I could see it as a legitimate use case-- in a real business environment, even in a software-centric organization, you might have a need for light-duty database stuff where the UI is 90% of the value, and Access could give you that while trying to tape together an interface atop SQLite or MySQL is a lot of extra effort.
The prof even had an appendix for "if you want to do this on a CLI or with MariaDB..." and had links to other DBMS alternatives. I used DBeaver with Maria and got an A in the class.
But to the parent poster's point -- as someone who has done a lot of hiring on the entry-to-mid level there is a NOTABLE difference in quality from the brick-and-mortar schools vs. online, even if they didn't have a STEM degree (e.g. an English major who turned Network Engineer). I suspect it's more about selection bias and some limited competing with peers.
It is funny to hear that they are still using MS Access. I took that same class, nearly a decade ago though. We thought that it was weird even back then. But, if my memory serves my correctly most of the class was about theory, it's not like the goal was to learn how to use MS Access beyond projects trying to apply theory.
I found the assignments to be pretty comparable to other schools, but it very likely depends on which professors you ended up getting. I know for a fact that certain classes had very different content/projects based on your professor.
The number of lecturers in the CS department that disregard pedagogy for research is astonishing, and makes the undergrad experience horrible.
I still think ASU is doing good with the New American University model and I have benefitted from it immensely. I just don't want anyone to get the idea that it's even in the same ballpark for CS as more popular CS programs.