Online grads sue USC

[HogwartsSchool]

The lawsuit isn't about ROI by paying $100K for tuition, if it was, then every school would be sued for offering English and History majors. It's about USC in-person vs online experience for payment. The tuition amount isn't relevant for the argument. Were the plaintiff(s) promised the same USC education online as they would receive in-person at the campus. From the article it appears they didn't receive the same USC education.

[davewill]

Isn't the California State University system relatively cheap? Of course, it's not as prestigious as the UC system, but it's still decent. Private universities are expensive in every state, but some are very generous with scholarships and institutional grants.

Honestly even the UC system isn't really expensive. The problem is more getting accepted as a freshman, and paying for living expenses in places like Berkeley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Santa Cruz.

Getting into the more popular CSUs is also a problem simply because they have so many applicants.

[sanantone]

The lawsuit isn't about ROI by paying $100K for tuition, if it was, then every school would be sued for offering English and History majors. It's about USC in-person vs online experience for payment. The tuition amount isn't relevant for the argument. Were the plaintiff(s) promised the same USC education online as they would receive in-person at the campus. From the article it appears they didn't receive the same USC education.

Paying $60k to $100k for an online master's degree isn't the norm. Hardly any college or university falls into that range of tuition. The lawsuit isn't really about quality; it's about USC misreporting the acceptance rate for its online program to U.S. News. The ranking is based on flawed data. Many would argue that U.S. News rankings don't directly measure quality; they measure reputation.

[ThatBankDude]

The lawsuit isn't about ROI by paying $100K for tuition, if it was, then every school would be sued for offering English and History majors. It's about USC in-person vs online experience for payment. The tuition amount isn't relevant for the argument. Were the plaintiff(s) promised the same USC education online as they would receive in-person at the campus. From the article it appears they didn't receive the same USC education.

Paying $60k to $100k for an online master's degree isn't the norm. Hardly any college or university falls into that range of tuition. The lawsuit isn't really about quality; it's about USC misreporting the acceptance rate for its online program to U.S. News. The ranking is based on flawed data. Many would argue that U.S. News rankings don't directly measure quality; they measure reputation.

$60K to $100K is the norm for “top tier” universities. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a very small number when looking at how many universities are in the United States.

I’d agree with your US News rankings testament…almost. If it were based solely on reputation, Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business would always be ranked #1 and #2. However, I believe in the most recent, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business was #1 while HBS was somewhere around #5.

[sanantone]

The lawsuit isn't about ROI by paying $100K for tuition, if it was, then every school would be sued for offering English and History majors. It's about USC in-person vs online experience for payment. The tuition amount isn't relevant for the argument. Were the plaintiff(s) promised the same USC education online as they would receive in-person at the campus. From the article it appears they didn't receive the same USC education.

Paying $60k to $100k for an online master's degree isn't the norm. Hardly any college or university falls into that range of tuition. The lawsuit isn't really about quality; it's about USC misreporting the acceptance rate for its online program to U.S. News. The ranking is based on flawed data. Many would argue that U.S. News rankings don't directly measure quality; they measure reputation.

$60K to $100K is the norm for “top tier” universities. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a very small number when looking at how many universities are in the United States.

I’d agree with your US News rankings testament…almost. If it were based solely on reputation, Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business would always be ranked #1 and #2. However, I believe in the most recent, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business was #1 while HBS was somewhere around #5.

The methodology for the online rankings is quite different from the methodology from the campus rankings. For on-campus rankings, they survey recruiters and the deans and directors of AACSB-accredited business schools. They also look at placement rates, starting salary, acceptance rate, GPA, and GRE/GMAT scores. I think one could make the argument that this is not a direct measure of quality. The more selective business schools have weeded out weak performers. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr...ethodology

The online rankings do look at factors that one could tie to quality, such as engagement, technology used to deliver courses, faculty credentials, and faculty having training to teach online. The two factors I don't think are related to quality are the opinions of academic professionals at high-ranking MBA programs and attributes of selected students. 

However, when you look at the specifics for "engagement," they don't actually measure engagement. They look at class size, deadline to complete degree, retention rate, and graduation rate. They also give extra points in the engagement category for having AACSB or ACBSP accreditation. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...ethodology

Looking at the methodology for online education programs, since that is one of the programs mentioned in the lawsuit, the methodology isn't that different. They don't really measure engagement. The plaintiffs could win based on USC misreporting data, but if the primary complaint is not enough interaction with instructors, that's not something that U.S. News measures. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...ethodology

---

In reference to being top tier, do you mean overall top tier or top tier within a particular category? U.S. shows the out-of-state tuition rate for online programs and in-state tuition for campus programs. A lot of the top-ranked education programs are relatively cheap.

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...n/rankings

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-sch...u-rankings

[eLearner]

$100k for an online degree? that's crazy lol

Wouldn't matter if it were offline imo. Still would be crazy.

[ThatBankDude]

The lawsuit isn't about ROI by paying $100K for tuition, if it was, then every school would be sued for offering English and History majors. It's about USC in-person vs online experience for payment. The tuition amount isn't relevant for the argument. Were the plaintiff(s) promised the same USC education online as they would receive in-person at the campus. From the article it appears they didn't receive the same USC education.

Paying $60k to $100k for an online master's degree isn't the norm. Hardly any college or university falls into that range of tuition. The lawsuit isn't really about quality; it's about USC misreporting the acceptance rate for its online program to U.S. News. The ranking is based on flawed data. Many would argue that U.S. News rankings don't directly measure quality; they measure reputation.

$60K to $100K is the norm for “top tier” universities. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is a very small number when looking at how many universities are in the United States.

I’d agree with your US News rankings testament…almost. If it were based solely on reputation, Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business would always be ranked #1 and #2. However, I believe in the most recent, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business was #1 while HBS was somewhere around #5.

The methodology for the online rankings is quite different from the methodology from the campus rankings. For on-campus rankings, they survey recruiters and the deans and directors of AACSB-accredited business schools. They also look at placement rates, starting salary, acceptance rate, GPA, and GRE/GMAT scores. I think one could make the argument that this is not a direct measure of quality. The more selective business schools have weeded out weak performers. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr...ethodology

The online rankings do look at factors that one could tie to quality, such as engagement, technology used to deliver courses, faculty credentials, and faculty having training to teach online. The two factors I don't think are related to quality are the opinions of academic professionals at high-ranking MBA programs and attributes of selected students. 

However, when you look at the specifics for "engagement," they don't actually measure engagement. They look at class size, deadline to complete degree, retention rate, and graduation rate. They also give extra points in the engagement category for having AACSB or ACBSP accreditation. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...ethodology

Looking at the methodology for online education programs, since that is one of the programs mentioned in the lawsuit, the methodology isn't that different. They don't really measure engagement. The plaintiffs could win based on USC misreporting data, but if the primary complaint is not enough interaction with instructors, that's not something that U.S. News measures. 

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...ethodology

---

In reference to being top tier, do you mean overall top tier or top tier within a particular category? U.S. shows the out-of-state tuition rate for online programs and in-state tuition for campus programs. A lot of the top-ranked education programs are relatively cheap.

https://www.usnews.com/education/online-...n/rankings

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-sch...u-rankings

I think top-tier in particular categories, although it is usually similar schools in the top-tier of many categories.

I am one who believes value is in the eye of the beholder. Would you pay $70K for the degree I am pursuing at Duke? Probably not. In fact, most on this forum would not. However, I’d pay $100K for it were it priced as such. I find great value in the education, the network, and the personal satisfaction.

Now, would I pay $70K for a graduate degree in education or something outside of a STEM field? Not a chance. But that is because I do not see that adding value to my life. Someone else may and I certainly cannot fault them for that.

[sanantone]

I think top-tier in particular categories, although it is usually similar schools in the top-tier of many categories.

I am one who believes value is in the eye of the beholder. Would you pay $70K for the degree I am pursuing at Duke? Probably not. In fact, most on this forum would not. However, I’d pay $100K for it were it priced as such. I find great value in the education, the network, and the personal satisfaction.

Now, would I pay $70K for a graduate degree in education or something outside of a STEM field? Not a chance. But that is because I do not see that adding value to my life. Someone else may and I certainly cannot fault them for that.

And, I'd expect them not to complain about student loan debt or job opportunities. Not this particular article but many others are only written because people are complaining about debt for a degree that no one would expect to result in high earnings.

[dfrecore]

Appreciate all of your points and even the mention of one of my favorite cost-value education degree offerings from ACE. The only thing I would mention is that a degree from USC, even if in teaching, through the alumni opens you up to considerably much higher income opportunities than, say, ACE or the countless cheap options shared in this forum.

I am not endorsing USC, and I have connections that have degrees from USC in business, law, social science, and education, with each of them living well even with our classically overpriced cost of living in Cali. I think the thread is stuck on the example: I earned a degree in teaching and only can work in teaching, and in that example, the only option for teaching should be the cheapest. However, if someone made the poor decision to choose to teach with big payday aspirations, USC would at least provide one to pivot in their career, leverage the alumni and secure a position that pays closer to one's income desires.

Complaining about ROI or income while being a teacher is a tired soapbox that no one listens to. (no one here is doing this; I am just reconnecting with the initial article)

I'm not sure that a USC master's in teaching opens you up to many opportunities to actually teach; and if it does, you are still 100% tied to the pay scale of the school you're teaching in; so really, it could only possibly open up opportunities to do something other than teaching.  But, I'm here to tell you, the online school is not giving you these same opportunities; USC alumni are generally snobs, and they're not going to be impressed with someone who wasn't walking around on campus for classes.

---

Isn't the California State University system relatively cheap? Of course, it's not as prestigious as the UC system, but it's still decent. Private universities are expensive in every state, but some are very generous with scholarships and institutional grants.

The CSU-system schools have good reputations throughout the state; and it's less than $5000/semester for a master's degree.  The UC-system schools are $7-10k/semester, or $6k/quarter.

I would say that as an alumni of any of the UC or CSU schools, you will have just as easy of a time getting a teaching or social work job (or advancing) as someone from USC. Easily.  Going to a local CSU or UC in the area you are working in is MUCH easier to meet others in your field than doing the online USC degree for 1/10 to 1/5 of the price.  

And for an MSW, FT students get an $18k stipend from the state - so your degree is 100% paid for right off the bat if you choose your school wisely (and by wisely, I mean anything that costs less than $18k/yr).  This would apply to literally every state school in CA that has a program (there are 23 CSU's and 9 UC's).

[KSoul]

Appreciate all of your points and even the mention of one of my favorite cost-value education degree offerings from ACE. The only thing I would mention is that a degree from USC, even if in teaching, through the alumni opens you up to considerably much higher income opportunities than, say, ACE or the countless cheap options shared in this forum.

I am not endorsing USC, and I have connections that have degrees from USC in business, law, social science, and education, with each of them living well even with our classically overpriced cost of living in Cali. I think the thread is stuck on the example: I earned a degree in teaching and only can work in teaching, and in that example, the only option for teaching should be the cheapest. However, if someone made the poor decision to choose to teach with big payday aspirations, USC would at least provide one to pivot in their career, leverage the alumni and secure a position that pays closer to one's income desires.

Complaining about ROI or income while being a teacher is a tired soapbox that no one listens to. (no one here is doing this; I am just reconnecting with the initial article)

I'm not sure that a USC master's in teaching opens you up to many opportunities to actually teach; and if it does, you are still 100% tied to the pay scale of the school you're teaching in; so really, it could only possibly open up opportunities to do something other than teaching.  But, I'm here to tell you, the online school is not giving you these same opportunities; USC alumni are generally snobs, and they're not going to be impressed with someone who wasn't walking around on campus for classes.

---

I get your general position on USC and appreciate your opinion on USC graduates being snobs. Since the numbers show teachers leave the industry at a high percentage, leveraging the alums can matter if you are open to opportunities outside the classroom. I have read multiple times about the online vs. campus issue, and as with all of us here, it is rare that the question of online even comes up. I've spent time on the USC campus as a non-graduate, and you can establish the relationships needed with enough effort. If your talent backs your interest, opportunities will always be getable. You nailed the income opportunities if someone stays in teaching for Califonia. I am considering outside options in teaching through corporate training, where there are considerably higher pay-scale opportunities to tap into. 
Side note– my USC colleague are not snobs; however, I have met snobs who happen to have graduated from USC.