Online Degrees - CEG Archives

yeah, i've never heard anything good about online degrees.

What about a mix? Some online courses, some class time? By doing it this way I can continue to work full-time while "going to school".

If you go the online route, find one that is accredited. Be sure to find out what professional affiliations and accreditations before enrolling.

Check out Western Governors University. Employers do not care where the paper is from, as long as it is accredited.

http://www.wgu.edu/

MBA=CIO

I am working on my mostly online degree with UMUC a good resource for online degrees is http://forums.degreeinfo.com/

Originally posted by FTW=Foot Tall Weiner:
Employers do not care where the paper is from, as long as it is accredited.

i don't know about that. during the interview process, they are bound to ask about a college they've never heard of. and if they are smart, they'll look into it before or after the interview. then your resume gets moved right to the bottom of the pile.

mike... lot of the major universities in MI have some online classes. my wife has taken a couple. let me tell you this... they tend to be considerably more demanding than regular classes.

Originally posted by Fmr12B:

Originally posted by YaaaarrroTour:
How do employers view online degrees compared to an on campus degree?

Employers laugh! Employers want individuals who are well rounded and have social skills. A real degree at a real University forces students to work in groups, solve problems as a group, and requires you to leave the house.

You obviously have zero experience with online unversities because social interaction and group work entails nearly 100% of the work for each class. You're REQUIRED to participate in online discussion, and depending on the subject, you're REQUIRED to work in study groups.

I "attended" Phoenix Online for 4 sessions, and decided it wasn't what I was looking for as far as the curriculum was concerned. In my opinion, attending Phoenix online is a great opportunity for business majors. As far as "classic" academia, a traditional college would probably be a better environment.

So, I'd say depending on the major, {accredited} online universities are a viable means of education. And these days, employers simply use the degree requirement simply as a screening item (in MOST jobs, I'd say.)

--JamesT

Originally posted by Apu Nahasapeemapetil:
If you go the online route, find one that is accredited. Be sure to find out what professional affiliations and accreditations before enrolling.

Correct. Some places will issue a degree, but are not accredited. They may be liscensed by the respective state to issue the paper (sheepskin), but have no accreditation.

Originally posted by chemguru:
Phoenix Online

Phoenix is what a lot of military guys here do. That and there's University of Maryland or something.

It's kinda hard to go to a regular college when stationed abroad.

I have been attending American Military University for almost a year, and for my lifestyle, its great. So far, my classes are 8 weeks long (You can also do 16 week courses), and you following the syllabus inregards to assignments etc. Most classes require an online discussion on topics for the week etc. Granted, its not the person, to person interaction you get in a 'real' college, but for today's lifestyle, a working adult can't really fit in 'real' college. IMO, it all depends on a few things if online college is for you 1)your current status in life 2)your current employment and future outlook 3)you schedule. I don't know where Fmr12b is getting its a complete joke. Hell, if that were the case, then people with X degree would be doing job X to coincide with their respect degrees. In today's world, a degree typically doesn't correspond to your job. It just shows that you are 'educated.'

I just got a new job, but in my old job, I freqently attended job fairs with my direct manager and assisted him in giving 15 minute screenings to prospective employees. Had I come across someone with an online degree, I would most certainly have disregarded it. There are too many qualified applicants from accredited 4 years colleges to consider an e-degree applicant.

Originally posted by jerseycaâ�?�š10:
I just got a new job, but in my old job, I freqently attended job fairs with my direct manager and assisted him in giving 15 minute screenings to prospective employees. Had I come across someone with an online degree, I would most certainly have disregarded it. There are too many qualified applicants from accredited 4 years colleges to consider an e-degree applicant.

Absolutely!

I also do interviews for experiecned hires as well as fresh college grads, over 25 a year, and no-way is our firm recuriter going to allow someone with a online degree to get an interview. The education and experience is not viewed as high of quality as a brick & mortar school.

I have no doubt someone will hire you, but getting that big-time job of your dreams at a prestigious Fortune 1000 company............ keep dreaming....... 1 in a 1,000,000 I say!

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
and no-way is our firm recuriter going to allow someone with a online degree to get an interview. The education and experience is not viewed as high of quality as a brick & mortar school.

Pure arrogance. edit: on the recruiters part.

I was hired to replace a grad student who claimed he had "7 years of experience." What is said on paper means nothing. It is what they can do. My work exceeds his efficiency as well as creativity (the other half of my job)

The interview would establish the communication skills. Excerting confidence to the prospective employer is how I hook the job.

But who am I to talk, I am merely an Alumni with "just" an Associate. :shrugs:

Originally posted by jerseycaâ�?�š10:
There are too many qualified applicants from accredited 4 years colleges to consider an e-degree applicant.

Many online degree programs are accredited and are thru the same schools that you could get a B&M degree from.

Originally posted by Pre98:

Pure arrogance. edit: on the recruiters part.

What Pre98 said is true. Hiring criterias should be based on knowledge, skills and abilities + intelligence. Higher GPA scores have a correlation to the intelligence of the person regardless of where he/she earns it.

Screening someone out based on where they earn their degree limits your pool of talent. Instead, you should hire someone based on those criterias mentioned above.

Here's why
-----------
Intelligence:
Teach an average person to do a task and he'll master it in a few months.
versus.
Teach an intelligent person to do a task and he'll master it in weeks. In addition to that, he may also come up with better method of doing the task instead of the method he was taught.

Knowledge, Skills & Ability vs. Experience:
Experience no longer holds that much value in today's world. Look at the world of sports today, younger newer athletes are just beating older opponents. The top two tennis players are Roger Federer (24yrs), Rafa Nadal (20yrs). They are beating more experienced players because of their skills and ability.

In my CIS undergrad program. There were constant challenges among students and professors. I still remember one challenge where we were told to write a program. The program that sorts the data fastest wins the challenge. Our professor has many years experience writing programs as he has been teaching for a while. However, a student actually won the challenge as he had the knowlege, skills and ability to write a more efficient program.

Originally posted by Apu Nahasapeemapetil:

Knowledge, Skills & Ability vs. Experience:
Experience no longer holds that much value in today's world. Look at the world of sports today, younger newer athletes are just beating older opponents. The top two tennis players are Roger Federer (24yrs), Rafa Nadal (20yrs). They are beating more experienced players because of their skills and ability.

You have got to be kidding me, this is the worst example I have ever seen

They are beating more experienced players because of their fresh legs and youthful rebound from fatigue.......

Absolutely true.

However, all who meet the criteria of 100% task completion should be considered. A well rounded individual doesn't need to pay for group dynamics classes- and if one can perform their duties just as well without the degree, or from an online degree, why is it that is a disqualification?

I can understand experience- to get the better jobs, everyone has to have experience! It's the mandate of expensive education when one doesn't require it that concerns me.

Originally posted by Apu Nahasapeemapetil:

Originally posted by Pre98:

Pure arrogance. edit: on the recruiters part.

What Pre98 said is true. Hiring criterias should be based on knowledge, skills and abilities + intelligence. Higher GPA scores have a correlation to the intelligence of the person regardless of where he/she earns it.

Keyword there is "should".

Fact of the matter is that a given position will likely have dozens, if not hundreds, and in many cases thousands of applicants. The pool has to be limited to who will actually get in the door to be interviewed and that's gonna be done based on what is on that piece of paper not how intelligent of a person you come across as if given the chance to talk to the interviewer.

The best person for the job "should" be the one that gets it. Fact is that probably never happens. Whether it be because the "best person" who applied has an degree from University of Phoenix and never got an interview, because the "best person" has a degree from a brick & mortar but it wasn't as 'pretigious' as some other applicants and got shoved out of the pool, or something as trivial as the "best person" having some bad garlic breath that day and didn't even manage to get past the initial HR interview.

Stupid crap always pulls out better candidates. It's just the way it works. You'll do yourself a favor by avoiding one of those 'stupid' things and going to an actual brick and mortar school for your degree. Not because it's necessarily a better education, but because it's one less reason for your resume to never even get past some HR person tasked with reducing the 500 applicants down to a pool of 10 interviews.

It is that mentality that concerns me. The quickness to overlook inexpensive, youthful talent kills me. I am willing to do the work of a senior artist for less, just because I don't have things like mortgage payments and children to take care of.

The bottom line is efficiency and profit, no?

People who have paid for less expensive schools yet can show on paper they are just as capable as "High End" contenders- should get a shot. I don't know, the thought winds me up and gets me angry. Sorry FMR, your original post sort of struck a nerve, but nothing personal

I have seen the online programs that friends of mine are in and they simply are not up to the caliber of a traditional college. The programs and the courses seemed less academically rigorous than the ones I had, and you simply don't have the degree of interaction you do in a live environment. Non-course related personal growth also occurs to a greater degree when one is absorbed in the campus life.

Think of how much more interaction we have at meets than here online in a concentrated span of time. The same principles apply (directed to the purpose of education) with a real traditional college education.

Of course. Again, I completely agree. The employer simply needs to see past the piece of paper- and maybe the otherwise "screened" candidate might actually be a better communicator than the brick and mortar, 4 yr candidate. Something along those lines I guess.

I totally agree that in an ideal world, every candidate would get an interview, and the best person chosen regardless of formal education. However, in the real world, you're lucky if you get a real person even looking at your resume.

Choosing the applicants you interview and eventually hire is a major gamble by the company. History has shown them the odds of getting the right person (not necessarily the best in any rated category, but the best for them) is from those with a traditional degree.

Quote:

It is that mentality that concerns me. The quickness to overlook inexpensive, youthful talent kills me. I am willing to do the work of a senior artist for less, just because I don't have things like mortgage payments and children to take care of.

It's not so much a "mentality" as a "necessary evil". What's the alternative? 500 interviews? In some cases, 10,000 interviews?

When I interview for a position I've only got time to interview, usually, about 5% of the applicants. And that'll still take 1 day a week for however many weeks it takes until I find a good candidate. That's a huge percentage of my time.

I have to dig through the resumes and choose the ones that I think will be the most-qualified for the position. I know that I'm bound to be wrong at least as I am right, but it has to be done. I at least tend to mix it up (I myself am one of the ones that probably wouldn't have gotten through the process normally, I just got interviewed by some weird stroke of luck), and for [censored] and giggles will usually pull one out of the 'toss-out' pile just to see how it goes. But even that is 'unfair' because it forces a 'qualified' candidate out of the running.

Someone's (a lot of someone's) gonna get screwed by not getting an interview, is it any more fair if it's you versus the guy from Harvard who I bumped to interview you?

Originally posted by sigma:
Someone's (a lot of someone's) gonna get screwed by not getting an interview, is it any more fair if it's you versus the guy from Harvard who I bumped to interview you?

Well, that is a really good point. I suppose my situation was pure luck then.

Someone like sigma getting to go through the resumes is even not assured in many companies. They cut out the first swath of applicants electronically before a human even gets to make determinations. Again, it's not ideal, but it's frequently the only feasible way for companies to wade through the pile of potentially thousands of applicants.

I'd say luck plays the biggest role in a job search without a doubt. Unless you're applying for a job that few people are and the can interview everyone, it's always gonna come down to at least a little "luck" in whether you get in the interview pile or the circular file.

But there is of course more to a resume than your education. "Harvard" doesn't mean diddily if the rest of your resume sucks. There's something to be said (actually a LOT to be said) for a well-written, well-formatted resume that contains more about you and your relevant experience ("relevant" being the key word) than about what your GPA was. If your resume looks like it was created for my position and not something you just mass-broadcast on every remotely interesting position on Monster.com, I'm exponentially more likely to interview you if you're even remotely qualified. If you're willing to take the time to personalize a resume and show that you really want the position, I'm very willing to take some of my time to interview you if I can.

Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
Someone like sigma getting to go through the resumes is even not assured in many companies. They cut out the first swath of applicants electronically before a human even gets to make determinations. Again, it's not ideal, but it's frequently the only feasible way for companies to wade through the pile of potentially thousands of applicants.

They do that at my company as well.

Usually about half will be cut by a computer, usually just a keyword type search. Another half will be cut by HR on initial interviews. So about 25% get to me and I'll take about 1 in 5 of those, so about 5% of the total pool gets to an interview. To my knowledge, none of those cuts are based on the education as long as it meets the minimum length requirements. And, actually, a larger-than-you'd-think percentage of those I choose to interview don't make it through background checks. Usually education-related stuff -- saying they have a degree when they don't or are actually just really close. Every position as at least 1 guy that can't get through a simple background check. And this isn't security stuff, we're just checking to make sure what they said matches reality.

Now, I can request that certain schools be filtered out. You wanna talk about unfair. Some people are so tired of "bad" hires from certain schools that they simply refuse to look at the schools those new hires came from. You can be discriminated against purely because your school had some bad graduates that my company happened to hire and quickly got rid of when they found they couldn't deliver.

Believe me, I've been marred by the Anti-ITT fanclub

My portfolio is what separates me from the rest.

When you say to write a resume that seems to be written for your (the interviewers) position- isn't that an excessive amount of information? I thought unless you have 5+ years experience, to not have anything longer than a page? Or do you mean simply formatting and keywords being "best" for the position?

Well, the one-page rule is not as hard-and-fast as it once was... provided you have something relevant to say. A pleasing easy-to-scan format with well-used white space has a lot of benefit over sheer size.

That said, organizing your relevant information for the job you are applying for is a totally separate aspect. Let's remember, a job search is a full-time commitment. Spend the time on your resumes and treat it like that.

Never longer than 2 pages, 1 page preferred (my own is 1 page). I will concede a legitimate 2-pager from someone older with extensive experience/history/skills, as long as that experience is relevant to what they're applying for.

I just mean to cater your resume to whatever position/company you're applying for. Too many resumes are obviously made for some other or at best some 'generic' position and it shows. You can tell when someone either put work into their resume to emphasize their skills in regards to what you're looking for (it's also great for getting your through the initial computer culling that major companies do) or perhaps their 'generic' resume just happens to be exactly what you're looking for (not a bad thing either).