Dismissal of online learning still a thing?

[eLearner]

I was over at the Student Doctor Forum. Boy, what a place full of snobs and jokers who think they're brilliant.

I posted some thoughts and observations of how there appears to be a strong slant there against online learning. In that, I posed the question: "what would be the difference between a total classroom setting versus an online setting if both types of students got the same hands-on experience?

Nobody was listening so they all seemed to miss that part, one condescendingly accused me of not understanding the importance of hands-on training when my question specifically detailed my understanding of its importance, lol. Some even said they'd throw away any resume where they suspected the degree was earned in an online program. It's like these people are living under a rock. One person actually thought you could become a Nurse totally online and even tried to make a joke about not wanting to be the person who has to get their blood checked by a person who never did it before. The funny part was, the person didn't know that Nurses have to learn that in-person even if they're learning online.

I thought we'd come far enough by now that this wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is a large group of people--albeit a group of self-absorbed know-it-alls who all believe they're geniuses--all seeming to unanimously have a very strong slant against online learning and those who earned their degree this way.

So I pose the question here: If an online learner took the same necessary in-person training as the brick-and-mortar learner (Say for, studying as a Nurse, Clinical Psychologist, or any other type of profession that requires residency to be competent) what then would be the problem with the online learner's path to the degree/certification/licensure, etc? What would make the online learner supposedly "inferior"?

[Tedium]

Wow, man, I thought we were passed all of that by now seeing as it's current year and all. Guess not.

I'll bite.

The deciding variable in that question is the learner. If the learner is an inferior student and person who just manages to skirt through by the skin of their teeth, the work they produce will be terrible. Simple as that. Learning styles are individualized and different with each person, so one may do well in one setting and terrible in another. For example I am the manager of a profitable hotel. I produce good work and inspire my team to do the same. I only have my G.E.D. There are some slick, newly minted business admin. and hospitality management butt in seat graduates who don't even last six months at their new positions. Does that tell us anything about the difference between online and in-person education? No, it just means some people aren't cut out for the hospitality business.

You aren't going to find the answer in broad strokes and prescriptions. It's all about the individual and what they choose to accomplish with what they have.

[MNomadic]

I was over at the Student Doctor Forum. Boy, what a place full of snobs and jokers who think they're brilliant.

I posted some thoughts and observations of how there appears to be a strong slant there against online learning. In that, I posed the question: "what would be the difference between a total classroom setting versus an online setting if both types of students got the same hands-on experience?

Nobody was listening so they all seemed to miss that part, one condescendingly accused me of not understanding the importance of hands-on training when my question specifically detailed my understanding of its importance, lol. Some even said they'd throw away any resume where they suspected the degree was earned in an online program. It's like these people are living under a rock. One person actually thought you could become a Nurse totally online and even tried to make a joke about not wanting to be the person who has to get their blood checked by a person who never did it before. The funny part was, the person didn't know that Nurses have to learn that in-person even if they're learning online.

I thought we'd come far enough by now that this wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is a large group of people--albeit a group of self-absorbed know-it-alls who all believe they're geniuses--all seeming to unanimously have a very strong slant against online learning and those who earned their degree this way.

So I pose the question here: If an online learner took the same necessary in-person training as the brick-and-mortar learner (Say for, studying as a Nurse, Clinical Psychologist, or any other type of profession that requires residency to be competent) what then would be the problem with the online learner's path to the degree/certification/licensure, etc? What would make the online learner supposedly "inferior"?

At that point, assuming a pure B&M learner and an online learner both had equal hands on/clinical experience and an equal learning curriculum, it would really only come down to a person's individual factors such as learning styles and ability to self motivate. That's why neither method is right for everyone and people should never assume that just because one method worked for them, it should be used on everyone.

The best example of this is MIT and their Supply Chain Management Master's. They offered the first portion as an online "Micromaster" credential through edx. They then accepted 40 graduates from the online program to do the final semester on campus alongside 40 students who had been doing residential the whole time and found that both groups performed similarly.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/first-class-exc...ogram-0713

[High_Order1]

I lurk over there.

Funny thing is, their schooling is tiered. And, there's the whole DO vs MD thing.

So, I dismiss med students out of hand many times, anyway. (Did you know DeVry has not one but TWO medical schools?)

The thing to take from that is, there still pervades a bias towards online learning. Especially from those who are slogging it out in a brick and mortar environment.

Only time will ease this. Especially in the fields they are in; having students do a lot of basics online, so that they can focus on field and labwork saves the college space and streamlines the process; it is only a matter of time before it becomes more mainstream.

[Life Long Learning]

I was over at the Student Doctor Forum. Boy, what a place full of snobs and jokers who think they're brilliant.

I posted some thoughts and observations of how there appears to be a strong slant there against online learning. In that, I posed the question: "what would be the difference between a total classroom setting versus an online setting if both types of students got the same hands-on experience?

Nobody was listening so they all seemed to miss that part, one condescendingly accused me of not understanding the importance of hands-on training when my question specifically detailed my understanding of its importance, lol. Some even said they'd throw away any resume where they suspected the degree was earned in an online program. It's like these people are living under a rock. One person actually thought you could become a Nurse totally online and even tried to make a joke about not wanting to be the person who has to get their blood checked by a person who never did it before. The funny part was, the person didn't know that Nurses have to learn that in-person even if they're learning online.

I thought we'd come far enough by now that this wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is a large group of people--albeit a group of self-absorbed know-it-alls who all believe they're geniuses--all seeming to unanimously have a very strong slant against online learning and those who earned their degree this way.

So I pose the question here: If an online learner took the same necessary in-person training as the brick-and-mortar learner (Say for, studying as a Nurse, Clinical Psychologist, or any other type of profession that requires residency to be competent) what then would be the problem with the online learner's path to the degree/certification/licensure, etc? What would make the online learner supposedly "inferior"?

At that point, assuming a pure B&M learner and an online learner both had equal hands on/clinical experience and an equal learning curriculum, it would really only come down to a person's individual factors such as learning styles and ability to self motivate. That's why neither method is right for everyone and people should never assume that just because one method worked for them, it should be used on everyone.

The best example of this is MIT and their Supply Chain Management Master's. They offered the first portion as an online "Micromaster" credential through edx. They then accepted 40 graduates from the online program to do the final semester on campus alongside 40 students who had been doing residential the whole time and found that both groups performed similarly.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/first-class-exc...ogram-0713

MNomadic

I like your MIT example.  I do not think it applies to medical.   I have given IV's before in a combat lifesaver course (blended online part and 1 week F2F) and overseas.  You can't do it online.  It takes real hand on practice.  I was NOT a real medic.  I never felt that confident in this task.  I understand the bias. I am not saying its justified, but I can see why.  

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm old enough to remember when there was a bias against people who earned their degrees by taking weekend or evening classes, as though the time of day you attended class somehow mattered.

The evening/weekend class stigma is pretty much gone now.

Universal acceptance of online learning will eventually happen, but it will take some time.

[cookderosa]

I was over at the Student Doctor Forum. Boy, what a place full of snobs and jokers who think they're brilliant.

I posted some thoughts and observations of how there appears to be a strong slant there against online learning. In that, I posed the question: "what would be the difference between a total classroom setting versus an online setting if both types of students got the same hands-on experience?

Nobody was listening so they all seemed to miss that part, one condescendingly accused me of not understanding the importance of hands-on training when my question specifically detailed my understanding of its importance, lol. Some even said they'd throw away any resume where they suspected the degree was earned in an online program. It's like these people are living under a rock. One person actually thought you could become a Nurse totally online and even tried to make a joke about not wanting to be the person who has to get their blood checked by a person who never did it before. The funny part was, the person didn't know that Nurses have to learn that in-person even if they're learning online.

I thought we'd come far enough by now that this wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is a large group of people--albeit a group of self-absorbed know-it-alls who all believe they're geniuses--all seeming to unanimously have a very strong slant against online learning and those who earned their degree this way.

So I pose the question here: If an online learner took the same necessary in-person training as the brick-and-mortar learner (Say for, studying as a Nurse, Clinical Psychologist, or any other type of profession that requires residency to be competent) what then would be the problem with the online learner's path to the degree/certification/licensure, etc? What would make the online learner supposedly "inferior"?

Student Doctor forum is not the real world. You have to give their answers context. There are a zillion of them over there climbing over each other to grab a few spots - if they can psych you out of trying, that's less competition for them.
The mythology there is a runaway train. I got off a few years ago, thankfully, and my suggestion is that you're MORE LIKELY to get into med school if you avoid THAT forum and plan your own path.

EDIT to answer your question- most of them who are IN med school (get out of the premed forum and over to the steps) will openly tell you that they don't attend lectures, they video them to play back on 2-3x speed later, etc. So while they are doing the exact same thing that they're criticising (and not seeing the hypocrisy) it doesn't matter. I have saved emails from a ton of medical schools telling me my premed sciences could be online. I initially was going to contact all of them but it got boring because the answer was always "yes, though face to face is preferred."

[eLearner]

@Cookderosa Yeah, one-upping and cutting people down seems to be the name of the game there. I was just surprised by how sarcastic and mean everybody was, lol. I'm thinking, wow, who pee'd in their coffee?

I did agree with one point that California Southern University's not mandating residency is questionable at best for a Clinical Psychology program, but from that they appear to think ALL online programs operate the same way when just a bit of research reveals otherwise.

[rlw74]

I think online learning bias will completely disappear in a few years. High schools are offering hybrid schedules with some courses offered online - for high school classes! Some of those students are taking college courses online while in high school. In my 14 year old's world, online education is a given. There will still be a bias regarding school brand. B&M won't disappear - in person classes are still necessary for some fields but I don't see the purpose of taking some of the Gen Eds in person.

[allvia]

I'm old enough to remember when there was a bias against people who earned their degrees by taking weekend or evening classes, as though the time of day you attended class somehow mattered.

The evening/weekend class stigma is pretty much gone now.

Universal acceptance of online learning will eventually happen, but it will take some time.

OH! I remember this being a common thinking too, I'm pretty sure it was even used as a punchline in a few TV comedy shows...(and maybe on some levels still is - maybe transferred over to 'online').  I have a few lawyer friends who earned their degrees at "night school" and had to work twice as hard to build up their careers at the firm(s) they were at, even though they scored better on the bar exams than many of their traditional FT schooling path lawyer co-workers.  One even graduated the night program from an ivy league and still caught slack.