next »

[mozman]

As a scientist, I totally feel that there is no way that you could get an online science PhD - you need to be in the lab to get the experiments done.

However, why can't you get an online Humanities, English etc... PhD?  In these fields, after you finish coursework, aren't you just holed up in the library  doing your "research"?  As long as you have access to an academic library, either physically or electronically, why can't you do this?

mm

[twofish]

As a scientist, I totally feel that there is no way that you could get an online science PhD - you need to be in the lab to get the experiments done.

It depends.  You certainly could do an online Ph.D. in theoretical physics or astrophysics.  It wouldn't be that difficult to do an almost-online Ph.D. in observational astronomy since you can schedule the observations for once every month and then do the data reduction elsewhere.  Also a lot of the observations come from satellites anyway so you are already doing things remotely anyway.

Also people have extremely narrow definitions of what it means to be online.  Just because you are online doesn't mean that you are always sitting in front of a computer.  For example, in a observational particle physics Ph.D., you could be physically at Fermilab working with a team of technicians, while your advisor could be somewhere else.

My radical proposal for restructuring the undergraduate physics curriculum at MIT would involve abolishing all required courses there, and replace them with apprenticeships with researchers and a series of certifications, so that you can take 18.01 (intro calculus) remotely with a teacher that is probably much cheaper and better at teaching that course than your typical MIT professor.  Similar things can be done for the Ph.D. level.

That way you focus the institute on what is it really strong on (research) and move it away from things that other places are much better at.

[georgia_guy]

Will we ever see online or distance doctorates?  I mean useful respectable doctorates.

There are a few programs.

There are a few online Ph.D. programs. However, as you later point out, there is no incentive to make them good.

It's actually much easier to create an online or distance learning doctorate program
than it is to create an MBA program.  If you can get five respected scholars in a field
to supervise a program, and sign off on a dissertation, then the candidate is a Ph.D. 
The nice thing about Ph.D. programs is that they are messy things that you can't put
on assembly lines.

It sounds like you're describing a dissertation only. My dissertation was only the last third of my Ph.D. In the seminars phase, I interacted with a lot more than 5 faculty.

The reason that there are few respectable doctorate programs is that, to be totally blunt,
there is no money in it.  People who complete a Ph.D. program have this curious habit
of being interested in the topic they are studying rather than wanting to do so out of
money, and people who supervise a Ph.D. program have this curious habit of wanting
to conform to a higher calling than to just make money.

The net result is that there isn't a financial incentive to create reputable Ph.D. programs,
so it doesn't happen......

It would be quite a challenge to try to replicate the type of collaboration, interaction and intellectual stimulation that I had in my graduate seminars in an online format.

[dogvomit]

Because of the possible employer/grad school prejudice against these students.

There isn't any employer prejudice against online degrees.  There is grad school admission committee prejudice, but that system is so messed up that its hard for me to take what they think seriously.

When I look over my shoulder there are a few faculty around here who have such degrees, and their performance is obviously tied to the preparation.

No it isn't.  Faculty hiring is more of a function of politics and connections than anything else.  So is hiring in business, but business people at least admit that this is the case, so they have structures in place to keep things from getting out of hand.

The system as it exists now is that people with power define "quality" and they'll be damned if they define it in a way that that threatens their power and credentials.  The weird thing is that the situation is much less bad in business and finance, because you can define anything you want, but ultimately there is a bottom line of how much money you make, that keeps things open.

What about those who can't but want to?  Too bad, life isn't fair.

And as guardians of a grand and glorious intellectual tradition lasting thousands of years, and as people whose sacred duty is to uphold the highest values of humanity, this is your message to the world....

This is why I ended up working in an investment bank in Wall Street.  People here have much more of a social conscience and respect for their fellow human being than people in academia, and at least in my part of the fishbowl, people don't care where you went to school, just want you learned.

People here have figured out that if your treat people with respect and dignity, listen carefully to their hopes and dreams, and offer them solutions to their problems......  They are much more likely to open up their wallets and give you cash...... 

Imagine that.  Greed is good......

1. My father is a leader in a major corporation that is among the MOST successful in the US.  Their policy regarding online degrees is that if the person graduated from one, they are ineligible for employment.  Enough said?

2. I don't know what planet you live on, but even if faculty hiring is based entirely on politics, performing on the job is not.  If you don't teach well, don't publish, bring in no grants, do not present at meetings, don't participate in your discipline in any way, and do no community service, you are not performing.  These people wouldn't make it in a corporation, and they don't make it in the university.  The idea perpetuated on Ghost Busters that "the private sector expects results" whereas academia is some kind of a free for all masquerade of do nothings that squander the resources of government and private entities is completely bogust.  I surmise from your post that you think, somehow, that those that can do, and those that do teach.  Actually, its those that are capable of teaching others to do get the privledge to teach and work on things they are interested in.  Those that are incapable of functioning in the academic world get forced in private industry. 

There are individuals who are exceptions to this rule, but it is, in my experience, a valid generality.  In grad school there was only one out of the 40 or so phd students in my program who desired to enter industry.  He walked right into an open job.  The other 39 or so aimed for academia with a number of moderately talented individuals failing to make it and lowering their standards (as they put it) to the private sector.

In fact, I don not view the private sector in this light, but one can argue these views pretty effectively.  Anyone hanging around academia will find some loafers.  But, you also find that most put in many more hours that is expected in any industry job. 

3. Regarding money, academia is not a charity.  These are not-for-profits.  By definition, a not-for-profit must make a profit.  The only difference between the finance of a for-profit and a not-for-profit is that for-profits dump the profits into share holders and not-for-profits must use these to further programming.  In fact, by your arguement the best academic institutions should be the for-profit ones.  In fact, the oposite is true.  Some of the very worst academic institutions are for-profits.  So, I see virtually nothing in your illogic that holds water in this regard.

4.  If you don't think that industry cares where you got your degree you are pretty naive.  Again, my father's company had the point blank policy that if you came from certain institutions your application was trashed.  In fact, they only hired from a handful of engineering schools, all of which were in the top 5.  And, this is a VERY VERY large company that makes trends rather than follows them.  My uncle works for a major marketing company, and it works exactly the same way there.  yes, this is political, but the fact is that the people that do the best job coming out typically have the best educations and if you don't want to waste money on possible failures you keep going with the tried and true graduates.   Now, if you have been out for 15 yrs and have a record to show you are no slouch, no they won't care...but then neither will academia.  In fact, universities around the nation hire highly accomplished persons who have little education, especially in political science, business, and similar fields. 

5. As for treating people with dignity??? Yeah, I'm sure that the autoworkers feel real greatful when asked to take a cut in salary to save the company $ as the CEO gives himself a raise.  I'm also sure that industry workers whose benefits are continually pulled out from under them feel really well served.   It also must be great to get dumped 6 mo before you become eligible for retirement just so that the company doesn't have to pay.  yes, thats my kind of world...who wouldn't want to live under these conditions. Quick give me a job in the private sector please!  I can hardly wait to spend my last 10 years wondering if the company will close my office in this city to save 85 cents on their annual budget.  Sure, sounds great.

Yes, academia is more pleasant than the private sector.   Yes the private sector has more uncertainty and in some cases higher pay (depends on the field).  In my profession, academia actually pays more than in the private sector!!! hmmmmmm. 

[twofish]

1. My father is a leader in a major corporation that is among the MOST successful in the US.  Their policy regarding online degrees is that if the person graduated from one, they are ineligible for employment.  Enough said?

Good.  I hope that his corporation is in the same industry as mine so that we can take advantage of his short-sidedness and hire talented people that he rejects.

2.  These people wouldn't make it in a corporation, and they don't make it in the university.  The idea perpetuated on Ghost Busters that "the private sector expects results" whereas academia is some kind of a free for all masquerade of do nothings that squander the resources of government and private entities is completely bogus.

It really depends on the corporation.  In the short run, corporations can do lots of stupid things.  In the long run, corporations that are more open about hiring talented people, and less selective about where their talent comes from have a competitive advantage over corporations that are closed minded.

That's one thing that I look for when deciding where to work.  Are the people there deadwood, or are they curious and hard working.  Deadwood attracts deadwood, and in most markets, in the long run corporations full of deadwood get killed by the market.

 
3. Regarding money, academia is not a charity.  These are not-for-profits.  By definition, a not-for-profit must make a profit.  The only difference between the finance of a for-profit and a not-for-profit is that for-profits dump the profits into share holders and not-for-profits must use these to further programming.  In fact, by your arguement the best academic institutions should be the for-profit ones.  In fact, the oposite is true.  Some of the very worst academic institutions are for-profits.  So, I see virtually nothing in your illogic that holds water in this regard.

Non-profit status is a tax model rather than a business model.  The very best private schools have a model in which they don't try to make money through tuition.  Rather what they teach students and they make their money through alumni donations.  They give students skills, have the students go out and get jobs and start companies, and then these rich alumni are made to feel guilty and donate back to the school.

The very best public universities have business models in which the university is intended to promote economic development in an area, which then raises tax revenues which are then sent back to the school.

The problem with the "shareholder for-profit" in which the university charges the student and tries to make money from the tuition is that the university and the students have a conflict of interest, and there is no interest in the university to look after the student long term.  By contrast what happens in both the private and the public models is that the university effectively becomes a shareholder in the student.

4.  If you don't think that industry cares where you got your degree you are pretty naive.  Again, my father's company had the point blank policy that if you came from certain institutions your application was trashed.  In fact, they only hired from a handful of engineering schools, all of which were in the top

My experience is that the best companies really don't care.  A company can make up pretty much any hiring policy they want, but what happens is that if a company cares too much about the institution then they really are getting fooled by marketing, and you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

Becoming a "top school" is mostly sales and marketing anyhow.

5.  And, this is a VERY VERY large company that makes trends rather than follows them.  My uncle works for a major marketing company, and it works exactly the same way there.  yes, this is political, but the fact is that the people that do the best job coming out typically have the best educations and if you don't want to waste money on possible failures you keep going with the tried and true graduates.

Great companies aren't afraid to risk money on possible failures in order to get a huge success.  I want to work for great companies, and I wouldn't work for companies that will toss your resume if you went to the wrong school.  My own experience is that "big name" schools do produce some deadwood, and that you have to look closely at the individual, which is what I try to do.  Also "big name" schools don't necessary have the best classroom instructions.

5. As for treating people with dignity??? Yeah, I'm sure that the autoworkers feel real greatful when asked to take a cut in salary to save the company $ as the CEO gives himself a raise.  I'm also sure that industry workers whose benefits are continually pulled out from under them feel really well served.

That's why I'm picky about who I work for. 

Yes, academia is more pleasant than the private sector.   Yes the private sector has more uncertainty and in some cases higher pay (depends on the field).  In my profession, academia actually pays more than in the private sector!!! hmmmmmm. 

Again, a lot depends on where you end up.  I can tell you that there is at least one person with influence over hiring decisions (me) that doesn't care where you got your degree in, and that there are companies in the world that also don't (the one I work for). 

[twofish]

One other factor is that the better companies are active at using online degrees and online learning to improve the effectiveness of their employees.  On Friday, we got an "all hands" memo from a senior vice president saying that they've just added a large number of courses to our internal online training center in response to some recent regulatory changes, and that we all are encouraged to take those courses.  In my daily work, I use a mix of e-mail, instant messaging, wikis, blogs, telephone calls, and face to face discussions to communicate with people. (Curiously no one uses videoconferencing.)  In a typical day, I am constantly interacting with people on three continents.  Server breaks, and I'm on a interactive support call with people in the US, Europe, and sometimes Asia.

Both the company that I currently work at and the previous employer have massive tuition reimbursements to employees.  At my former company, there was a congratulatory e-mail to the local head of HR when she got her MBA from University of Phoenix, and people at my former company often got Project Management certifications online.

One thing that explains this is that I tend to work in high technology.  You go for a job at Microsoft or Google or Ebay with an online degree, what are they going to say?  We don't trust this internet thing to do anything real?  Come on.....

From the discussion there appear to be companies that frown on internet degrees, and won't hire you if you have them, but you need to ask yourself if you really want to work for them anyway.  My experience is that companies that have silly rules about hiring that don't make any objective sense, have silly rules about everything else that don't make objective sense.  Companies that "judge a book by its cover" and don't dig deep to find out what is really going on about the people they hire are likely to do the same thing for everyone else they do.  Companies that are scared and skeptical of new technology for education, are likely to be scared and skeptical of new technology for other things.

There may be companies like that, and in declining and protected industries, they might last a long time.  However, they probably aren't hiring, and if they are, people that are good and know that they are good, won't work for them, so being rejected by them is no great loss.

[betterslac]

 In fact, universities around the nation hire highly accomplished persons who have little education, especially in political science, business, and similar fields. 

No, not "little education" in political science. If you are a former President, Senator or Cabinet member  with a bachelors, you might have a shot.  Anyone else with extensive experience might be engaged as an adjunct to teach a particular class. But political science is not a matter of gaining a little practical experience and, magically, you are able to teach.

[notaprof]

I received this today, already 4 days late for the start of the program.  It is things like this that give on-line degrees a bad name. Here is the email verbatim (except I deleted the phone number and person's name to protect the guilty). Note the acronym in connection to the name.

"University Administration

I am sending this email on behalf of the University.

Our Work Experience Degree Program (WEPG) is starting November 28th, 2007.

We still feel you should qualify for our nonaccredited degree program, which will take anywhere from 1-3 weeks.

This program is offered too people who feel they have the past and present knowledge in the degree of choice.   

If you are still interested then please call our Registering Office to enlist your name and degree choice.

Registering Office Number: <deleted>

Regards;

Name Deleted
Recruiting Office
THE ONLINE UNIVERSITY est 1995

It was not addressed to me, the email address was that of our president so I don't know how it arrived in my box.   

 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Distance learning is nothing new, and it has always been the case that a dedicated student could get a good education with the right materials.  Now as then, crafting a good online course is difficult, which is why online education has a reputation of being dominated by weak programs.

Right now the best people in pretty much every academic field are at brick and mortar universities (the Open University being a possible exception, as it occasionally has world-class research faculty).  This might change, but it will be slow at best, as faculty in a B&M university are generally going to hesitate before hiring someone with an online degree, generally preferring graduates from the same B&M schools which have the best faculty.  Moreover, in many or most fields, as a graduate student one does a stint as a TA, and many B&M departments will be reluctant to hire a new PhD with no graduate teaching experience.  - DvF

[gourmand601]

"Would you trust a physicist who got his doctorate in a non-residential program, all the while keeping his "day job" as a patent examiner?"


Trust him to do what?


The only problems I have with on-line courses and on-line degree programs (whether those courses/programs are offered by for-profit, state, or elite private institutions) are:

1)  Nobody--I repeat NOBODY--knows for certain who is doing the work or who is taking the exam.  Nobody knows who might be in the room with the student helping with the exercise or exam.  There is just no way to tell.

2)  Anybody can buy a proctor.

Good point!  But anybody can buy a professor too.

[gourmand601]

This month (01/2007), the Chronicle of Higher Education posted an article called “Employers Often Distrust Online Degrees” By Dan Carnevale. I did not like the title of the article to begin with, and when I took a closer look at the content, I did not like the title even more. The article is based on the report from Vault Inc., which said that 55% of managers would prefer applicants with traditional degrees over the online degrees and 45% of managers would give both an equal consideration.

Although the numbers are not really surprising and I would say actually encouraging considering that online academic programs are still a relatively new idea in education, my concern was that those who are not comfortable with this idea to begin with will take it as a supporting argument and those who know little about online education will form a what I believe wrong opinion.

Overall, the article actually clearly explains that skepticism about online degrees comes primarily from ignorance about online education and about what it takes to earn an online degree or participate in online education in some other forms. The article also mentioned that the perception about online education has little to do with the reality of online education but more with the skeptics’ preconceived ideas.

An interesting “discovery” mentioned in the article is that such managers only react to online degrees when the degree is from the school known as a provider of online education (Capella and University of Phoenix were stated as examples by some of the skeptics). The fact is that many traditional universities, including California State University, Long Beach where I teach, offer online degrees which are never identified as such on the students’ final transcript and for a good reason—such programs adhere to the exact same if not more stringent quality control and academic standards as any other traditional programs taught in such schools.

The two hiring managers mentioned to illustrate the skepticism about online degrees were Jerry Ervin, the president of Paragon Strategies, and Silvia Guzman, the human resources manager from ProTec Building Services (both companies are in California—hmm, is this a coincidence?). Well, when I decided to dig in a little and to try to find out about these two skeptics’ own educational background, I found an interesting picture. Both are listed on their companies' websites among other key people; I also found Guzman’s information on the National Human Resources Association, where she is a board member. Now, here is what was interesting—neither had any information about their educational background mentioned in their bios; although when you look through the bios of other members listed on these sites, many stated their educational background and degree very clearly—so my impression was that those with the degrees did include their academic background in their bios, those who did not have a degree did not.

Another interesting piece of information, I thought, was that the president of the National Human Resources Association where Guzman is a member stated very proudly (well it is my interpretation, of course) her BS in Business Management from University of Phoenix, one of the schools that Guzman said she would hesitate to hire a person from.

So, the question I pose here is this:
Is there any relationship between educational background of the hiring managers and their acceptance of online degree? My hunch is that many of such critics—hiring managers-- not only have no clue about online education, but there is probably some hints of personal and/or professional insecurity about making hiring decisions based on people’s educational background. If these managers would, as they mentioned in survey, and probably do screen people out when they see what they call “red flag” of online degree—maybe it’s time for the companies to put their hiring managers through some online education training so that they know how much effort and self-discipline it takes to learn online. It was also significant to read in the same article that such companies as Johnson & Johnson are supportive of online education, as evident from J&J’s partnership with Capella University for employee tuition reimbursement and tuition discount program.
And as a credibility statement I must say that I earned my Ph.D. from Capella, which I consider one of the most rewarding and stimulating academic experiences in my life…but before you doubt my objectivity (actually I do not even try to conceal my support for online education), I also need to mention that I have an M.B.A. from University of California, Irvine, and BS in Psychology from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign---you can’t get more traditional than the last two:-).

I must say that this has been one of the most structured responses I have read since joining the Chronicle. You shed much light on this topic and your argument is extremely valid.

I earned a BBA in finance from an AACSB accredited business school and an MBA from UoP (ACBSP Accredited). I am also a Ph.D. candidate in Applied Management and Decision Sciences at Walden University. All of these institutions are regionally accredited.

Some time ago, I applied for a higher level position at a very conservative bank here in Mississippi. I made it pretty high in the interview process until one of the interviewers questioned my MBA. She asked me if it was done online and I told her yes. Long story short, I did not get the job... even though UoP is accredited by the same business accrediting body that accredited the degrees she flashed on her wall. This was very interesting to me.

Since the beginning of my matriculation at Walden, I have come in contact with some extremely brilliant people. While in the online courseroom and at face to face residencies, I have been able to network with some extremely successful people working in business and the academy (students and faculty). My committee, one with a Ph.D. from Harvard, one with a Ph.D. from Jackson State University, and one with a Ph.D. from Fielding Institute, have all taken me under their wings and have shown me many great things. I just don't think I could have had a better experience anywhere else. In fact, during a very informal conversation while lounging in the TV room in one of the dorms during a week long residency, I ended up being offered a position as an associate professor at a college. I declined because I just could not see myself moving to New Mexico. :-)

I have had some interesting discussions with people who are in support of distance learning and some who are against it. It seems that most opponents of distance learning simply have never taken an online or correspondance course. To me, this is blatant ignorance. How can anyone judge something they've never even attempted? Some individuals have taken a beginner's course via the internet and make claim that it was a waste of time. What entry level course at any university isn't a waste of time? One of my courses at my undergrad institution was called Guidance.... was I guided.. no. But I digress...... I believe that HR professionals should be required to take advanced courses online to maintain certification. This may help curve stigma associated with online degrees and online learning amongst HR professionals and other hiring individuals.

The Sloan Consortium has done tons of research on distance learning. It found that distance learning is perceived by many to be equal to if not better than traditional classroom learning. This perception is growing. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/index.asp

Regardless of the institution, every student should make sure that he or she makes the best of the sitution. Academic snobs come to me with negativity all the time.... but I quickly put out that fire when I tell them that I too am an academic snob. Ironic isn't it? I then discuss the parallels of my dissertation, which is a phenomenological study, and let them know that I have several publications and many presentations under my belt (all with my name on them.. and not my doctoral advisor's). I also let them know that I currently have 8 articles in peer review and that I am an academic reviewer for a peer reviewed journal in the social sciences..... all before the age of 30. In most cases.... I am accepted. The few where I have not been, I chalk it up to pride and ignorance.

The value of a degree is measured by salary and overall satisfaction. For example.....I have a snobbish colleague who is a Ph.D. graduate from Rutgers who not only makes less than I do, but can barely walk across the street by himself (no common sense). He also has less publications than I do but has been out of school much longer. I also have a good friend (bless his heart) who is a graduate of Emory (BA) and had to get a job working part time at a soda shop. I say that to say this.... Brand means something... but it's not everything.

It all follows the same old rule, the best engineers were technicians first, the best doctors were medics first, the best PhD’s were practitioners first. Not only is it what you know and what you do with what you know; but also about WHO you know and WHO knows YOU.

[gourmand601]

As a scientist, I totally feel that there is no way that you could get an online science PhD - you need to be in the lab to get the experiments done.

However, why can't you get an online Humanities, English etc... PhD?  In these fields, after you finish coursework, aren't you just holed up in the library  doing your "research"?  As long as you have access to an academic library, either physically or electronically, why can't you do this?

mm

Actually you can. Most Ph.D.s offered online are in the social sciences (Business, Psychology, Education, Health and Human Services, Public Policy, Literature..etc.). I have yet to find one in mathematical or medical sciences. To that end, I would be extremely cautious if I did. Anyway... Texas Tech offers an online Ph.D. in Rhetoric/Communications. Regent University offers one in each of the following areas: Leadership, Counseling, and Education. Walden university produces a host of doctorates, Union Institute and University offers the PsyD and a Ph.D. that is extremely flexible. In fact you can study what the hell you want at Union as long as it makes a strong contribution to society.

All of these programs have a residency requirement.

[twofish]

Right now the best people in pretty much every academic field are at brick and mortar universities (the Open University being a possible exception, as it occasionally has world-class research faculty).  This might change, but it will be slow at best

I don't think it will be slow once things reach some sort of critical mass.  The internet was invented in 1973, but was an curiosity until the early 1990's when things exploded into public consciousness.  There are a lot of pieces in various places which are out of the public view, but I think if you get those pieces to fit together things will change very quickly.  The interesting pieces are "wikipedia," "open courseware," "University of Phoenix," "adjuncts"

in a B&M university are generally going to hesitate before hiring someone with an online degree, generally preferring graduates from the same B&M schools which have the best faculty

The trouble is that this leaves most people outside the system.  Systems which leave most people on the outside tend to be very unstable.  I do think that the current academia system is hugely inbred, and if you want to do something very different, you need to do it from the outside, but that means that people who are interested in doing things differently end up on the outside.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

in a B&M university are generally going to hesitate before hiring someone with an online degree, generally preferring graduates from the same B&M schools which have the best faculty

The trouble is that this leaves most people outside the system.  Systems which leave most people on the outside tend to be very unstable.  I do think that the current academia system is hugely inbred, and if you want to do something very different, you need to do it from the outside, but that means that people who are interested in doing things differently end up on the outside.

There is nothing revolutionary going on here.  The internet makes things easier and faster, but correspondence schools and distance education have flourished for decades.  The best programs have been university extension offerings, and I think that will continue to be the case.

Academia is the gold standard for the generation, preservation, and transmission of human knowledge.  Some distance education models hope to challenge B&M universities for the "transmission" aspect, but I think we are very far indeed from, say, U. of Phoenix faculty conducting Nobel prizewinning research.  You might take issue with this, but I think your argument will be much stronger when you can point to some serious pure-research breakthroughs that come from outside of academics.  I also think it is telling that the internet itself - from transistor to tcp/ip to html to google - are all products of traditional academic institutions, however much they were then spun off to outside entities. - DvF

[dogvomit]

sure there is something new...

Correspondence courses have virtually always been perceived as inferior to a traditionally delivered education.
Online courses, of which many are simply glorified correspondence courses, are now being portrayed as equal to traditional education. 

Strange, because I dont' see any difference between most online courses and correspondence courses. 

this is a great discussion, however!