In an article for the Martin Center last year, I scrutinized Queens College of Theology, a new university in North Carolina operating under a religious exemption granted by the N.C. General Assembly. This exemption allows the institution to provide religious education without the oversight required for secular institutions. While the clause facilitating religious education is beneficial, my argument was that Queens College of Theology should not extend its degree offerings to subjects like psychology, which fall outside the realms of theology, pastoral care, or religious studies. This concern taps into broader issues about the value and integrity of higher education, the necessity of accreditation, and the risks posed by subpar educational programs.
The Value of Higher Education and the Need for Oversight
Higher education is a cornerstone of societal progress, providing not only specialized knowledge but also fostering critical thinking, social maturity, and professional development. To maintain its value, higher education requires a system of accreditation and bureaucratic oversight. These mechanisms are designed to ensure that institutions adhere to certain standards, preventing the proliferation of substandard programs that undermine the credibility of college degrees.
Unfortunately, many so-called “innovative” programs, particularly those offered online, fail to meet these standards. These programs often represent shortcuts that devalue the worth of a college education. They produce graduates with degrees that do not reflect the rigorous study and professional growth traditionally associated with higher education. This phenomenon has led to an increase in the number of colleges offering these nearly worthless degrees and certificate programs that require minimal effort to obtain. Such practices not only harm students but also the employers who rely on these qualifications as indicators of competence and readiness.
The Case of Queens College of Theology
Queens College of Theology illustrates the problem. Operating under the religious exemption, the institution can offer degrees without the same level of scrutiny applied to secular programs. While this is permissible for theology and related fields, extending such an exemption to subjects like psychology is problematic. Psychology, as a discipline, requires a rigorous and scientifically grounded curriculum to ensure that graduates are competent and ethical practitioners. Allowing an institution with minimal oversight to confer degrees in psychology risks producing underqualified professionals, ultimately endangering public trust and safety.
The UC System’s Response to Online Degree Loopholes
The concerns surrounding educational integrity are not confined to religious institutions. They extend to public universities as well. A recent example is the University of California System’s procedural move to address a loophole that allowed undergraduates to complete their degrees entirely online. This decision, made in response to criticisms about the quality and rigor of wholly online degrees, represents a proactive step towards ensuring educational standards.
In February of this year, the University of California Academic Senate approved Senate Regulations 610 and 630, instituting a minimum undergraduate residency requirement. This policy mandates that degree candidates earn a minimum of six units of course credits per quarter (or semester) on campus for three quarters (or two semesters). To qualify as “on-campus,” courses must deliver at least 50 percent of their instruction in person. This move allows for some flexibility with hybrid coursework but underscores the importance of a substantial in-person component to a quality education.
The Importance of Residency in Education
The UC System’s new policy reflects a broader recognition of the value of in-person education. Wholly online degrees are often perceived as less valuable and less rigorous than traditional in-person degrees. This perception, while not universally true, is rooted in the observation that many online programs lack the depth and engagement of their residential counterparts. Traditional in-person education fosters a learning environment where students can engage deeply with the material, their peers, and their instructors. It cultivates a sense of community and collaboration that is difficult to replicate in a virtual setting.
For example, my own experience with online classes at Duke and St. John’s illustrated the differences in instructional quality and classroom culture. While the coursework itself was comparable to traditional classes, the learning experience was markedly different. The success of online education heavily depends on the instructor’s ability to facilitate meaningful interaction through digital platforms. This variability can lead to inconsistencies in educational quality, which are less pronounced in traditional settings where face-to-face interactions naturally foster a more robust learning environment.
The Need for Equitable Access and Quality
The push for online education often comes from a desire to increase accessibility for nontraditional learners, including those in remote areas, individuals with health concerns, single parents, and others who face barriers to attending in-person classes. While this is a commendable goal, it is crucial to ensure that these online programs meet high standards of quality. Providing access to education should not come at the expense of the integrity and value of the degrees conferred.
Online programs must be designed intentionally to create spaces for real dialogue and community building. They should offer opportunities for interaction between faculty and students, as well as additional resources to support student success. This includes fostering a culture that encourages holistic development and lifelong learning. While these goals are also essential for traditional residential programs, achieving them in an online context presents unique challenges that must be addressed to ensure educational parity.
Conclusion
The case of Queens College of Theology and the University of California System’s recent policy changes highlight the ongoing challenges in higher education. Ensuring that degree programs maintain high standards of quality and integrity is essential for protecting the value of a college education. Accreditation and oversight are critical tools in this endeavor, preventing the proliferation of subpar programs that harm students and their future employers.
As higher education continues to evolve, particularly with the growing prevalence of online learning, institutions must remain vigilant in upholding these standards. This includes implementing policies that ensure a substantial in-person component for degree programs where it is deemed essential. By doing so, universities can provide a balanced approach that leverages the benefits of online education while preserving the rigorous, community-oriented experience that defines a quality education.
The efforts of the University of California System to close loopholes and uphold residency requirements are commendable steps in the right direction. Such measures help protect the reputation of the institution and the value of the degrees it awards. In contrast, institutions like Queens College of Theology must be carefully regulated to prevent the dilution of educational standards in fields that require rigorous academic and professional preparation.
Ultimately, the goal is to provide all students with access to high-quality education that prepares them for successful and meaningful careers. This requires a commitment to maintaining high standards, whether in traditional, online, or hybrid formats. By striking the right balance, higher education can continue to be a powerful force for individual and societal advancement.
