Abstract
Purpose. This study examined and assessed the outcomes of three selected internal and external doctoral degree programs through graduates' perceptions. Methodology. The University of Southern California, Nova University and the University of La Verne were chosen as examples of traditional, external and quasi-external doctoral programs. Nineteen null hypotheses were developed to investigate demographic characteristics, perceived knowledge and skill acquisition, employment progression, satisfaction and acceptance of the degree earned. Two hundred and seventy five graduates of those institutions were randomly selected to be surveyed. A questionnaire was distributed and collected for analysis. Statistical treatments by way of chi-square, one way analysis of variance and, where appropriate, the Scheffe Paired Comparison Tests were used. Findings. It was found that the graduates of all three institutions were satisfied by the program completed and degree earned. Basically, the same type of clientele was addressed; mid-life professionals seeking to fulfill a personal need and to prepare themselves for further advancement in educational management. The greatest differences noted were in skill acquisition, where the nontraditional programs were perceived to have better prepared their graduates. The acceptance of the degree was found to be equal among peers and employers, but the external degree conferred by Nova University was not as acceptable by institutions of higher education as was a degree from either USC or La Verne. Conclusions. The primary conclusion reached was that the furor surrounding nontraditional doctoral study may well be no more than a "tempest in a teapot." Graduates of the programs addressed considered themselves well served by the institution attended. If we are to assess the effectiveness of a doctoral program by examining the product, all three programs must be accepted, and the differences found noted only as grades of differentiation. Recommendations. Recommendations from this study are: (1) To ask accrediting institutions to reexamine their criteria to include graduate satisfaction. (2) A study be conducted of those who failed to complete a program begun. (3) A further study be conducted to encompass more than three institutions representing varied delivery systems.