There’s a bit of an uproar in California over an arrangement between the for-profit Kaplan University and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office that makes it possible for students locked out of community college courses to enroll in a Kaplan course at a reduced rate. The arrangement stems from the overcrowding and under-resourcing of the California community college system, which is nothing less than under siege. Of course, it also stems from a completely sensible desire of Kaplan to expand its reach and enrollment. The California State Legislature, by failing to adequately support its community colleges, created that opportunity. Kaplan is doing exactly what we’d expect any educator to do—responding to student demand. We denigrate that action only because it will also result in profits. Let’s at least be honest about that.
To me the really distasteful part of the backlash against Kaplan comes from those who are outraged that an agreement was reached to ensure the transferability of credits—an arrangement in which faculty were not consulted. Faculty members are used to being consulted on which courses they will and will not accept. Professors like to sign off on what courses can count to “replace” theirs—seemingly because they want to ensure educational quality, but let’s face it, it’s also because it helps to protect their jobs. The more courses deemed transferrable, the more it will become clear that the current system is inefficient—if many courses equate with each other, why have so many different people in different places teaching them?
But undergraduate education isn’t meant to serve faculty; it’s meant to serve students. This is something people seem too ready to forget. The president of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges was quite straightforward about her priorities when she told a reporter, “I’m hard pressed to see where we could … make this favorable to faculty.” Huh? Since when is ensuring the continuation of a degree, and the portability of credits, meant to be about helping the faculty?
I get it—this move opens the door to a lot of scary possibilities. One is that Kaplan and other for-profits will fulfill a need and let the legislature off the hook in future funding of state higher education. The degree to which we treat that as negative should be at least partly informed by empirical evidence on how California’s community college students fare at Kaplan. Kaplan is to be commended for providing the data to allow a study on that topic to take place, and Scott Lay, president of the Community College League of California is a smart guy to recognize that as a real opportunity. Make that commitment a real one, and assess the outcomes of the arrangement. Then we’ll have something more solid with which to pass judgment: evidence on how this affects students.
7 Responses to Helping Ourselves
marka - May 27, 2010 at 12:24 am
Sad to say, much of the education industry is, indeed, now for the benefit of employees, not students. We’ve become the entitlement society, where the world does indeed owe us a living, and the supposed beneficiaries of our services are secondary considerations. The prime example is more & more money going to salaries & benefits, notwithstanding many studies showing that more money doesn’t result in better outcomes for students (beyond certain bare minimums). In other words, teachers (& administrators, etc. – but teaching costs are the largest chunk) can get paid more, and in many cases, outcomes can get worse.
11236504 - May 27, 2010 at 10:36 am
I would be very interested in knowing why and how Kaplan was chosen for this collaboration. There are many online programs, some whose tuition is less than Kaplan’s. I am uncomfortable with the state system identifying ONE institution of any kind as being THE ONE to attend to transfer credits.
johnw86 - May 27, 2010 at 10:54 am
If we carry the author’s argument to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t we just shut down the California Community Colleges and let Kaplan handle it all? After all, then the taxpayers of California could be rid of subsidizing public cc’s (never mind that federal taxes, in the form of federal aid and loan guarantees are what give Kaplan its profit), and it would break the faculty unions. Win-win, right? Maybe the CSU and UC systems could similarly be sold to a for-profit education company…
intered - May 27, 2010 at 10:55 am
I fail to understand why this would be troubling to anyone on its face, allowing for proper negotiation of details such as those Sara raises.This partnership looks like a win/win solution that includes special benefits to the taxpayer.While the student faces an increase of $189/credit hour over the 95% taxpayer subsidized community college tuition, the taxpayer and the economy benefit while students benefit from decreased opportunity costs associated to graduation delays while paying well below the going rate for online education.Instead of paying $500-750 for every credit hour a student takes at a community college, the taxpayer will receive a small payment from Kaplan when they pay taxes on their profit. That payment may be no more than a few dollars per credit hour but the difference in the two approaches represents a margin of several hundred dollars per credit hour.As for transferability of credits, I am certain that there are issues to be resolved but it is disingenuous if not dishonest for faculties to highlight this issue while failing to mention the difficulties California CC students experience trying to transfer credits into California’s state institutions. The problem is legendary in that state and derives from professor envy. (“My English 101 is bigger than your English 101 and I can prove it by disallowing some or all of your credits. Concern for the student? We don’ got to have no stinkin’ concern for the student!)
romanor12 - June 1, 2010 at 11:30 am
Romano Calf. CC problems can be solved by raising tuition. As an economist I have long argued the at a high tuition high aid policy is both more efficient and more equitable. It’s more equitable because a low or no tuition policy gives the same subsidy to poor and well off students. No well off students? Well enrollment in Kaplan courses at least shows that they can afford to pay more than the current level of tuition. In a study done a few years ago for a conference at Cornell University http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/conferences/upload/2003oct/chericonf2003_08.pdf I argued that the tuition in Cal should be raised until the price could at least cover the variable costs of instruction. When state aid can’t keep up with rising demand, states like CA are forced to cut back sections but in other states like New York sections expand as long as colleges can keep the tuition revenue to pay adjunct faculty to teach the courses. So CA CC should use this opportunity to work toward a system of more control over the budget and its revenue. Raise tuition and use part of the money to discount part or all of the tuition for low income students.
skylibprof - June 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm
What’s wrong with for-profits? “College, Inc.”, an excellent documentary from PBS Frontline series, shows how for-profit colleges and universities use federal $ to churn out worthless degrees that leave students with a mountain of debt. Watch it online at:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
jpatton - June 8, 2010 at 9:40 am
In Helping Ourselves (May 26, 2010), Sara Goldrick-Rab referenced a statement I made in Inside Higher Education (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/26/kaplan) about the California community college faculty’s negative reaction to an MOU written between the state chancellor and Kaplan University, a for-profit institution. I would like to summarize a few reasons why the community college faculty are concerned about this MOU.
• Community college students who concurrently enroll in a Kaplan course might assume that their credit automatically will be accepted when they transfer to a state university; in reality only the receiving institution can determine acceptability of credit.
• The most vulnerable of community colleges students could jeopardize their financial aid if they do not know when and where they should best apply their aid dollars.
• Even with a reduced tuition, the cost of Kaplan is burdensome for most students.
• The MOU implies that all the 112 colleges have agreements with Kaplan, although in California, each college is autonomous, and articulation is determined locally.
The faculty opposed the MOU only because of the potential harm to students. Readers might want to access the recent Frontline program (College, Inc.) about for-profit colleges and their potential harm to students.
Jane Patton, PresidentAcademic Senate for California Community Colleges