Online Schools vs Traditional Universities
-
I think it's hard to know for sure as two applicants are almost never identical. You are never really just comparing a university degree to an online degree. There are many more factors at play.
-
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
The principle question to ask is: Does the online degree provider have accreditation with the granting authorities in your jurisdiction?
I don't think that that is true. All discussions around this topic are using the term "college" to mean "fully accredited regionally educational institution". That the "online schools" considered to have no merit are fully accredited just like Harvard and Yale is the base assumption that we just don't normally state explicitly. If they lack that, we don't consider them colleges at all.
WGU, Phoenix, etc. are fully accredited. Accreditation is a bar so low that it's considered a worthless standard that only exists to legally meet the qualifications of being a school so that you can put on public record that you have a degree. Anything less, and you aren't always allowed to claim legally to have been to college. Any school that touts this low bar as an achievement itself is a sign that the school is worthless.
-
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
We home school our kids. So, besides the "classroom" time as they get older they are getting more and more online courses to supplement what we are doing. So, we're familiar firsthand with online course legitimacy.
Yes, BUT highly renowned and accredited schools give illegitimate classes left and right. It's important to know that a school is legit, but you need a lot more than that to make it valuable.
We home school as well, but wouldn't want the kids using Phoenix, for example.
-
Even in traditional education the same degree doesn't have the same worth depending on the school you go to. Rutgers MBA vs. Harvard for instance. A degree is an expensive piece of paper. The knowledge is what's important.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
Even in traditional education the same degree doesn't have the same worth depending on the school you go to. Rutgers MBA vs. Harvard for instance. A degree is an expensive piece of paper. The knowledge is what's important.
Not necessarily. Universities, even "good" ones, often struggle to provide knowledge. If the knowledge was truly the value, no one would go to college, you'd always just seek out the knowledge which is nearly always free and can nearly always be had in a tiny fraction of the time or effort of going to college.
College makes you waste insane amounts of time, placate professor's egos, spend time balancing commuting and course times, do busy work, get hazed, play political games, spend crazy money.... all instead of spending those resources on knowledge... purely for a piece of paper that says you played the game rather than just learning.
The entire concept of college in the modern era is that paper matters, knowledge doesn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
The principle question to ask is: Does the online degree provider have accreditation with the granting authorities in your jurisdiction?
I don't think that that is true. All discussions around this topic are using the term "college" to mean "fully accredited regionally educational institution". That the "online schools" considered to have no merit are fully accredited just like Harvard and Yale is the base assumption that we just don't normally state explicitly. If they lack that, we don't consider them colleges at all.
WGU, Phoenix, etc. are fully accredited. Accreditation is a bar so low that it's considered a worthless standard that only exists to legally meet the qualifications of being a school so that you can put on public record that you have a degree. Anything less, and you aren't always allowed to claim legally to have been to college. Any school that touts this low bar as an achievement itself is a sign that the school is worthless.
I went to a college that was seeking accreditation in their respective field. It's not an easy process and it's not inexpensive. If the authority is legit, here in Canada or the US, then the school has paid * a lot* of money and proven that they have the chops to provide a good education to those obtaining their degree.
-
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
I went to a college that was seeking accreditation in their respective field. It's not an easy process and it's not inexpensive. If the authority is legit, here in Canada or the US, then the school has paid * a lot* of money and proven that they have the chops to provide a good education to those obtaining their degree.
Paid a lot of money, yes. Proven that they provide a good education, not a chance. By that logic, all accredited schools provide a good education, yet we know that is the farthest thing from reality. Most of the worst schools are accredited, most that are not end up failing as they don't get grants, scholarships, or recognition. Accreditation truly means nothing, other than they paid to get the stamp of approval from a business selling them (non-profits make money like anyone else.)
Phoenix, WGU, all others of their ilk, all accredited. The incredibly terrible level of education that easily passes accreditation is staggering.
Or to think of it another way...
We only consider schools that are accredited to be colleges. Therefore, if accreditation means something, it means all colleges are good. Which we know can't be true. In reality, most are horrible. Some are good, certainly. But many are bad. If any are bad, that means accreditation isn't the bar making them good.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
I went to a college that was seeking accreditation in their respective field. It's not an easy process and it's not inexpensive. If the authority is legit, here in Canada or the US, then the school has paid * a lot* of money and proven that they have the chops to provide a good education to those obtaining their degree.
Paid a lot of money, yes. Proven that they provide a good education, not a chance. By that logic, all accredited schools provide a good education, yet we know that is the farthest thing from reality. Most of the worst schools are accredited, most that are not end up failing as they don't get grants, scholarships, or recognition. Accreditation truly means nothing, other than they paid to get the stamp of approval from a business selling them (non-profits make money like anyone else.)
Phoenix, WGU, all others of their ilk, all accredited. The incredibly terrible level of education that easily passes accreditation is staggering.
Or to think of it another way...
We only consider schools that are accredited to be colleges. Therefore, if accreditation means something, it means all colleges are good. Which we know can't be true. In reality, most are horrible. Some are good, certainly. But many are bad. If any are bad, that means accreditation isn't the bar making them good.
This is one of the reasons we home school our kids. We can do a much better job at preparing them for life than the public school system can. Then, when it comes time for them to move on to the trades, technical colleges, or university (meh IMNSHO) they'll be able to sift through the chaff and shine on their own merit.
It's really not that much different for anything. I've worked for contractors that went to the "School of Good Enough" and even one that said, "We're like doctors, we bury our mistakes".
When I was in the trades working my way towards a journeyman's ticket as a mechanic with a focus on high-performance it was the same. It wasn't hard to tell who was who and what they were about.
I know of no industry, both worked in or been a part of in some way shape or form, that does not have their share of "Good Enough-ers".
But, boy oh boy, when I come across someone that shines, puts in the 115%, and makes it known that they are truly putting it in by the work they are doing I will go out of my way to compliment them.
Most of us that put in the 115% don't hear that kind of feedback very often.
-
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
This is one of the reasons we home school our kids. We can do a much better job at preparing them for life than the public school system can. Then, when it comes time for them to move on to the trades, technical colleges, or university (meh IMNSHO) they'll be able to sift through the chaff and shine on their own merit.
Same here. Along with other reasons, like we want the flexibility to have them live in different countries.
My wife is sure that our kids will go to college, but literally only because she was a party sorority girl and thinks that partying for four years is part of being that age and can't imagine skipping it. And I can't imagine that they will go to college (given the careers they think that they want) given that they can do way more fun and productive things without it.
-
@phlipelder said in Online Schools vs Traditional Universities:
But, boy oh boy, when I come across someone that shines, puts in the 115%, and makes it known that they are truly putting it in by the work they are doing I will go out of my way to compliment them.
Most of us that put in the 115% don't hear that kind of feedback very often.
In development, they are called 10xers. There is basically the productivity of a normal developer is 1x. And almost no one does 2x or 3x. But a small subset does 10x the work of a normal person. It's not a bell curve like you'd expect.
