After the School of Public Health and Health Services unveiled a fully online graduate program in late October, Jessica Bress and Sophia Tripoli became suspicious.
The public health master's students feared the program – propped up by a likely multimillion-dollar investment by an education technology company – would “water down” their degrees by growing the school’s enrollment by up to 70 percent.
So they posted nearly 1,000 flyers in Ross Hall and in 2175 K St. warning of the program, called MPH@GW, that they believed would have more relaxed admissions standards. They are also leading a group that will petition the school this month to formally differentiate the online program from the face-to-face program on students’ diplomas.
“We don’t want to shut it down. We just want to increase [the] transparency of the process and get more students involved,” Tripoli, who is in the school’s health policy track, said. “We want the official documents to denote that coursework was done online.”
Other students jumped on board after Bress and Tripoli championed their concerns by creating a Facebook group that has so far drawn 80 likes.
School officials say the accredited program will adhere to strict academic and admissions standards and added that it was born out of a faculty-led strategic planning process. Dean Lynn Goldman hosted town halls over the past few months outlining how the program would help the school grow and remain rigorous as it moves into its $75 million building in 2014.
The program is funded partially by 2U, an education startup led by alumnus Chip Paucek. The company has raised about $100 million in venture capital in the last few years, teaming up with elite schools like Georgetown University and the University of North Carolina to launch online programs in a bevy of fields.
The company helps produce sleek, interactive videos that combine live online class meetings led by regular professors with taped lectures and audio-including PowerPoints.
Program director Doug Evans, a professor of prevention and community health, declined to sit for an interview and deferred to a spokeswoman.
Stacey DiLorenzo, the school’s communications director, said in an email that the school has actively sought out student opinions in the program and has built regular faculty governance into its development. For instance, she said the school formed an advisory committee for the program’s admissions that includes two students.
The program application requires students to submit GRE scores, just like the traditional program. The first cohort will start in June and draw about 30 students, DiLorenzo said. Those students never have to come to campus, unlike GW’s hybrid online programs.
DiLorenzo did not return a request for comment confirming that the school could eventually enroll up to 700 online students. The online degree will cost students $56,150 for 45 credits – the same price as one earned face-to-face.
The schism represents some of the first student opposition to the University’s investments in online education. Many of GW’s online graduate degrees have earned high rankings over the past two years by U.S. News & World Report as the University has funneled resources and created staff positions devoted to online learning.
By building its online base, the University not only keeps pace with a rapidly changing higher education landscape, but pulls in tuition dollars to sidestep the city-imposed enrollment cap that restricts how many students can study on campus.
Bress and Tripoli argued that students were caught off guard by the program’s announcement in late October. They said the school kept it under wraps because of a non-disclosure agreement with 2U.
“The general feeling was that there was a bombshell dropped about this program,” Tripoli said.
The school also brought in a director of online learning to help bring the quality of traditional courses to the online program.
Isabela Lessa, a master's of public health student, said students are still skeptical about education quality.
“I strongly believe that the online and on-campus programs cannot possibly be equivalent, and so I – and many others – want there to be a distinction between the two degrees on the diploma given by the University,” she said.
Paula Lantz, a member of the University’s Faculty Senate and the chair of the health policy department, said faculty approved of the school’s turn toward online learning.
“In the field of public health, we need to grow,” she said. “We are seeing huge increases with the people who need the kind of training we give our students. Going online is just smart. It’s not going to water down what our students get here. I just think it’ll strengthen it.”
I work for the SPHHS and managed its former distance education program. Online programs can offer quality education to students unable to attend on-campus classes. However, they also raise issues around faculty time and responsibilities to students, both online and on campus.
Online courses often take the form of 1 on 1 tutoring. The School promises a 10 to 1 faculty:student ratio and courses taught by GW SPHHS faculty. While full time faculty will design the courses and create the videos, “professorial lecturers” (adjuncts) will interact with the students and grade their assignments. This raises other issues:
What compensation and job security will adjunct faculty receive? Adjuncts are typically paid much less than full time faculty.
How much time will full time faculty need to spend supervising adjuncts and reviewing student assignments? Will this take time away from on campus students? The School plans to enroll 700 students in this online program.
Academia is not much different than any other business. The need for revenue and “tuition dollars” (students), and to stay competitive with other universities drive educational decisions to increase faculty and staff productivity, and pay for new buildings.
It’s important that students push the School to maintain the quality of their education and that for the new online students.
Unfortunately, this article doesn’t address the issues that students are most upset about. Students are outraged because the programs are being marketed as producing equivalent degrees, but there are many components of the online program that strongly differ from the on campus MPH program, and students feel as though a distinction must be made between the two programs on all official documents.
The students are not against the online program and are not resisting the program’s launching this spring. The students are, however, concerned about the process in which the program is being launched- with no student involvement and limited involvement or support by faculty-, the students want to be involved in developing the program to ensure that the program is of the highest quality it can be, and the students want all official documents to reflect the difference between the two degrees.
The School’s communications director, Stacey DiLorenzo, misrepresented the facts when she told the Hatchet that the school has actively sought out student opinion. The school sought out limited student opinion in response to students’ outrage. The Hatchet sighted the Distance Education Advisory Committee as an example of student involvement; however, this committee brought two students onto the committee in response to the student’s demand to be involved in the decision-making process regarding the online program. The committe has yet to meet. Previous to the student outcry, there was no outreach to the greater student body for their opinions or input regarding the online MPH program.
Here are some of the facts that were not published in the article above:
a. Online students will not apply through SOPHAS (The School of Public Health Application Service) and will instead apply through 2U, the private company that will run the MPH@GW program.
b. The admission standards are unclear-previously GRE scores were not required but after student pushback, the administration now says that GRE scores are required.
c. The online program will be completed in 40 weeks, whereas the on campus program is typically completed over 6 semesters.
d. the online program offers no track specialization- it is a general MPH degree, whereas the on campus program is a specialized MPH degree.
e. classes are not being taught by “regular professors” as the HATCHET quotes, but instead by to-be-determined TA’s that are non-GW faculty, called “professional lecturers.”
f. The online program plans to graduate up to 700 students per year in the online program alone.
g. Faculty and students are concerned about faculty having time for on-campus students.
Who is on the admission committee besides Doug Evans, the same faculty member who is leading the online program?
I work for the SPHHS and managed its former distance education program. Online programs can offer quality education to students unable to attend on-campus classes. However, they also raise issues around faculty time and responsibilities to students, both online and on campus.
Online courses are extremely time and labor intensive. They often take the form of 1 on 1 tutoring. The School promises a 10 to 1 faculty student ratio and courses taught by GW SPHHS faculty. While full time faculty will design the courses and create the videos, “professorial lecturers” (adjuncts) will interact with the students and grade their assignments. This raises other issues:
What compensation and job security will adjunct faculty receive? Adjuncts are typically paid much less than full time faculty.
How much time will full time faculty need to spend supervising adjuncts and reviewing student assignments? Will this take time away from on campus students? The School plans to enroll 700 students in this online program.
Academia is not much different than any other business. The need for revenue and “tuition dollars” (students), and to stay competitive with other universities drive educational decisions to increase faculty and staff productivity, and pay for new buildings and programs.
It’s important that students push the School to maintain the quality of their education and that for the new online students.
Learn more!
Check out the Facebook page: Student Feedback Forum By the Students: MPH at GW
This article seems to neglect a significant difference between online and in-class education, which is immersion. Working on an online degree, one doesn’t even have to be in Washington DC, interacting with professors and. ngaging in public health involvement.
While an online degree option can benefit the school and its students, separate can not be equal. There is an element of interaction missing in the online program, one which (particularly in this field) is unspeakably important for full understanding of the material. An online program can be a successful addition, but the program can, by nature, never be the same as a traditional degree. As such, the two should absolutely be distinguished.
Bress and Tripoli aren’t criticizing or fighting against the online program, as this article implies. Simply they are recognizing the disparity in the two degrees and the lack of transparency in the school’s administration in
the implementation of the program.
The School of Public Health and Health Services is excited about offering our first fully online MPH degree. SPHHS is also pleased that our students are not against the program. We want to emphasize that, as mentioned in the article, GW has a stellar reputation in this domain and we hope to build on the experience and assistance of the Teaching and Learning Collaborative and programs such as those offered through the School of Nursing. Online education has become part of the fabric of higher education because student experiential learning can now occur through the available learning management systems. Advances in technology have enabled a very high level of student engagement, such that students are now able to meet with faculty in real time, present to each other, critique each other, etc. The educational experience will be different because of the delivery mechanism but the value of the MPH education will be the same. In fact, some higher ed experts believe that there is more value in the online educational experience because material can be presented in new and better ways to maximize understanding and critical thinking.
As a reminder, as with all of our academic programs, this program was vetted and approved through the appropriate faculty and university processes and accrediting bodies notified.
As we have made very clear to the students publicly, SPHHS is happy to discuss the MPH@GW degree with them at any time. We have had several town halls. We have appointed two of our students to the advisory committee. We encourage all MPH students to take advantage of the mechanisms we have put in place in response to your input for interaction regarding the MPH@GW degree.
Students or faculty who have experienced online learning in the past may have a less than favorable view of distance education; however, I would urge everyone to view the product before making conclusions as to quality and rigor. As our first courses will go live in June, we are now building the curriculum. We anticipate that within a relatively short period of time, we will be able to demonstrate what the online curriculum will look like. The School will be scheduling some of these demonstrations hopefully before the end of March and welcome both student and faculty attendance.
In the meantime, the advisory group will have it’s first meeting tomorrow. Thank you.
The degrees are not equal.
Sign the petition to differentiate the degrees:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/differentdegree/