of my education was earned while I was working full-time, and all of it through "nontraditional" universities. I graduated with my first nontraditional degree (a bachelor's from what was then the public USNY Regents, now the private Excelsior College) at 20. I have another one from Regents. My nontraditional MBA is from National University. My nontraditional Ph.D. is from The Union Institute. And in all of these years, I'm still waiting for the first potential employer to ask me about any of them during an interview. It just doesn't happen.

 

I agree with all of the above except the very last quote. I just don't know. In traditional academe, the Ph.D. is as much an apprenticeship as it is a degree program. Nontraditional students miss out on a lot of that--teaching as a grad assistant, being mentored, co-writing articles with faculty, participating in conferences (both in one's discipline and those held by one's university), and being in the loop for job hunting. There's a lot going on that you miss by being an off-campus student.

 

"On the other hand, many doctoral programs in the UK and Australia are meant to prepare academics so the focus is different."

My talking about the PhD here with academics indicates that it is totally focussed upon research and academia, since few other organisations have research here to the same degree as universities. Industry here appears to be totally underwhelmed by holders of a PhD. If you want industry acceptance then you would do better to pursue a professional doctorate which is the alternative to the PhD. The professional doctorate here is a Doctor of Psychology, Doctor of accounting etc.

I agree that PhDs need to have an apprenticeship for university acceptance. This includes conferences, peer reviewed publications and some university teaching. I do not see a barrier to online PhD candidates achieving the first two which may lead to some teaching by networking with other conference attendees. "Getting a name in the field" appears to be the important feature. The question is; if somebody "googled" me what would they find? Anybody invisible on the internet in the field of study is not likely to get acceptance in academia here. What do they say? "Publish or Perish".

My recommendation is to develop a profile by:
1. Trying to get published in peer reviewed journals;
2. Attending conferences and try to present at them (good networking).
It hedges your bets even if industry doesn't care about these things. Interestingly, I am not sure that industry ignores presentations at conferences or publications, even if they do not care about the "PhD" per se.

 

Is industry really underwhelmed by the Ph.D., but more accepting of professional doctorates? I am educated in this field and I haven't seen that distinction. I agree that a professional doctorate, when the distinctions are held, better prepares the practitioner than does the Ph.D. But in the U.S., anyway, I haven't seen any distinctions made by employers between the two.

I'm very gratified that someone else on this board articulates the difference between a professional and an academic doctorate.

 

I was talking about the Australian context. I have probably overstated it, however, generally it is experience and a professional doctorate that gets the nod, particularly in business qualifications.

There a sad saying that gets around here that goes,"Academics on tap. but not on top." PhD's are generally seen as university researchers.

 

There are a lot of PhD's I have worked with in clinical research (private/commercial sector)! They design the protocols and analyze the data for clinical trials.

 

I agree that labelling a group is fraught with error, but PhD's here are seen an integral part of R & D (universities here seem to do the most R&D). I personally think that R&D is critical part of infrastructure that public or private cannot do without. I think that economic success is heavily dependent on the amount of R & D and I include humanities PhDs in this as well. I think we need more PhDs for that reason, not management. I think that the US producing more PhDs will result in a stronger economic outcome in the longer term, whether they be from online or B & M schools. The Australian Govt just ripped 2.8 billion AUD out of the university sector which will stifle the PhD program and R&D , It is incredibly shortsighted.

I also think that we need Doctorates for the "commercializing" the research that PhDs come up with. These Doctorates would turn pure research in viable product or practice and allow the researcher to move on. The high level of expertise required to understand the research and to develop practical systems to build product and practice is definitely at Doctorate level. This Doctorate may need more emphasis on the analysis of research and systems than actually doing research, but that is only my opinion. I think there is a separation between the two Doctorates. I am strong advocate for research for going forward. How do you do that without PhDs in todays world?

 

In general, doctoral programs, whether they be in philosophy or other disciplines follow the same core pattern of study:
1. Research.
2. Statistical analysis.
3. Writing.

Disclaimer: I haven't looked at every core curriculum for the numerous doctoral programs there are in the world!

 

If you study with well-known and accomplished scholars, does it matter if you earned your degree via distance? In my case, I'm seriously considering doing a PhD via distance (if accepted) just because of the outstanding faculty. Forget RA and all that jazz. Just having one of these scholars as a dissertation advisor qualifies the PhD whether in traditional or distance formats. The University is a B&M school and located in Spain.

 

I'd change that up a bit:

1. Learning (in "little book," or "taught" programs with a course component)
2. Proposal
3. Research
4. Analysis (not just statistical)
5. Writing
6. Defending
7. Publishing (the thesis/dissertation and possibly subsequent articles)

 

Yeah, it matters. As I posted earlier, distance students are not involved with a great number of relevant activities on-campus students participate in, including being "in the club" as they try to enter academe. But if your point is that one can achieve an outstanding education and work with great people while studying at a distance, I couldn't agree more.

 

Yep, for a more than mid-career guy like me, that's the case. And I understand about being "in the club." One needs to hang out with academe in order to someday be part of it. Absolutely true.

 

Thanks for the contribution!

 

Acceptability of doctorate degree earned online...

This study is 8 years old so I think/hope the attitude towards a distance learning doctorate has changed considerably!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=43&ved=0CFkQFjACOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotmedia.com%2Fadams%2FxPDF%2FDLDoctorate.pdf&ei=NIaRUbSfGIjFywG-8YHwCg&usg=AFQjCNGoLGvBuek-ME1YE_Fa_RwFaIcUhA&bvm=bv.46340616,bs.1,d.aWc

 

As a generator of a bit of data on this subject, I would say yes and no.

Yes because things move quickly in this field. Just look at the technological changes since then, or the plethora of online programs, or the (suspected, but measured?) changes in attitudes regarding DL degrees.

No because unless the findings can be challenged with new data, there's no solid reason to believe things have changed.

In my study, I looked at the acceptability of college degrees to HR managers based on the accreditation status of the school. Have things changed in the 10 years since then? Certainly. I suspect, for example, the acceptability of degrees from nationally accredited schools has gone up. But the findings were more complicated than that, and I wonder how each of the variables has moved since then. But with no new data, it's hard to tell if the hypotheses should change, be rejected, or be modified.

A lack of information is not information.

"Half-life" is a good term here. The validity of the information probably falls off over time, yet isn't exactly refuted at any point.