Absolutely, Michelle!  People fear what they don't understand, so unless they know about distance learning first-hand you can expect them to be skeptical.  Even worse, of course, is when they insist on painting all DL as bogus and the schools as diploma mills because those are the ones they've heard about,  that always make the screaming headlines in the newspaper and scandalous teasers for the talking heads on TV and radio  We all know that ALL teachers are not perverts because a few predators have been caught, nor are all professors communists because a few are flaming moonbats and completely abusing their position.

Sidebar: major kudos to Walden et al. for featuring personal examples and testimonials in most of their advertising. 

 

Jerim:

... and from what I have seen and heard they don't mind cutting costs either on classroom supplies, textbooks or quality teachers...

ROFLMAO!  That sounds amazingly like the current conditions in government schools K-12 

 

I agree that there is still some stigma attached to distance education. I refuse to call it online, because that makes it sound cheap. You will have better success presenting it as a distance education. Distance education has been around since before WWII, so there is more history to it and more respect. When you say "online" people assume the entire college is online, which makes it sound like a scam. Infact, most colleges go through their distance education department to offer online courses. But chances are no one will ask how the degree was obtain. That is why it is so important to get the degree from a traditional college with some reputation. Certainly the local state college isn't given out flimsy degrees. It is 100% about reputation.

It largely depends upon which history you read - and when it was written The earliest distance learning degree programs that so far can be documented actually started in England in 1858 (so you're already 90-odd years late).  The true significant of WWII was the massive training and retooling to change direction literally overnight from a isolationism still struggling with the Great Depression and essentially a peace-time consumer production economy to a major combattant and war-time economy and production.  In the aftermath, the GI Bill changed the social and economic landscape forever by making college accessible to the great unwashed masses who could never have afforded it otherwise. [And, I must hasten to add, Rosie the Riveter's refusal to give up her job - God bless them all - also played a crucial and central role in the unprecidented economic expansion we've enjoyed almost uninterrupted since the end of WWII!]

Correspondence courses are widely credited to England in the mid-19th century but actually existed in New England very early in the 18th century - over a century earlier.  In fact, it wouldn't be all that difficult to make a very strong case to extend the precursors to distance learning long before Gutenberg invented moveable type and the proliferation of printed books back to the rise of the university in Europe, or even to the Academy in Athens in Socrates times.  Indeed, 'distance learning' has always been one of the most eagerly sought after by-products of traders and adventurers, and undoubtedly that goes back farther than the invention of writing.

For better and for worse, graduates largely determine the reputation of the college, so if you come across as a briliant genius, the school will get credit equally as much as if you come across as an illiterate moron.  The truth is, as I've pointed out many times, the 'best' schools can cherry-pick their entering freshman class and will come out ahead on the urban myths and legends even if they make no effort and have precisely no affect on the students  It's human nature to insist that you cannot possibly be bright on your own, you have to have outside help - which is patten BS, but that's another thread.

In case you've missed it, colleges are under scrutiny - every bit as much as K-12.  So far, they aren't scoring too well, but that, too, is another thread.

 

I knew that, but didn't want to go into as much unnecessary detail. You are right that good schools cherry pick their students, and the school gets the credit for the student's accomplishment. Your point being............? That we shouldn't judge schools based on their students? Of course you should. I don't for a second believe UoP is better at teaching than a traditional college, but for a moment let's suppose it is. I would still rather go to a college that doesn't teach as well but surrounds you with intelligent classmates, than to go to a college that is great at teaching but will take anyone off the street. And trust me, UoP takes anybody. Harvard and Yale teach nothing more than your local state college, but it is the prestige of being good enough to get in, and then once in being surrounded by the cream of the crop, that gives the degree weight. Education isn't for everyone; some people just aren't meant to be graduates. UoP is fine for those with lots of work experience, and want a degree to move up in the company. Just don't trick yourself into thinking you are getting a degree like the one the local college gives out. It think comparing UoP and public high schools is as good a indicator of the quality as anyone can hope for. If people are comparing UoP to high schools in order to deflect criticism, then UoP is worse off than I had thought.

I hope that Wendy sees how much "controversy" surrounds UoP even on this forum. Is this really the kind of reaction you want from your degree? If the question had been about the University of Southern California, would we even be having this discussion? Nope, because you won't find anyone who disputes the quality of that school. There are many sites out there criticizing UoP and although you may dismiss every last one of them, you are still taking a risk. Personally, I don't like to gamble with my education. Not when there are so many, many, many, many colleges and universities out there that no one will bat an eye at. I don't see what the appeal of UoP is that makes some people regard it as the only choice. Is it the promise of big money? Is it the promise of easy classes? Just what exactly does UoP have over any local college or university?

First of all, saying that it's online does not make it sound cheap, it just establishes the method taken to complete your studies.  I would also like to point out that there are some legitimate colleges that are entirely online.  The names of a them escape me at the moment (it's probably because it's really late and I need to go to sleep, hehe) but I know that you could find a few on this website.

Why wouldn't you want to go to a college that is great at teaching even if they will take anyone off the street?  If the college is great at teaching, then the graduating students would have learned a lot, regardless of who they are or where they came from.  The reputation of the college would still be that it produces quality graduates and they offer the opportunity to learn to many different people.

Also, how are you deflecting criticism by comparing UoP to public high schools?  It seems like more of an insult to the education that they provide than anything else.  If UoP was providing high school quality education then it would likely not be accredited.  I'm not sure I see how you can make an assumption about how people see UoP if you are basing that assumption on your own opinion.

Education is different for everyone and there are lots of people who have different learning styles.  Perhaps the style that UoP provides to the students is one of the reasons that some people choose it.  I'm sure that there are some happy graduates of UoP that have recommended them to family or friends.

There is bound to be a certain degree of "controversy" surrounding any college choice a person makes, whether it be distance learning or brick and mortar.  There are dissatisfied people everywhere and all you need is for one to surface and start spreading the good word and *bam* you have controversy.  Take for example Stevens Institute of Technology and New Jersey Institute of Technology.  There are some people that think Stevens is better than NJIT and there are others that think the opposite.  It boils down to the fact that both schools are legitimate and accredited and what makes the real difference is the student and how they respond to each school.  It's the same with UoP and other universities.  They're all legitimate and accredited and what makes the difference between each school is how the student responds to it.

Oy.. I hope I didn't ramble too badly, it really is getting late!! 

Lastly, henryw, I liked the information on distance learning.  It was very interesting! 

I went to UoP about 5 years ago for a couple of semesters and it was a very good program with helpful staff. It was just to expensive for my taste. Lol, 5 years later and attending Baker Online and they're probably the same price. Anyways, UoP is the most prestigious online school around and is gaining credibility everyday. I wouldnt dismiss it.

www.rateyouronlinecollege.com 

Dommer:

Anyways, UoP is the most prestigious online school around and is gaining credibility everyday.

Phoenix is a legitimate school, sure, and clearly thousands and thousands of people believe it's right for them.  Still, do you really consider it more prestigious than Duke, George Washington, Penn State, and the University of Massachusetts, which also offer online degrees?

-=Steve=- 

 

The only thing prestigious about the U of P is the price.  It's an OK school and not a bad choice but prestige isn't one of the words that comes to my mind.

 

 

 

Hi Ophelia, I'm new to this site, I just read your post and wonderd why online degrees are not well regarded in the mental health field? I'm looking into online schools and want to major in psychology.

Whether or not the reasoning is fair or accurate, online degrees are not yet well regarded in the mental health field because of the perception that, because the field is predominantly about interpersonal interaction, an individual cannot adequately be supervised/taught/socialized into the profession through an online program. Psychology in particular is a tricky field because research is such a big part of the training, and this is traditionally taught by working in a lab with a mentor who is established in the field. If you are considering graduate work toward a degree that you hope will get you licensed (e.g., as a clinical psychologist, LCSW, licensed profesional counselor, etc.) you definitely should : a) check with your state licensure board BEFORE you enroll in a program to get guidance on whether your degree will be acceptable; and b) ask the program you are considering to put you in touch with some of its graduates to learn about their experience with licensure--preferably a graduate in your state. Finally, if a doctoral degree in psychology is your ultimate goal, you really should just plan to go with a program that is accredited by the American Psychological Association--your professional life will be substantially easier at every step along the way. At present, the only two distance-learning doctoral programs in psychology that are APA-accredited are the Fielding Institute and the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. Both require slightly more time in residency than non-APA programs such as Capella's--but (I'm guessing) this is the reason they were ablt to obtain accreditation. There is a lot of interpersonal shaping that occurs in psychology doctoral studies, and my guess is the APA continues to believe that is an important part of the training.

U OP has campuses all across this country. I attend a campus of UOP and have gotton a great education. I finished my undergrad there and am now getting a MBA in October. UOP is a school for the times. Traditional education just like the public school system is good but archaic in some respects, crams a lot of things into the curriculum that you will never use plus charge a fortune, does not take into account the personal responsibilities of life today for the average student. Now older students returning to school come close to outnumbering those on their normal paths. To accommodate these folks, schools like UOP are attractive in setting courses around working people's schedules.

 

Employers, if you don't consider UOP students, you will be neglecting over 300,000 people annually who spend their hard earned money for an education that they think is worthwile. Can you really afford that? Traditional education is fine. Writing papers on who shot Kennedy and the trials and errors of our political system will not help one in the real world to figure the bottom line. Most people from the Ivy league universities/colleges spout more garbage philosophically than I care to hear. This is my personal opinion and I am not putting down any school but just really trying to defend my stance on UOP and if we as graduates don't set a positive image then who will?

linnlip:

Traditional education is fine. Writing papers on who shot Kennedy and the trials and errors of our political system will not help one in the real world to figure the bottom line. Most people from the Ivy league universities/colleges spout more garbage philosophically than I care to hear. This is my personal opinion and I am not putting down any school but just really trying to defend my stance on UOP and if we as graduates don't set a positive image then who will?

Of course you're putting down other schools.  What's positive about saying that a liberal arts curriculum won't help people "in the real world" and comparing Ivy League schools to "garbage"?

-=Steve=- 

SteveFoerster:

Of course you're putting down other schools.  What's positive about saying that a liberal arts curriculum won't help people "in the real world" and comparing Ivy League schools to "garbage"?

-=Steve=- 

Hear hear!!!  Furthermore, if you believe that the "trials and errors of the political system" can't "help [you] in the real world figure the bottom line," then you cheat yourself of valuable information.  At my job I see how an operational structure is built, the pitfalls of communication breakdown, the benefits of people working toward a common goal, failure to co-ordinate tasks and responsibilities, the positive effects of centralized resources, etc....all issues you'd find in any study about political systems.

CaptainKangaroo:

Hear hear!!!  Furthermore, if you believe that the "trials and errors of the political system" can't "help [you] in the real world figure the bottom line," then you cheat yourself of valuable information.  At my job I see how an operational structure is built, the pitfalls of communication breakdown, the benefits of people working toward a common goal, failure to co-ordinate tasks and responsibilities, the positive effects of centralized resources, etc....all issues you'd find in any study about political systems.

Another thing is that a good liberal arts education provides multiple perspectives, which fosters an ability for critical thinking that is useful in just about any profession or endeavor.

-=Steve=-