The following study contrasts the efficacy of online delivery relative to face-to-face delivery using an enrolment protocol that largely eliminates self-selection bias. Only a few previous studies even attempt to control for sample selection. The study utilizes random assignment of the registrants of a Principles of Macroeconomics class into two alternative venues: online and face-to-face. The same professor taught both sections with the same course objectives and exams. Both the change in student scores from the pre-test to the post-test and the student's exam average are modelled as a function of the course environment, the student's SAT math score (or ACT equivalent), the student's GPA prior to taking the course, the student's gender and the student's overall credit hours prior to taking the course. The pre- and post-test had both standardized and instructor-specific questions. Students in the face-to-face section have statistically significantly higher exam scores and statistically significantly greater improvement on the post-test instructor questions. There is no statistical difference in the improvement on the post-test overall nor in the improvement in the post-test standardized questions. These mixed results suggest that both course objectives and the mechanism used to assess the relative effectiveness of the two modes of education may play an important part in determining the relative effectiveness of alternative delivery methods.