Mike quipped:
> And while Jim is at it, I would like him to provide evidence
> that Santa's reindeer
> can NOT fly.
If he'll provide evidence that distance learning does _not_ provide as
good of an education as traditional systems, _I'LL_ provide the proof that
reindeer can't fly!
The current attitude concerning distance education's perceived
inferiority to traditional education is pure prejudice based on personal
bias not on any rational factual basis. Of _course_ there are poor
distance programs--there are also poor traditional ones. But overall the
record of success for distance programs has been just as good as that for
the typical traditional one.
A good example: The Union Institute (a distance learning institution)
lists over 500 graduates who earned their Ph.D.s there and who are now
working as faculty members at major traditional institutions. Included
among those institutions are Yale, Stanford, The University of California
(several campuses including Berkeley), Northeastern, Duke, Purdue,
Dartmouth, Cambridge, and dozens of other top institutions. Are you (and
Jim) seriously arguing that these individuals are not as qualified as
their colleagues academically? If you aren't, then how is it possible that
an "inferior" approach to education managed to prepare them academically
for those positions?
Distance education is not for everyone--nor is it the "wave of the
future" that many advocates claim it to be. But a good institution with a
carefully planned program offers every bit as sound and well rounded of an
education as any traditional school is capable of providing.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
