Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Investigation of Higher Education: The Real Costs
and Quality of Online Programs
David E. Smith & Darryl J. Mitry
To cite this article: David E. Smith & Darryl J. Mitry (2008) Investigation of Higher Education: The Real Costs and Quality of Online Programs, Journal of Education for Business, 83:3, 147-152, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.3.147-152
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.3.147-152
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
nlineeducationhasbeenaremark- abledevelopmentinhigheredu-cation.TheconnectivityoftheInternet andtheconceptofdistanceeducationis a natural combination. However, noth-ing before has been so controversial and at the same time widespread and quicklydrivenbyrapidinvestmentand expanding program offerings. Despite lingering controversies regarding qual-ity and costs, the technology is now deeply integrated in higher education, and the basic process of online deliv-ery has already become an ubiquitous feature of most universities (Survey of Higher Education, 2005). Millions of studentsarenowtakingcoursesviadis-tanceeducation,mostlyonline(Carlson, 2004;Carnevale,2005).
Nevertheless,someschools’adminis-tratorsdiscoveredthatonlineprograms weremorecostlythanhadtheyexpected, andsotheyretrenched.Theonlinequest ofColumbiaUniversityclosedafter2.5 years,whereasCaliber,theonlinepart-ner of the Wharton School, filed for bankruptcy. Many major schools such as Temple University and New York University discontinued their online programs (e.g., Virtual Temple, NYU Online;Kyle&Festervand,2005).How- ever,atthesametime,severalnonrank-inguniversitieshaveleapedaheadwith rapidly growing enrollments in their escalating and profitable online degree programs. One of the most amazing
examplesisthefor-profitApolloGroup, which owns several for-profit schools, including the University of Phoenix. The for-profit University of Phoenix is now the largest university inAmer-ica, with an enrollment of more than 300,000 students. Moreover, this for-profit university is expanding globally: inMexico,Canada,PuertoRico,China, andIndia(SurveyofHigherEducation, 2005). The question is: Why do some institutions find online programs to be less profitable, whereas other institu-tions discover online programs to be highlyprofitable?
Ananalyticalinquiryusingeconomic theory and a small set of experimental data can answer the question of cost comparability.Forexample,theCopen-hagen Business School’s experiments (Pettersson & Heede, 2000) provide evidence from which researchers can draw compelling general conclusions. We also present our recent survey of online business degree programs. The surveyexplainsthebehaviorandquality of competing institutions.The answers become clear as we examine the eco-nomicsofopportunitycosts,economies of scale, quality considerations, and marginalcosts.
DistinguishingCharacteristics Onlinecoursesareessentiallydistance educationbecausethestudentsarephys-icallyseparatedfromeachotherandthe
InvestigationofHigherEducation:TheReal
CostsandQualityofOnlinePrograms
DAVIDE.SMITH DARRYLJ.MITRY NATIONALUNIVERSITY LAJOLLA,CALIFORNIA
O
ABSTRACT.Inthisarticle,theauthorsdescribeananalyticalinquiryintothecost andqualityissuesofonlinepedagogy inuniversityeducation.Usingeconomic theory,pedagogicalinsight,surveyfind-ings,experiments,andotherstudiesthat researchershavereportedintheliterature, theauthorsaddresstheseissues,identify answers,andpresentfindings,implications, andrecommendations.Theauthorscon-cludethateducatorsandstudentswillnot realizethetruepotentialofe-learninguntil theadministratorsofalluniversitiesadhere tothehigheracademicstandardoffull-time facultyexpertise.
Keywords:costs,onlinecourses,quality
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
professor. Distance education degree-granting programs are not a new phe-nomenon(Huntley&Mather,1999).The disadvantageofthesepedagogicalalter-nativesrelativetotraditionalclassroom- based education has always been that learning associated with self-study lacks any extensive dialogue with the expertfaculty(Perelman,1992).How- ever,theinterconnectivityoftheInter- netdoesprovideopportunityforexten-sivedialogue,whethersynchronousor asynchronous.
During the past few years, many researchers have made great promises about reshaping education through the Internet. Nevertheless, the truth is that many online programs do not use the intrinsic potential for real interactivity (Young, 1998). Essentially, the major missingingredientisusuallymeaningful dialogue and deliberation with appro-priately credentialed faculty members. Therefore, many online courses are no more than a simple computerization of the correspondence course (Hjortkjær, 1998).Althoughtheuseofvirtualfacili-tiessuchaschatroomsanddownloadable overhead presentations with speak pro-gramshasbecomewidespread(Carlson, 2004;Huntley&Mather,1999),theyare stillinadequatesubstitutesforhigh-level cognitive interactivity (Drucker, 2000; Duus & Nielsen, 1999; Pettersson & Heede,2000).
AnalysisofaEuropeanBusiness School
The Copenhagen Business School (CBS)inDenmarktookanearlyleader-ship role in technology-assisted learn- ingexperiments(Smith,1995).Thefac-ulty conducted an extensive review of pedagogy before initiating their online experimentsanddevelopingtheironline programs. They recognized that the Internetprovidedopportunitiesandchal-lengestothetraditionallearningformat (Duus,1996).CBSestablishedcarefully planned online-learning studies (Duus &Nielsen,1999).Inthepresentarticle, wepresentsomeimportantresultsfrom
profile of the students showed that the onlinestudentswerehomogeneouswith the general student population. During theexperiments,DuusandNielsenkept the same curriculum and faculty mem-bers as in traditional courses to ensure consistentcomparabilityofonlinecours-es with on-ground classroom courses. Academic rigor was further scrutinized andmaintainedbytheadditionalmoni-toringofaCBSfacultyacademicstudy board.Thesamefull-timefacultymem-bers who were responsible for the on-groundcoursesdevelopedandtaughtthe onlinecourses.
Inmeasuringandcomparingtheout-comes of the e-learning and the tradi-tional learning experiences, Duus and Nielsen (1999) based course compari-sons on identical learning goals, con-tent, and curriculum. Table 1 shows a comparison of academic outcomes fortheonlineandtraditionalon-ground courses. Duus and Nielsen found no significant differences in outcomes between classroom and online learn-ers (p < .05) with this equal-standards pedagogicalmodel.
Essentially,thisfindingisthesameas from numerous U.S. university studies (Merisotis&Phillips,1999).However, Duus and Nielsen (1999) controlled for variables very carefully and were morethoroughthanmostotherstudies. These findings are particularly impor-tantbecausethemeticulousattentionto detailintheCBSstudiesleftlittleroom for doubt about the findings.Although thise-learningapproachisnotanexact replicationofthedialogue-basedsemi-narsinthetraditionalclassroomsetting, it is a close approximation. By using this equivalent approach, it is possible toraisethequalityofonlineeducation toalevelatwhichitequalsthestandards
of seminar-type classroom pedagogy. However,thisispossibleonlybymain-taining the intensive faculty-student interaction based on problem-solving andapplications-orientedassignments.
ComparativeCosts
Thisequal-quality-consciousapproach to online learning, which has identical academic standards and a high level of interactivity, requires a similar invest- mentinfacultytimeandsupportincom-parison to equal-sized on-ground class-rooms.However,analysisofthecostof operating the program reveals that it is moreexpensiveincomparisontolarger classrooms on-ground, as researchers would expect. This finding agrees with what other academicians believed to be thecase:Equal-qualityonlineprograms will never be as cost effective as large classrooms(Navarro,1998).Thisistrue becausethepercapitacostofproviding online learning, where class sizes are necessarily limited to a smaller number of students, is substantially higher than providing on-ground classrooms with larger class sizes. For universities, the fixedcostofclassroomsisnotaconsider-ationinthecomparisonofonlineclasses versuson-groundclasses.Thebuildings have previously been amortized. What remainsarethevariablecostsofinstruc-tion of which the primary expense is faculty compensation. Furthermore, no significant economies of scale exist for onlineprogramsbecausethemajorcost isnotinfrastructurebutthevariablecost ofthehoursspentbyfacultymembers.
Theprimaryfactorinonlineprograms is the expert faculty time per student, whichtranslatesintofacultysalaries.A previous report of six studies commis-sioned by theAlfred P. Sloan Founda-tion found similar empirical findings
TABLE1.ComparisonofNot-For-ProfitandFor-ProfitSchoolsofBusiness OfferingOnlineEducation
Variable Not-for-profitschools(%) For-profitschools(%)
(Carr,2001).Itshouldnotbesurprising that the single largest cost component for online programs is faculty salaries. Therefore, in the scope of a quality-conscious educational system, expense comparisons will always show that the equal-quality online approach is more expensiveifthestudent-to-facultyratio issmallerforonlineprograms(allother things being equal). A faculty confer-ence at the University of Illinois made similar conclusions (Young, 2000). AccordingtoYoung,“goodteachingis possibleonlineonlybyloweringstudent- to-instructor ratios and taking other stepstocounteractthedisadvantagesof teachingatadistance”(p.A48).
Wefindthattheanswertothequestion ofcomparativecostsbetweenon-ground and online delivery is straightforward. Withequalqualityinallacademicstan-dards, including equal quality of fac-ulty credentials, the comparative costs betweenon-groundandonlinedelivery willbeapproximatelythesamebetween same-sizeenrollments,butthecostsof smallclassroomswillbehigherincom-parison to those of large classrooms becausethepercapitavariablecostsare lowerinlargeclassrooms.Thisfinding is because the largest costs are for the academic expertise—the appropriately credentialed faculty—which must be thesameforeitheronlineoron-ground programstoclaimrealequivalency,but the potential for a quality faculty-to-student ratio is limited by the online environment (Perreault, Waldman, & Zhao, 2002). Therefore, there are no significanteconomiesofscaleinequal-qualityonlineacademicprograms.
Economies of scale would exist if educatorscouldsomehowdistributethe instructor’s expertise and interactivity overamuchlargernumberofstudents. However,seriousreflectionwouldindi-cate that the assumption that one can somehowdevelopeconomiesbyrecord-ing the faculty expertise for mass dis-tribution is illogical. Such an assertion requires that the on-ground classroom could also be recorded and be equiva-lenttoliveclassrooms,byallstandards. Would the on-ground student’s contact with faculty be limited to prerecord-ed content? Is prerecorded, text-basprerecord-ed learning equivalent to a live faculty content expert being readily available?
The answer is no. If it were otherwise true, then any sort of text-based cor-respondence format would satisfy, and we would be back to the correspon-denceexperienceoftheearly1900s.Is an audio track or a recorded videotape equivalenttocommunicatingwithareal live professor? If that were the case, then equivalency could be claimed for solelyvideocoursesongroundaswell, andthisideahasproveduntrue.Previ-ouspedagogicalresearchhassupported thepossibilitythatlearningandstudent satisfaction are always positively cor-related with the extent and the quality of the dialogue (Bloom, 1956; Specht, 1985).Themajorinputresponsiblefor the learning output of the educational processisthelivingfaculty.Indeed,fac-in online education (Bocchi, Eastman, &Swift,2004).Thereshouldnolonger becontroversyontheseissuesofequiva-lency or costs. However, the academic community still needs to address some importantissues.
ProfitsattheExpenseofQuality
Educators can lower costs, but only by lowering the quality of the primary resource, thereby reducing the variable expense. If all teaching faculty mem-bershaveearneddoctoraldegreesfrom grams is littered with deceptive prac-tices. For example, one may assume thatahighlyreputablefacultymember, a recognized expert in his or her field, is capable of designing the initial tex-tualonlinecoursecontent.However,the issue then becomes a question of who interacts with the students. Does the onlineinstructorneedtohavethissame expertise of academic equivalency? If not, then the institution can hire lower cost labor (e.g., adjunct instructors, facilitators)toassistintheonlinecours-
es.Bysignificantlylimitingtheinvolve-ment of the original content expert or equivalently credentialed instructors, the program administrators can easily reduce the cost by hiring less quali-fied facilitators. These facilitators or instructors would rarely be considered forfull-timefacultypositionsatschools of quality and would certainly not be considered for tenure-track positions. Currently,thelowercostofdeliveryis accomplishedbyhiringfewerfull-time facultymemberswithterminaldegrees from ranking universities and replac-ing them with less qualified part-time facilitators with inferior or question-able credentials. Unfortunately, this is happening on a large scale at many schools that are enjoying large profits fromonlinedegreeprograms.
Atfirstglance,thesituationwiththis substitution of less qualified instructors mightappearsimilartothesituationofa large lecture-hall classroom, where stu-dents can listen to a faculty member’s lecture, but hold discussions or interact only with doctoral students acting as teaching assistants. However, there are realqualitydifferencesbetweentheon-ground doctoral-student teaching assis-tants and many of the current online facilitators. A facilitator with only a master’s degree is not the same as a bettertrained,research-orienteddoctoral candidate.Furthermore,inthetraditional classroom environment—regardless of whetheritislargeorsmall—aprofessor the faculty member’s judgment, as the student-professor interaction dictates. Such flexibility and academic freedom for immediate judgment is not possible in a recorded online distance-education format, especially when the instructors arenotauthorizedtomakechangesand when only the course developers are authorizedtodoso.
FundamentalEconomic Considerations
Forexistingbrick-and-mortaruniver-sities, if the classroom buildings are fully amortized, a similar average cost per student up to the limit imposed by
qualityconsiderationsmaybeachieved on the basis of comparisons of small classes of equal sizes. This process requires a straightforward microeco-nomic analysis. However, because we have determined that no economies of scale are possible in online programs, the only advantage of online learn-ing becomes the ability to reach more students in diverse locations and cir-cumstances. Therefore, from a mac-roeconomic standpoint, another set of variables must also receive appropriate attention: the full cost and benefits to society. Researchers have not consid-eredthefullcosttosocietyinprevious analyses. The full cost of educational programs must take into account not onlythecosttotheinstitution,butalso the opportunity costs of the students and those of potential public sponsors (Green & Baer, 2001). For example, economictheorysuggeststhatindevel-oping countries, such a cost-benefit relation would reveal opportunities for online programs, because the Internet- basedprogramscanreachpotentialstu-dents over vast distances and in very remote locations where deployment of conventionalresources(classroomsand facultyaccommodation)wouldbeexpen- sive.Hereagain,straightforwardeconom-ictheoryanswersthequestionapriori.
Therefore, very small online classes may actually be socially cost effective in certain regional areas, especially in developing countries. For example, the Virtual University of Monterrey, Mex-ico, successfully uses the Internet and telecommunicationstoreachstudentsin diverselocations(TecnológicodeMon-terrey,2007).Nonetheless,althoughthe social cost-benefit model supports the useofonlineprogramsintheseareas,it doesnotguaranteethattheprivatemar-ket oriented for-profit institutions will servethem.Because,inthiscase,social benefitsareintheequation,suchjustifi-able programs will still require public underwritingifrealqualityequivalence of academics is maintained, all other thingsbeingequal.
highly profitable. We surveyed 40 online schools with the largest enroll- mentsandfoundthattheschoolsoffer-ingonlinedegreeprogramsfellintotwo distinct categories: not-for-profit and for-profit. Researchers and educators caneasilyseewhichtypehasthemost decisive quality factors. The data in Table1showthepercentageofschools with accreditation from the Associa-tiontoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsof Business International (AACSB), the number of schools with a residency requirement,andthoseusingthehigh-estleveloftechnology,respectively.
AACSB accreditation requires that full-timefacultymembershaveterminal degrees.Thisfeatureisoneoftheimpor- tantfactorsdistinguishingbetweenbusi-ness schools. Institutions that operate by hiring mostly part-time instructors and facilitators cannot receiveAACSB accreditation. It should be noted that none of the for-profit schools were AACSBaccredited.
A part-time residency requirement, evenofshortduration,isalsoanindi-cationofqualityprogramstandards.At theleast,withsomesortofresidency, the schools can know that the online studentismostprobablythesameper-son being examined and graded. In all, 23% of not-for-profit schools had residency requirements, but none of the for-profit schools had residency requirements. This is understandable because any amount of residency requirement increases costs. Operat-ing with a higher level of technology may also indicate a commitment to quality standards. A larger percent-age of the not-for-profit schools used the latest technology in comparison to the for-profit schools. Of course, thesinglemostimportantfactoristhe either listed their faculty members or explicitly identified the credentials of
Conclusionsand Recommendations
Educators and researchers have answeredthequestionofwhetherthereisa differencebetweenonlineandon-ground learning in different ways. If the aca-demiccredentialsandrigoroftheonline teaching faculty are lower than those of the on-ground teaching faculty, the levelsofqualityoftheeducationalexpe-riences will differ. Unfortunately, there is no national or international faculty- regulating authority for all institutions and their degrees. Some of the various regionalaccreditingorganizationsarelax on standards when considering online schools,particularlywithrespecttofac-ulty credentials and consequent compa-rableremuneration.Inonlineeducation, manyoftheaccreditingbodiesareself-serving groups sponsored by for-profit onlineschools.
Economists know that the market mechanismisaremarkableprocessand that given seller competition and buy-er’sknowledge,itwillultimatelyresult inthemostefficientoutcome.However, thecaveatisbuyer’sknowledge.Ifthe buyer is not fully informed, then the sellercanfoolthebuyerintopurchasing aninferiorproductorservice.Faculties of legitimate institutions everywhere must immediately take command and provide intelligent leadership for the public.Theycannotaffordtoallowthe greedofcorporatemanagementandthe one-dimensionalassessmentmovement to depreciate the full value of the aca-demic process. Furthermore, only the full-time faculty can stop avarice dis-guised as better, cost-effective practic-es. If faculties, independently and col-lectively, do not stand against avarice, thenultimatelyallfacultymemberswill become interchangeable employees of enterprise. If faculties do not fight to maintain academic-quality standards, then most higher education will con-tinue to suffer significant decline over time.Already,part-timeadjunctinstruc-tors with lower credentials are being
trativestaffsortoexecutivesoffor-profit corporations. Both theory and empiri-cal evidence show that the pecuniary interestsofcommercialinstitutionsand some not-for-profit administrations try todisguiseandsellaninferiorproduct inamassmarkettomaximizeapparent competitiveness and net revenues. If suchorganizationsremainunrestrained, it will be to their economic advantage todilutethevalueofthefacultyexpert and to increase the class size, under the claim of equivalency. This is tak-ing place because faculties have relin- quishedtheirrightfulacademicauthor-ity.Onlinedeliveryofhighereducation isheretostay(Carnevale,2000,2005). Itisausefulmechanismfordelivering quality higher education, but the acad-emy needs to better inform the public ofthequalitydifferencesinonlinepro-grams.Furthermore,theacademyneeds topromotethehonestrecognitionofits credentials. Whenever fellow faculty memberscreatenewpedagogieswhose uses of capital-intensive resources appeartohaveabiggermarketpotential, allfacultymembersmustensurethatthe creation is not used to depreciate the scholarly process and inhibit academic value.Thebannerofacademicfreedom remainsfragileandcanbeguardedonly byscholarsthemselves.
Some corporations operating for- profitfirms,undertheguiseofuniversi-ties,arecurrentlycausinghavocamong thepoorlyinformedpublic.Mostofthese companies have online degree courses that are taught exclusively by adjunct part-time instructors who frequently have not earned terminal degrees from reputable,highlyaccrediteduniversities in the fields they teach. The latest ter-minologyusedbythefor-profitschools referstotheteachingfacultyas facilita-tors orinstructors. Consequently, with few exceptions, most of these facilita-tors come from a pool of underem-ployed quasi-academics or moonlight-ing corporate employees. Accordingly, theyarepaidforpieceworkatalowrate ofcompensation.Theusualclaimmade by the for-profit purveyors of online degrees is that their courses are bet-ter because they are taught by practic-ingprofessionalswhoworkfull-timein the field they teach. The sales promo-tionstrategyusedbythesefirmsisthat
the students are more likely to acquire the latest knowledge and skills from people directly employed in corporate positions. Unfortunately, this specious argumenthasbeenallowedtocontinue unabated.ItischampionedontheWeb sitesandinthemarketingbrochuresof these institutions. This bogus claim is attherootofamultibilliondollarscam andhassucceededinsellingtomillions of customers and thereby flooding the workforce with questionable degrees. Suchdegreescertifyadulteratedknowl-edge at best. This has been the real socialcostofonlineeducationoverthe past10years.Studentsgraduatingfrom thesecollegesbelievethattheyreceived agoodeducationbecausetheyenjoyed the experience and learned something. These former students do not realize that they could have learned more if they had been exposed to higher aca-demic standards and full-time faculty withrealcredentialsandqualifications.
Mostlegitimateinstitutionswithtruly equal-qualityonlineprogramshavenot proclaimed their academic superiority andhavenotdistancedthemselvesfrom general online vendors. Even a casual review of current marketing materials oflegitimateacademicinstitutionsillus-trates how not-for-profit universities havetriedtocompetewiththefor-profit schoolsbyusingmuchofthesameword-ing. Unfortunately, this often includes such pronouncements as that their instructors are better qualified because they come from real-world working environments, potentially leading to the misinterpretation that their instruc-tors are part-time academics working forlowercompensationthanthosewho have earned legitimate credentials. To successfullyrespondtothecompetition, legitimate universities need to inform potential consumers of the deceptive practices and misleading claims of their competitors and thereby appro-priately distinguish the equal-quality productinthecompetitivemarketplace. Thegenuineinstitutionsofhigheredu-cation have not publicly denounced the purveyors of watered-down online degrees by clearly stating the coun-terargument of higher academic stan-dards. Indeed, a few of the otherwise reputable universities have unwittingly abandoned their standards for online
programs, whose standards of quality are not the same as those for their on-groundprograms.Thiscircumstanceis evidentwhencoursesaretaughtbyless qualified instructors. For true equiva-lencytoexist,theindividualshiredfor teaching online courses must have the sameexpertiseandacademiclegitimacy as the on-ground full-time faculty, and anything less is a deceptive means to lowercosttoincreasenetrevenue.
The e-learning approach has devel-oped as a powerful alternative for fac-ulty to lead academic studies, but its truepotentialmaynotberealizeduntil theadministratorsofalluniversitiesare forcedtorequiretheironlinefacultyto meettheacademicstandardsofthefull-timefaculty(Carnevale,2001).Perhaps in the future, computer-based artificial intelligence will become a reality that will surpass great minds. Until then— regardless of whether it is asynchro-nous or synchronous—online distance education will require professors with legitimatecredentials.Inthemeantime, the uninformed public is purchasing millions of inferior educational experi-ences from purveyors of degrees that arebasedsolelyontheInternet.These vendors are artificially lowering costs, therebysubstantiallyincreasingprofits, byusinglow-paidonlineinstructorsor facilitators to dialogue with students, instead of having tenured and creden-tialedfaculty.
Faculty members may ask three questions:
1.How do faculty members identify degreeprograms thatarecost effective whenofferedonline?Theanswercomes to their university’s top management andstoptheprocessofwateringdown standards in online programs? Faculty membersmustrefusetoassigncourses to instructors who have substandard credentials. Full-time faculty members must refuse to allow exploitative part-timepayscales.Foracourseofaction,
bersdemandthattheissuebeaddressed within their faculty senate and other collectivefacultybodiesofauthority.
3.How can a quality, not-for-profit university compete against a for-profit university that operates with low-cost, substandard,part-timeinstructors?Again, wesuggestthatthefacultymemberstake theleadbyinformingtheadministration abouttheopportunityforvaluablecounter- marketingcampaigns.Studentsenrollin universityprogramstoearndegreesthat willhavecurrencyinthemarketplace.If the public is given the real information regarding price and quality, they will make appropriately rational decisions. Likewise, the managements of employ-ing organizations do not wish to hire people who have obtained substandard educations and meaningless diplomas. Therefore,thebestwayforquality-con- sciousuniversitiestocompeteistoiden-tify the credentials of all their online professors and clearly distinguish their authenticstandardsofquality.Overtime, this method will result in significantly increasingonlineenrollmentsinquality- conscious universities and decreasing enrollments in the programs of exploit-ativeprofiteers.
Thetechnologyofonlinelearninghas matured.Onlinehighereducationcanbe offeredintheformofanequal-quality and equal-standard learning experi-enceandcanbeaneconomicallyviable option for many colleges and universi-ties. However, the genuine academic institutionsmustdistinguishtheirprod-uctfromthatoftheprofiteersbycandid marketing that counters the profiteers’ deceptivemarketing.Byusingthestrat- egyofdifferentiation,thegenuineaca-demicinstitutionscannotonlymaintain
their rigorous academic standards but also successfully market their product in a globally competitive environment. However,thecurrentdirectionistoward depreciation of faculty and lower aca-demic standards. If faculty members everywheredonotasserttheirclaimto the real quality standards and simulta-neouslyshowtheiradministrationshow to properly compete and prosper, the publicandthescholarswillbothlose.
NOTES
Dr.DavidE.Smith ’sresearchinterestisinter-nationalmarketing.
Dr.DarrylJ.Mitry ’sresearchinterestisinter-nationaleconomicdevelopment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. David E. Smith, National University, 3390 Harbor Blvd, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
E-mail:dsmith8@nu.edu
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives.NewYork:Longman.
Bocchi,J.,Eastman,J.K.,&Swift,C.O.(2004). Retainingtheonlinelearner:Profileofstudents inanonlineMBAprogramandtheimplications for teaching them.Journal of Education for Business,79,245–253.
Carlson,S.(2004,November26).Onlineeduca-tionsurveyfindsunexpectedlyhighenrollment growth.The Chronicle of Higher Education, p.A30.
Carnevale, D. (2000, January 7). Survey finds 72% rise in distance-education programs.The ChronicleofHigherEducation,p.A57. Carnevale,D.(2001,January7).Assessmenttakes
centerstageinonlinelearning:Distanceeducators seetheneedtoprovethattheyteacheffectively. TheChronicleofHigherEducation,p.A47. Carnevale,D.(2005,February4).Offeringentire
degreesonlineisonekeytodistanceeducation. TheChronicleofHigherEducation,p.A31. Carr, S. (2001, February 16). Is anyone making
moneyondistanceeducation?TheChronicleof HigherEducation,p.A41.
Drucker, P. (2000, May 15). Putting more now intoknowledge.Forbes,165,84–88.
Duus,H.J.(1996).Undervisningidet21århun- dredesvidenssamfund[Teachingintheknowl-edgesocietyofthe21stcentury]. Fremtidsori-entering,1,32–35.
Duus, H. J., & Nielsen, O. (1999, May). Der er ennyVerdentilForskel[Makingadifference]. Civiløkonomen,1,8–9.
Green, M., & Baer, M. (2001, November 9). Globallearninginanewage.TheChronicleof HigherEducation,p.B24.
Hjortkjær,C.(1998). FjernundervisningpåInter- nettetogbrugafITIUndervisning:EnRede-gørelse [Distance learning on the Internet and useofITineducation:Areport].Copenhagen, Denmark:UniversityofCopenhagen. Huntley, M., & Mather, M. A. (1999,
Septem-ber).Distancelearninggathersspeedanddepth. Technology&Learning,20,75.
Kyle,R.,&Festervand,T.A.(2005).Anupdate on the high-tech MBA. Journal of Education forBusiness,80,240–244.
Merisotis, J. P., & Phillips, R. (1999). What’s the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. tra-ditional classroom-based learning. Change, 31(3),12–17.
Navarro, P. (1998). Notes from the electronic classroom. JournalofPolicyAnalysisandMan-agement,17,106–115.
Perelman, L. (1992).School’s out. New York: WilliamMorrow.
Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Zhao, J. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance-learningcourses.JournalofEducation forBusiness,77,313–318.
Pettersson, M., & Heede, S. (2000).CTU- evaluering.Copenhagen,Denmark:University ofCopenhagen.
Smith, D. E. (1995, March). Fjernundervisning-enTeknologiskForfront[Distancelearning:A technologicalforefront].Kræmmerhuset,p.14. Specht,P.H.(1985).Experientiallearning-based
vs. lecture-based discussion: The impact of degreeofparticipationandstudentcharacteris-ticsoncomprehensionandretention.Journalof BusinessEducation,60,285–287.
SurveyofHigherEducation.(2005,September8). Thebrainsbusiness.TheEconomist,376,4. TecnológicodeMonterrey.(2007).
Virtualuniver-sity: A contemporary solution.Retrieved Jan 10, 2008, from http://www.ccm.itesm.mx/eng-lish/index.html#vu
Young,J.R.(1998,May15).AyearofWebpages for every course: UCLA debates their value. TheChronicleofHigherEducation,p.A29. Young, J. R. (2000, January 14). Faculty report
at University of Illinois casts skeptical eye on distance education.The Chronicle of Higher Education,p.A48.
