Distance Education and Horizontal Stratification in U.S. Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Distance education has become an increasingly common mode of instruction in U.S. higher education, and today more than a quarter of students are enrolled in distance courses or programs that are fully online. This dissertation asks two fundamental questions related to the growing presence of distance-based instruction in U.S. higher education. First, does increased college access in the form of distance enrollments contribute to horizontal postsecondary stratification? Second, is the adoption of distance education indicative of academic capitalism? I make use of two broad theoretical perspectives to frame my analysis and develop a set of hypotheses concerning the types of colleges and universities that enroll greater percentages of undergraduates in at least one distance course or completely online degree programs. Drawing on the “effectively maintained inequality” (EMI) perspective, I hypothesize that enrollment in distance courses and programs will be higher at less selective colleges and universities and will vary by institutional sector. Regarding sector, I hypothesize that distance enrollments are highest at for-profit institutions, and higher at public institutions than at private. Based on the “academic capitalism” perspective, I hypothesize that institutions with lower levels of financial resources will rely more heavily on distance education as a revenue source and a means of reducing costs. Methods: I test these hypotheses using the NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Set for 2015-16. The sample of consists of 2,180 four-year postsecondary institutions. Hypotheses are tested using one-way and two-way ANOVA models and bivariate correlation analyses. Results: Enrollment in distance education varies significantly by level of selectivity, sector, and financial resources. As hypothesized, less selective institutions have significantly higher percentages of distance enrollment, but interesting subtleties emerge between sectors. Within public institutions distance course and program enrollment are fairly steady across selectivity levels, while enrollment differs substantially among private colleges and universities. Additional analyses of student composition by sector and selectivity confirm that social inequalities by race and class are not likely diminished by distance education. Institutions with fewer resources and expenditures have higher levels of distance education, as expected. Specifically, private institutions with fewer financial resources have greater distance course and program enrollment, and for-profits with fewer resources have greater distance program enrollment. However, overall revenue and expenses are not related to distance enrollment among public universities. Exploratory analysis of detailed revenue and expenditures paint a more nuanced picture of the financial resources that vary with greater reliance on distance courses and programs. Conclusion: The growth of distance enrollments does not reduce social stratification in higher education because distance enrollment growth is occurring disproportionately at less selective private and for-profit colleges and universities—institutions that are costlier to attend, have lower economic payoffs, and disproportionately enroll students of color and lower income college students. The growth of distance enrollment is also consistent with depiction of higher education as an academic capitalist regime, in that distance enrollment appears to function as a revenue source for colleges and universities, particularly for those outside the public sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".