The recent article in LJ about the real or imaginary differences between F2F and distance education was sparked by a survey of employers that suggested they prefer graduates from F2F programs. Cue an onslaught (well, at least a few) replies that spoke of the convenience of DE, how great their program is, and how there’s no real difference anyhow. I think this is the wrong argument. It’s not the medium it’s the message, or in this case, the content. Good programs are good programs. Poor programs are well….you get it. Sadly, there’s very little reliable information for those seeking guidance. I happen to think there’s a very real difference between the type of experiences you can get in a F2F program such as ours and one that lives entirely online. You just cannot replicate the interactivity, exposure and networking we provide in a purely digital program. But if you just want to talk classroom content, the goal, we hope, is to do a bit better than this:
