Online MHC?

[ar101]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

I am a Massachusetts resident planning to apply to the UMass-Boston M.S. in Mental Health Counseling. For my situation and interests, the online option is the best way to go. I've been assured that the online program issues the same degree as the on-campus program. But I wonder if anyone here has any insight to offer as to how pursuing the degree online might affect my standing in the mental health counseling profession.

Also, does anyone know anything about this specific program that they'd like to share?

Thank you all!

 

[deleted462159]

I can't speak directly about that program, and they very may well issue the same degree as the on-campus one. But I can only wonder how you would receive adequate counseling training via an online program.

 

[wigflip]

But I wonder if anyone here has any insight to offer as to how pursuing the degree online might affect my standing in the mental health counseling profession.

This issue has received a lot of attention on both psych forums here. I think a search will return a slew of helpful perspectives.

Edit: here is one:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=889392&page=4

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is worth considering the distinction between the actual training difference between online v. traditional learning and the perceived difference of the learner and their colleagues in the broader field. The research I have read thus far has not been convincing that it is equal, let alone sufficient...but that is just my perception. The perception of peers is important because it can effect the chances of someone being hired, licensed, etc. I personally would not consider hiring anyone who completed their training from an online program. I base this decision on some support via research, some anectodal experience, and my understanding of learning styles and what I believe to be required to be successful within a training program. I'd rather go with the traditional method because it has been shown to be sufficient (in most cases), and so would many/most people hiring these days.

 

[wigflip]

It is worth considering the distinction between the actual training difference between online v. traditional learning and the perceived difference of the learner and their colleagues in the broader field. The research I have read thus far has not been convincing that it is equal, let alone sufficient...but that is just my perception. The perception of peers is important because it can effect the chances of someone being hired, licensed, etc. I personally would not consider hiring anyone who completed their training from an online program. I base this decision on some support via research, some anectodal experience, and my understanding of learning styles and what I believe to be required to be successful within a training program. I'd rather go with the traditional method because it has been shown to be sufficient (in most cases), and so would many/most people hiring these days.

Just to play devil's advocate, T4C, what about schools with strong reputations that offer online degrees parallel to their in-person programs? I'm thinking about Smith College and USC (for the MSW in particular)? I'm guessing anyone interviewing would know enough to ask which the student attended, but do you think anti-online biases would trump institutional prestige in cases like that (my hunch is yes, but would be interested in others' thoughts).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just to play devil's advocate, T4C, what about schools with strong reputations that offer online degrees parallel to their in-person programs? I'm thinking about Smith College and USC (for the MSW in particular)? I'm guessing anyone interviewing would know enough to ask which the student attended, but do you think anti-online biases would trump institutional prestige in cases like that (my hunch is yes, but would be interested in others' thoughts).

Great question....

I think the answer is still yes. Would you trust a physician who went to school online? A lawyer? A nurse? etc. It isn't any different. In the case of a physician, your typical neurologist, psychiatrist, radiologist, etc...they may not actually interact much (if at all) with the patient, but they still need to generalist training that occurs in person and in the classroom to be proficient at what they do. Doing MHC (in this case) is the same because while it may be 'talk therapy', the generalist training that occurs during training still requires more than online training can mimic.

I wouldn't want a lawyer/therapist/plumber/chef to come from Online University or Traditional University: Online Program because the data are not there to support the training is the same, and no signage on the entrance or ink the diploma is going to change that fact. There is SO MUCH more to the training and expertise needed to be an MHC than knowing info from books or powerpoints you view on a screen. Yes there are practica or whatever that may be done afterwards or weekend classes done a few times during the program. Would you spend $100 on a meal from a chef who only trained online? A $100 meal is far less expensive than a therapy session, but a negative outcome can last far longer than having an upset stomach for an evening. Can the food from an online-trained chef be okay...sure, but would you want to spend $100 and have any risk (remote or otherwise) to your health? I wouldn't either.

ps. For some brick & mortar examples of training not being the same: Teacher's College is not the same as Columbia. A class in the Harvard Extension Program is not the same as a class offered through the Harvard MBA program. A continueing education program on organic chemistry offered at Stanford is not the same as taking the 15wk (not sure of their exact schedule) class + lab.

 

[Goobernut]

T4C makes a great point in that there are usually some minor differences in the program name to differentiate it from the original. Another that comes to mind is University of Maryland. When you grad from their online only program, it's from University of Maryland University College.

I don't have much faith that most people recognize the difference in program names 🙁 Other than maybe regionally? There are quite a few state schools that don't have any giveaways. Move to a different state, and no one may even know to ask if it's online or not. Obviously some top-notch employers will be in the know, but I'm guessing most won't.

 

[paramour]

T4C makes a great point in that there are usually some minor differences in the program name to differentiate it from the original. Another that comes to mind is University of Maryland. When you grad from their online only program, it's from University of Maryland University College.

I don't have much faith that most people recognize the difference in program names 🙁 Other than maybe regionally? There are quite a few state schools that don't have any giveaways. Move to a different state, and no one may even know to ask if it's online or not. Obviously some top-notch employers will be in the know, but I'm guessing most won't.

I'm with Goobernut here. As you mentioned, T4C, there are obviously differences between say Harvard and the Harvard Extension program, how do you expect everyone to know the difference? I recall a gal at our interview day going around telling absolutely everyone who would listen that she took classes "AT Harvard." Just about (if not) everyone was quite obviously impressed. In reality, she took classes through their Extension Program. She didn't make that distinction, and I don't think anyone knew the difference. There were other applicants who were dumbfounded as to how they were supposed to compete with "a student from Harvard." I think quite a few folks walked away from that day thinking they hadn't a chance in Hades ... because, hey, "it's Harvard."

 

[wigflip]

Great question....

I think the answer is still yes.

I think you're probably right (in terms of people's, particularly those in a position to hire, perceptions of the online degree). Part of the reason I posed it was that I didn't experience anything in my brick and mortar MSW program that couldn't have been conducted online. (Note: I am not trying to slander all MSW education, just share my own experience). Much of the class time was taken up by time-wasting activities; classroom discussions were usually pretty impoverished in quality of discourse. As I've mentioned elsewhere, after the third full week of our research methods course we hadn't gotten anywhere. We couldn't because there were still people who hadn't been able to grasp what independent and dependent variables are, or what operationalization meant. This was one of the reasons I left. Staying would have meant trading quality of training for pedigree and alumni network, and I didn't think it was worth it.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there are really two things at stake with regards to online education in mental health:

1. perceptions and stigma: i.e. if you get an online MSW from Smith College, but perceptions in your geographic region are that online = crap and you can't get hired, the actual quality of your education is irrelevant (unless you can cleverly conceal that you attended the online program).

2. quality of education, in particular because conducting therapy is an interactional practice. But here's the catch: the prejudice against online education in this area is founded on the notion that there are quality in-person interactions in the brick and mortar alternative. This is an assumption that may not be true in some particular cases.

Which brings us back to #1.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I agree with your #2, but I still believe at the end of the day that #1 will be more of a hurdle when it comes to trying to secure employment. The competition is growing, so employers can (and often do) set more arbitrary requirements, and I think most would be quick to favor students from residential programs over online or blended programs.

In regard to your observation about the research training...most applied graduate training programs (MSN, MSW, JD, MD, etc) have sub-optimal research training. A clinician cannot be all things to all people, so often research & stats training are some of the first things to go. Unfortunately some programs are completely devoid of the training....but that is a discussion for another day.