I have a strong opinion against online learning (as a primary delivery method for any graduate work, and most undergrad work), so take my comments with a grain of salt. There are some that have more extreme opinions, as well as others who are much more open....so hopefully you'll get a wider response that reflects that.
*edit*
I wrote quite a bit more than I expected, so I apologize for getting a bit off topic, but I believe it to ultimately be relevant to your questions.
In my opinion it would depend where the person wants to go in life, how busy they are and how smart they are.
One of the issues that most people have (myself included) is that online learning is pitched as an "alternative" way to learn, but is rarely if ever an "equivalent" way to learn when compared to traditional classes. Most people taking online classes do so because they cannot (or prefer not to) attend traditional classes. There are many reasons given, whether it is about time, access, commitment, etc....so while I want people to be able to receive an education, it shouldn't be at the expense of learning, nor at the expense of the overall profession.
There are many bright people who are very busy in daily life who want to further themselves, but there are certain sacrifice that go into gaining graduate training. I remember a poster commenting that graduate school shouldn't have to be about sacrifice and this grueling process....but much of that is the by-product of the amount of information you have to learn to be competent in the field, and once you start removing content and changing the delivery method, you start to alter the quality of the education and ultimately the graduate coming out.
I was offered an opportunity last year to teach an online graduate course, and while I was 99% sure I was going to decline it because of my beliefs, I took some time to investigate further. I am tech savvy, so I saw it as an opportunity to see what kind of advances have been made since the first online teaching/meeting apps came out (which I was a part of in my previous career in the DotCom world).
While the syllabus looked almost identical to the traditional class syllabus, the technology limitations and general limiations of the online environment forced an approximation of the information:
-Videotaping lectures v. real life (you can't ask questions to a video tape...which is a BIG deal for certain styles of lecturing, particularly mine which is more Socratic in style)
-Online "chats" v. in-class discussions (the exchange of ideas are often truncated as you are limited by the typing and there is a delay)
-Class interaction via in-person v. a bulletin board (while a person may be able to formulate better responses if they can think them out more, there is a lack of personal connection and it is a much more measured experience where spontaneity is often missing).
-The "in between" learning is missing. Talking about class over lunch, getting together to study, etc.
It is my belief that at the graduate level (particularly in psychology) there is a convergence of book, lecture, and synthetic learning that is required to build a foundation of learning to support your training and eventual career, and that an approximation of these things is not sufficent. There will always be people who will shine in this type of environment, though I'm concerned with the overall student and not just the outliers.
I've offered the critique that in our TivoWorld, online learning is just another thing on the DVR. Go about your day and when you get a chance you sit down and watch an episode for 24 minutes (or lecture), and then you pop up and run some errands. You come back later to watch something and wind down (90 minute movie...or lecture), but you drift in and out because of a long day, etc. While people attending class in person can equally tune out, it is more of a captive audience where the focus is the classroom and the learning, and not about squeezing in the lecture before having to do your next thing.
Right or wrong....I see most online learners as cutting corners and wanting to get an education but on their terms, with minimal commitment, and with less work than the equivilant classroom class. It is frustarting because many of us have spent the better part of a decade working 50-70+ weeks for most of it, only to see others trying to get by putting in 20-30 hours a week, but expecting to get out in less time yet be granted equal opportunities.
If they are respected in the field I do not see why they can not get jobs after graduation.
Respect is definitely earned, whether as an academic, a skilled worker, or one of a thousand other professions. The caveat to this is that what we do as professionals in psychology is greatly influenced by where we trained, and part of a person's judgment has to consider this. Our foundation is what we build to be competent professionals, and while not everyone will attend a great school, we are still expected to have comparable levels of understanding. It is hard to convince someone that puts in 50-70+ hours a week that someone who puts in half of that has a comparable level of training, and even if they put in an equal amount of time, the learning process was different and probably not comparable. I am sure there are many great professionals out there who went to mediocre schools, but still ascending to be top people in their field.....though this most likely took a great deal more effort to overcome some of the initial inequities.
Jon Snow made a great point awhile ago (and he repeats it every once in awhile) that there is often a gap in applied work v. foundational knowledge when people first come out of graduate school. Some people are good applied technicians, but have a weaker foundation of learning, while others have less "applied" experience but have a stronger foundation of learning. He posited that eventually the stronger foundational learner will overtake the superior technician because they not only can acquire the technical training, but they have a more complete foundation with which to work. This is commonly seen in teaching hospitals with 1st year residents having to be shown how to do things by veterans nurses. Eventually the residents pick up the technical side and becoming more independant, and eventually surpass the veteran nurses when they put everything together.
In this instance of online learning, the "technical" aspects are often pushed, but I believe the more important foundational learning is what is often missing. It may not show up right away, but there are definite differences as you progress. These differences can often be overcome by people who go above and beyond their training, but many do just what is expected to pass the class
(which is a completely different rant about education in general....regardless of online v. traditional).
As far as state licensing requirements Im yet to see states say no to online schools as long as they are accredited and have all the requirements needed.
True. While licensure is essential to being able to make a livable wage, so is being able to secure a job. There is a definitely bias out there against online education (whether it is deserved or not depends on who you talk to), so it is something to keep in mind. Everyone's experience is a bit different, so it is up to the individual if they want to pursue this route, as well as it is up to the individual if they want to hire people who go the online route. Based on the research I've read (previously cited in these threads) and the people I've met from traditional and online programs, I most likely wouldn't consider hiring someone with an online education because I don't believe they are as complete a professional as someone from a traditional program. There are probably exceptions, but most of the people you meet out there are from the fattest part of the bell curve.
