This article and the data are a wonderful example of aggregation bias. When totals are looked at, it does appear that traditional residential programs are dying and quickly. In my almost 30 years experience in higher education, there has been a steady trend of working adult students moving from campus to online programs. I have seen this in multiple institutions where I worked, but University of Phoenix is the poster child for this trend. Once they had at least 500 campuses. Today I think they have even closed the last campus in Phoenix.
The target population for grad students are usually working adults. Online options fit better than attending class in person, so no surprise to see the same trend.
However, the data reflect only certain subjects. Even then, I would wager that the data are biased. For example, in engineering, if you take out computer science and IT, I bet the pattern changes. ABET does not approve many programs even in computer science, and the lab facilities required for most fields require residential programs. The same is true for clinical health programs. While there are many online MSN programs, these tend to not be clinical. The ABA does not approve online law programs.
At one point in my career, I led an online doctoral program. While I think we did a good job, I still only recommend an online doctoral program to people who cannot do a traditional program. Traditional doctoral programs are based on a labor market of graduation assistants that learn in a master/apprentice model. I have not seen anyone do that online.
Also missing from this analysis is the MBA example specifically. The mainline universities moved low residency, executive education programs online first. Then many moved their traditional MBA programs online, but many still exist to serve students who want that traditional experience.
I think the best analogy would be bookstores. While traditional bookstores are no longer as common as they once were, they still exist and serve a need. Residential graduate programs also continue. To quote Monty Python, "I am not dead yet."
A couple of the key things you call out that resonate with me:
- The regulatory relationship for some on-ground programs (e.g., clinical)
- The nuance in audience. It would be great if I could find this data by age, as there is a subset of the graduate population that is more of a streamlined pathway from traditional, on-campus UG, and that population isn't going away.
At some point, if I have the time, I'd also love to dig into grad performance specifically at the top 50-100 institutions. I'm very curious if they have been able to maintain a draw for on-ground vs. how many have shifted online.
This article and the data are a wonderful example of aggregation bias. When totals are looked at, it does appear that traditional residential programs are dying and quickly. In my almost 30 years experience in higher education, there has been a steady trend of working adult students moving from campus to online programs. I have seen this in multiple institutions where I worked, but University of Phoenix is the poster child for this trend. Once they had at least 500 campuses. Today I think they have even closed the last campus in Phoenix.
The target population for grad students are usually working adults. Online options fit better than attending class in person, so no surprise to see the same trend.
However, the data reflect only certain subjects. Even then, I would wager that the data are biased. For example, in engineering, if you take out computer science and IT, I bet the pattern changes. ABET does not approve many programs even in computer science, and the lab facilities required for most fields require residential programs. The same is true for clinical health programs. While there are many online MSN programs, these tend to not be clinical. The ABA does not approve online law programs.
At one point in my career, I led an online doctoral program. While I think we did a good job, I still only recommend an online doctoral program to people who cannot do a traditional program. Traditional doctoral programs are based on a labor market of graduation assistants that learn in a master/apprentice model. I have not seen anyone do that online.
Also missing from this analysis is the MBA example specifically. The mainline universities moved low residency, executive education programs online first. Then many moved their traditional MBA programs online, but many still exist to serve students who want that traditional experience.
I think the best analogy would be bookstores. While traditional bookstores are no longer as common as they once were, they still exist and serve a need. Residential graduate programs also continue. To quote Monty Python, "I am not dead yet."
Appreciate the thoughtful comment, Chris!
A couple of the key things you call out that resonate with me:
- The regulatory relationship for some on-ground programs (e.g., clinical)
- The nuance in audience. It would be great if I could find this data by age, as there is a subset of the graduate population that is more of a streamlined pathway from traditional, on-campus UG, and that population isn't going away.
At some point, if I have the time, I'd also love to dig into grad performance specifically at the top 50-100 institutions. I'm very curious if they have been able to maintain a draw for on-ground vs. how many have shifted online.