Seeking the bubble reputation ...

Distance learning has a bad rep. This was evidenced recently in the Netflix series, “Better Call Saul” when the titular character discovered that his traditionally educated older brother had blocked his appointment to a prestigious law firm on the grounds that his qualification was not only awarded by an obscure university but most damning of all, the mode of study was … distance learning.
This is indicative of a certain attitude, one which has constrained the development of non-traditional modes of study. Interestingly, contemporary modes of distance learning per se have achieved a degree of credibility by default – principally due to the introduction of online learning, which, for some, has taken over the mantle of the dreaded dubious provider. The origins of this dismissive mind set can probably be traced back to the early correspondence schools and a preponderance of “diploma mills” offering pseudo qualifications of little or no merit in return for minimal student input and substantial amounts of money. The qualifications offered by such institutions carried no formal, external accreditation and consequently had no intrinsic value.
And this is what separates the legitimate institution from the diploma mill; the former offers accredited certification based on the achievement and maintenance of academic standards as determined by approved regulatory bodies while the latter provides awards which have no validity or wider currency.
But these remain the key issues in the distance & online provision versus attendance based learning debate; quality, cash and accreditation.
Surely it is the legitimacy of the “awarding” body that is in question here, not the mode of study. However, it appears that online provision, as the latest manifestation of distance learning, has the capacity to attract attention at the highest level and generate the level of scrutiny that we should be applying to education in general as opposed to online learning in particular.
This historic suspicion may partly explain the reasoning behind a statement in Hilary Clinton’s higher education plan for the U.S.A. (publishes August 2015) which stated, “We must bring integrity to online learning”- the implication being that existing online programmes have no integrity. But clearly, Mrs Clinton’s declaration indicates that there exists the desire to avoid the mistakes of the past and rehabilitate distance learning’s tarnished reputation.
The irony being that there are many, many prestigious, accredited, attendance based universities which use modes of distance and online learning to deliver all or part of their degree and masters courses. Indeed there are several examples of well-respected, long established distance learning providers.
One of the most esteemed education institutions in Britain is The Open University – the only university in the UK dedicated to distance learning. Known affectionately as “the O.U.” this ground breaking organisation revolutionised the delivery of education in the 1970s’ by making accredited educational programmes widely available to socio-economic groups previously denied access to tertiary education. Contemporary reaction was vociferous. Indeed the recently elected Conservative government of the time was famously opposed to the financial burden of continuing to fund the provision of degrees by distance learning – a concept introduced by their Labour Party predecessors. Against the wishes of her party, the Secretary of State for Education, Margaret Thatcher opposed closure of the O.U. on the grounds that:
"We simply could not defend the abrupt cessation of the university's existence, without warning, by Saturday... we should have trouble out of all proportion to the money saved... quite apart from the political considerations, the unit cost per graduate produced in this new institution could well be substantially less than in the orthodox university system."
The sting in the tail being that the continuation of the O.U.’s provision was conditional on the university’s future recruitment levels, potential for enrolling students under the age of 21 and agreement to increase fees. Essentially, sound economic rather the robust academic reasons saved the O.U. in this instance – but it seems Mrs Thatcher’s conclusion provided a tangential endorsement for the financial viability of the distance learning business model while acknowledging that the student was receiving value for money.
Thus, the fledging O.U. survived and grew from an initial cohort of 24,000 students in 1971 to a staggering 200,000 enrolments in 2015, a cumulative total of 1.89 million students recruited across the intervening 44 years.
On the academic front, it is widely acknowledged among employers in the UK that those who opt to study online must demonstrate an extraordinary capacity for self-motivation and self-discipline to succeed; consequently a degree gained through this form of distance learning is highly respected as it demonstrates that the successful student is the sort of person who can complete a course while balancing work, family and study commitments.
Traditionally, distance learning courses have attracted motivated, committed self-starters. These have included such luminaries as Karl Marx, Nelson Mandela, former UK premier Gordon Brown, two actors turned politician; Arnold Schwarzenegger and Glenda Jackson and film director Steven Spielberg; high profile individuals who have recognised the value of achieving new qualifications, completing unfinished degrees or enhancing existing awards through flexible study modes. Even the much maligned correspondence course has produced notables such as U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Walter Chrysler, founder of Chrysler Motors and renowned playwright Clifford Odets.
The point being that ambitious, intellectually curious individuals will seek out the mode of study that is best suited to their particular circumstances and personal goals. But this is also the case for those who are seeking a less arduous route to achieving qualifications. For this misguided enough to think that distance learning is the easier option, disappointment awaits. Ultimately, both parties will end up with an award that reflects the academic rigor of the awarding institution, the quality of the educational experience and the value of their degree in the marketplace.
The correspondence schools that have influenced our perception of distance - and ultimately online -learning are largely a thing of the past. Increased awareness and improved communications have enabled the contemporary consumer of education programmes to become better informed in choosing how and/or where to study. This has led to the development of several hybrid educational models, for example that of blended learning which aims to combine distance and attendance based provision.
In the case of the Interactive Design Institute, our model is based on a collaborative partnership with the University of Hertfordshire; IDI delivers UH degree and masters level courses entirely online, on behalf of the University. Consequently the student has confidence that the online provider has gone through the same rigorous quality assurance processes as an attendance based institution and that their award will have exactly the same value as that achieved by their University counterpart.
But it’s back to Mrs Clinton to provide a summative statement;
“a student doesn’t need to travel to Cambridge, Mass., or Cambridge, England, to get a world-class education … (but)… it still has to be a world-class education.”
And this is the key issue; the quality of the experience, not our perceptions of a mode of delivery which may still be coloured by the activities of opportunists from a bygone age.