• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

For-Profits’ Dubious Use of Entrance Exams

April 18, 2011, 11:55 pm

It would be very difficult to assess, on a broad scale and with any precision, the academic and intellectual ability of the students at any college or university, whether traditional or for-profit. One plausible place to look, though, might be to standardized tests. Books such as David Owen’s None of the Above: The Truth Behind the SATs (1999), have challenged the ability of that widely used test to predict its takers’ academic performance in college. And, according to pennlive.com, the College Board reports that now a total of 45 colleges have gone “test-optional,” requiring students to take neither the SAT nor its equally popular cousin, the ACT. Interestingly enough, though, many for-profit colleges, if they administer a standardized test, use a third option, the Wonderlic test, as a de-facto entrance exam, and this led me to wonder why.

My guess is that those most familiar with the Wonderlic test (at least recently) are sports fans. The Wonderlic test, which consists of 50 questions that must be completed in 12 minutes, is administered every year at the NFL’s scouting combine to college football players who are potential draft picks. The NFL headlines in late February and early March all focused on former University of Alabama quarterback, Greg McElroy, who, during the combine, nearly aced the test, scoring 48 out of 50. This led to much discussion about the test in the football media, including a breakdown of average scores by position (offensive tackles lead all other positions with an average score of 26—higher than quarterbacks—who would have guessed?). And, amusingly enough, the easiest way to find actual sample Wonderlic tests is to Google the phrase “Are you smarter than a football player?”

Many of us know how to assess SAT and ACT scores, but what do Wonderlic scores mean? The most central correlation is not to the more familiar standardized tests but to the IQ: A Wonderlic score of 20 is the equivalent of a 100 on an IQ test, in other words, the baseline for average intelligence. Having said that, at Daymar College, a privately owned for-profit with campuses in Ohio and Kentucky, the minimum required Wonderlic score for admission is 10—not 20 but 10. That should worry everyone.

But the problems are even worse. When we ask if the tests are administered fairly, the answers are even more alarming. Kaplan University, whose representatives have from the beginning of this thread been most professional—comments from them have been signed, and have identified both the commenter’s affiliation and position in the company—are extremely thorough and consistent. They set different minimum Wonderlic scores for their various programs. More importantly, they require the proctors of the tests to undergo a rigorous orientation, one that culminates in an exam on which the aspiring proctors must earn a perfect score. The proctors are thus very carefully trained, and my guess is that the exams at that university are administered extremely fairly. By contrast, I have no evidence that the proctors of the Wonderlic tests administered at Daymar College are either trained or qualified.

Here are my conclusions, and they’ll no doubt provoke another barrage of contentless ad hominem attacks. I think it’s fair to ask whether many of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges are qualified to be in college. If the bar is set low enough, virtually anyone can enroll. That’s a problem in and of itself. Add to it the financial implications of enrolling and collecting tuition from all those unqualified students, and the prospects bear an uncanny resemblance to the subprime mortgage crisis that continues to scar the country’s economy. What if many of these students are unable to pay back their loans—either because they don’t graduate or because they prove to be equally unqualified to be competent workers as they were to be competent students? As The Chronicle’s Paul Basken notes in his article on the Senate hearings on the for profits, that group “consumes double its proportionate share of federal student aid” (June 22, 2010).  Someone will have to pick up the tab.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    Anyone who comes online and represents their company and doesn’t act professional doesn’t remain with said company long.

    Plus, if you’re paid enough money you’re going to defend that product until you’re blue in the face.

  • lizziec

    Regardless of the test being used for admissions, there needs to be a basic literacy component to it because way too many of the students I saw when working in a for-profit, online “university” were straight-up illiterate.

    You state ” I think it’s fair to ask whether many of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges are qualified to be in college. If the bar is set low enough, virtually anyone can enroll.”

    We are already at this point. When institutions allow students who cannot read a paragraph and tell you what they just read into a “college” program, anyone can enroll. I have long suspected that in a number of these organizations, the only admissions testing that goes on is that which determines whether the student’s social security number provides access to federally-funded student aid whether they be loans or grants, or (they hope) both.

  • Guest

    For anyone interested, Wonderlic raw scores of 10 interpolate into an IQ estimate of 80 which is about 1.5 SD below the mean on common standardized IQ assessments (WAIS, WISC, etc. SDs are approximately 15). It is essential to understand the non-linearity between raw scores and standardized scores before commenting on such topics. To do otherwise is to deceive.

    While they are not common, we do have doctorates who graduated public universities with IQs in this range, and many more who earned associate’s and bachelor’s degrees with IQs in this range. Although the issue is a bit technical for this kind of forum, the range of IQ differences under discussion are material for college education largely in terms of time-on-task not mastery; i.e., the lower IQ translates into extended time-to-mastery. Setting aside his dislike for for-profit schools, Mr. Donoghue seems to be suggesting that we should close certain doors of opportunity to those whose IQs are below average by some measure and to some extent. I don’t know where he would set the IQ bar, by what metric, or how he would allocate the power to make such decisions. While I recognize that some people believe in this kind of policy, it is not a social policy I would pursue.

    Beyond this, one would be unwise to attempt an intelligent conversation with anyone who says . . .

    “Here are my conclusions, and they’ll no doubt provoke another barrage of contentless ad hominem attacks. I think it’s fair to ask whether many of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges are qualified to be in college”

    . . . and bases his “conclusions” on a sample of 2 out of 1,000 institutions (or 3,000 depending on criteria) while profoundly begging the question of the various things there are to mean by “college” and what it means to be enrolled an institution representing different facets of the larger construct.

    While population size is somewhat less relevant than sample size, Mr. Donoghue would need at least a rigorously random sample of 30 for-profit institutions to make any responsible and intelligent generalizations about “for-profit colleges” and would need considerably more than that to reach even a 90% chance of making a sound generalization. The foregoing assumes that such colleges can be meaningfully grouped by charter, which I doubt since some teach cosmetics and nothing else and others teach medicine at the MD and DO levels and nothing else. Among many other errors in fact and logic, Mr, Donoghue would seem to be committing a serious category mistake in setting up his “analysis.”

    I hope that Mr. Donoghue will not confuse my pointing out his lack of relevant intelligence with the ad hominum attacks he says he is suffering. I wonder if these “attacks” are more likely coming from individuals who are frustrated at the deceptions, misrepresentations, over-generalizations, and general bad logic that this unpopular and low-rated professor employs and, in doing so, diminishes the reputation of the majority of the professoriate that tend to offer such judgments only in areas where they possess the relevant expertise. (Here’s a quick admissions test for you Mr. Donoghue, one that you might not be able to look up correctly on Google. What is the SEM on the Classic Wonderlic and why would it have been important to know it before you made the above comments. Perhaps you would not be qualified for admission into a measurement sciences program. If you take an hour or more to answer this, I will assume that you received outside help, as you have said to your students on many occasions.)

  • chri3144

    The tests that Mr. Donoghue mentions are referred to by USDOE, through its regulations, as ability to benefit (ATB) tests. USDOE approves certain tests as allowable ATB tests, including the Wonderlic, for institutions (through third party vendors) to administer to students who do not have a high school degree or its equivalent as a means to qualifying for Federal Student Aid (students without a high school degree or its equivalent are required to qualify in another manner for FSA, including an ATB test, an approved State process, etc.). While I would agree that for-profit schools use these tests more than not-for-profits, there many for-profits that do not admit ATB tested students. Further, schools are administering these tests because they are approved by USDOE. The implication in the article is that these tests are being administered as a way for schools to circumvent regulation to admit more students; that is simply not the case. They are admitting students in a manner that is specifically allowed for in the USDOE regulations (which are becoming more stringent for administering ATB tests, effective July 1, 2011).

  • willynilly

    Actually, the test is no more than a gimmick to give the appearance of some flimsy legitimacy. Every applicant, if they can qualify for any form of financial aid, or are able to pay themselves, are admitted regardless of any other factor.

  • 22210714

    Let’s go back to football…..don’t the majority of football players have college experience? Most even graduated! So….why does the NFL test them? Don’t they trust the college degrees?

  • jbarman

    “If the bar is set low enough, virtually anyone can enroll. That’s a problem in and of itself.”

    Well, that makes nearly every community college, commuter school, and branch campus I have ever taught for (on an adjunct basis) a “problem in and of itself”. Each of these regionally-accredited IHEs had, in effect, an open admissions policy – especially when it came to adult students. Any student with a high school diploma or GED was accepted. One IHE allowed military experience to substitute for a high school diploma.

    Every one of these institutions has been a not-for-profit.

    What should be done about those schools?

  • lizziec

    The community colleges test students and require remedial coursework be taken and passed successfully before the students enroll in programs of study, like business, health care, technology and other areas.

    This is a very different model than the for-profits use (the ones that I have seen) where students are enrolled, and placed right into a program’s main courses without the ability to read, reason or (w)rite.

    It is not valid to compare community colleges with for-profits on this point.

  • drangie

    Good question. Does anyone have the answer?

  • jbarman

    Really? The community college students I have taught have had mixed abilities to “read, reason, and write” – and many could do none at a college level. That did not stop them from being passed through to my finance and accounting classes. This is not a dig on community colleges or remediation programs. It exists nearly everywhere I have taught. At one school, between 10-15% of all my students copied and pasted portions of articles (or the entire article) from the Internet (with no attribution) and believed that this was acceptable practice.

    Mr. Donoghue’s assertion is that allowing anyone to enroll is a problem. If it is a problem, then it is a problem that is shared by IHEs regardless of their tax-status.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Mr. Donoghue,

    You miss an important point: the fastest growing segment of for-profit education is 100% online programs. Many of these institutions do not have any entrance exams, and if they do it is a self-controlled, proctored online assessment. These self-controlled online assessments can be taken multiple times, passing scores can equate to 25% or less and there is no way of knowing who is actually taking the test. These institutions use the self-controlled placement exams to “customize” curriculum in order to increase persistence (retention) and graduation rates. Feel free to read between the lines on that one.

    In addition, courses at for-profit online schools are often graded based only on participation in online discussions (posting comments) and assignments — many never require any sort of exam or quantifiable measure of learning. These courses are often less than 6 weeks in length and can consist of 4 or more credit hours.

    It is truly an assembly line or as colleagues used to call it, “a loan mill”. I feel the online programs at for-profit schools deserve the most attention.

    Ed

  • tgraham13

    The nation’s community colleges have open enrollment for the most part. Isn’t that a lower bar?

    You might respond that the tuition isn’t as high at community colleges, but the expense to the taxpayer is actually higher. It’s state taxpayers in addition to the federal taxpayers, but we’re the same people picking up the tab.

    I love the community colleges, by the way. Just making the point.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    lizziec,

    It’s all a part of their sales pitch! Don’t go to a Community College because they will require you to take remedial Math and English (that you need). Come to XYZ University Online and you can jump right into your major courses like Crime Scene Investigation (or whatever course the student shows interest in during the online tour). Slamming community colleges aka overcoming objections (when a prospect tells you they plan to attend a community college) was part of the training.

  • lizziec

    I would not argue with your points here, becuase I know that you are speaking truth as I have taught in community colleges. HOWEVER, as someone who has also taught in the for-profit/online arena, (I hate to scare you here) it’s actually much, much worse there than what you have seen at the community college.

  • lizziec

    Yes, this is correct but remediation is the only chance that any of these students have at being successful not only in college but in the careers they purport to want. It is a waste to throw money at illiterate people enrolled ay any college.

    I also don’t have a problem holding the CC’s to he same standard as the for-profits in terms of admitting students into career and transfer programs only after proof of academic ability. The difference is that the community colleges will continue to exist and the quickie-online-for-profits will go “poof!” and disappear.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    For-profit online colleges have open enrollment. Community Colleges typically require students to take a placement exam such as Accuplacer. Sub-par scored determine the starting point (remediation).

  • lizziec

    Yes and the reason that the attrition is appalling at many community colleges is due to the terrible retention rates in the remedial courses. Many students don’t want to take time to learn to read or write, and want to just get it over with. This attitude contributes significantly to the low retention rates at community colleges often cited (more so than the actual career and transfer programs) and feeds into the false promises made by the for-profits who offer the quickie-online path to a college degree.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    “and the quickie-online-for-profits will go “poof!” and disappear”

    The Career College Association/APSCU is fighting tooth and nail to be sure their Federal Funding is increased, in their minds disappearing is not an option. Look back over the last 25 years. After the Nunn hearings, many of these schools just changed names, morphed, grew, purchased financially strapped regionally accredited institutions and then exploded (in terms of growth).

  • haohtt

    “Here are my conclusions, and they’ll no doubt provoke another barrage of contentless ad hominem attacks. I think it’s fair to ask whether many of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges are qualified to be in college.” Of course it is fair to ask this. My criticisms of your two previous blogs (and now this one) were not ad hominem, since I did not attack you personally, but merely pointed out flaws in your methodology and research ability. If you believe that generalizing to more than 3,000 colleges and universities based on a sample of two (in this case Daymar and Kaplan) is good research that deserves the attention of Chronicle readers, then you are not a competent researcher–even though you might be a wonderful English teacher and a wonderful person. Your first blog about faculty credentials not being available on a couple of websites was refuted by me and by others who quickly found those credentials on the very websites that eluded you. Did you addressed those criticisms? No, you ignored them than merely re-wrote the same blog. Now, given another chance to defend your methodology, you now claim to be the victim of ad hominem attacks and then go ahead and provide more evidence than your expertise in this area is lacking. Do you know that some of the other 3,000 for-profits use SAT, ACT, CPAt, Accuplacer and Pearson MyPlacement, rather than Wonderlic? If someone were to choose two community college entrance exams and generalize them to 1,400 community colleges, you would (hopefully) decry such shabby methodology. Yet you continue to pursue methods that you obviously cannot defend (because you refuse to acknolwedge those who disagree with you). Just please tell us how a sample of two can be generalized to 3,000. You will save a lot of doctoral students a lot of work, when they realize that they only need samples of two.

  • haohtt

    Would that not also be true of many talented athletes?

  • old nassau’67

    “I think it’s fair to ask whether many of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges are qualified to be in college.” As qualified as 4- and 5- star athletes assiduously recruited and enrolled, despite SAT’s and GPA’s far below that college’s average. BUT, at least the $$ that pays for football and for basketball players, their exclusive dorms, training rooms, tutors, cafeterias, jobs, etc.is from alumni, not taxpayers.

  • haohtt

    Just as there are (often wide) differences among public colleges and universities, there are also differences among private sector (for-profit) institutions. While I have difficulty with Dr. Donoghue’s methods, which appear to be compromised by ideology and prejudice, there are obviously institutions that put the pocketbook before the student. In more than two decades of serving as faculty and administrator at public institutions, I saw plenty of instances where the pocketbook, collective bargaining unit, and politics were put before the student. “Bad actors” deserve to be exposed. I happen to work for a small private sector university that tests all incoming students for math, English, reading and technology literacy (using exams from Pearson). Those who score too low are NOT admitted (yes, I said that). Those who score into our pre-college English and math courses must complete and pass them before taking their major courses. Students who do not perform get the Ds and Fs they deserve and are put on academic probation or suspension. Over 90% of students who take our online courses complete them. Students who ask for information on potential salaries are sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site. Admissions officers are on a straight salary. Transfer students applying to our graduate programs are routinely turned down, due to insufficient performance in their undergraduate studies. Maybe my institution is a severe anomaly among for-profits (it is certainly is nowhere near the size of Phoenix or even Grand Canyon U.), but I know at least one that bucks the stereotype.

  • lizziec

    This is also an issue, but a different one. It should also be investigated but it does not absolve the for-profits from their bad behaviors.

  • angela44654

    Ed,

    What you’ve said lines up perfectly with my experiences at Walden University. There was no entrance exam at all. The biggest focus, once I was enrolled, was financial aid! Which, I have to mention, they screwed up and I had no books and an outstanding balance for tuition until I’d nearly finished my first quarter. Anyway, in no way was any attempt made to determine my capability. There were assessments for english and math but these were completely optional.

    In the time I’ve spent there I have only taken three “finals” and they certainly weren’t the type that I had to study for. Looking at my classmates I can say that I am the best student in many of my classes without feeling like I’m bragging or being vain. I feel I’m an average student and I would probably actually have to do some work in a face to face college environment. As it is I have a 3.9 GPA and I devote four to five hours of work a week to school. This is absolutely ridiculous. The feeling of being on an “assembly line”, as you called it, is strong and disconcerting for someone who enrolled expecting to get a real education.

    Angela

  • dpmccain

    As I need my job…yes, I realize this isn’t very brave…but the wolf is already camped on my doorstep, and I am not going to let him in…I will couch my statements with a degree of confusion.

    I have been an adjunct instructor for a little over two years. I could say I work at Kaplan, but it would be a lie…and I am just paranoid enough about my job to wish I had used some clever pen name..too late.

    Anyway, ever since I began teaching for the college , I have wondered about the entrance test. I began as a composition teacher, but too many failed my classes, and I was determined to be unsuitable as a composition teacher, but now teach other courses…in reflection, probably saved my sanity.

    The majority of my students were and are marginally literate, have learning disabilities, or rehab flashbacks (that was a fun quarter). Instructor excellence is determined by how many students remain in your class, and how many earn A’s. Never mind that they cannot read or write beyond what I determine to be about the 4th grade level (in any language). As a former public school teacher who focused on diagnosing learning difficulties and then modifying instruction, I can spot the can but won’t from the can’t and never will be able to wthout severe interventions and a boat load of one to one tutoring for several years. We won’t even discuss that special royalty…the Cut and Paste King.

    There are some excellent students, who somehow stumble in.. bless them..and we have some excellent programs (Computer Network Systems comes to mind. But the students who are the lowest in reading, writing, and math are pushed into Criminal Justice or Visual Communications (visual learners?).. Some students have told me what a joke the entrance test is, but I am not brave enough to do any more than listen…no big S on my tights. However, the illiterate do not earn A’s and they sometimes drop my classes to take the class from an instructor who is “easier”…but I certainly do wonder how some of these students delude themselves in that they will be successful in the workforce (caveat emptor?). Or are they, as I recently read, just in it for the financial aid..because gee…they have fancy cars, laptops, and cutting edge phones…

    I am going to Google Wonderlic, and find out if I am smarter than a football player…who knows?

    Now I really am curious about what test we administer..but my cape is at the cleaners…how convenient.

  • lizziec

    In my opinion there is a special place in Hades for schools who tease learning-disabled and developmentally delayed students (yes, I saw these in my classes) by leading them on to believe that they can be successful in college, can graduate and get a professional job and then throwing them into college classes where they have no chance of surviving. These “colleges” provide no learning support, no tutoring, and have literally zero understanding or comprehension on the kind of intensive services that these students need. Any “college” that admits people who are obviously learning disabled or developmentally delayed to an online program ought to be forbidden from having access to ANY federal money.

    This is the saddest practice, hands down, that I saw in the for-profit trenches

  • dpmccain

    The circumstances you mention are the ones that continue to trouble me each quarter. I simply ensure that my professional ethics are in place, and grade assignments according to the standard I have in place. Many of my students appreciate this, but there are those who seem to camp out in the Dean’s office with complaints about me…because they have always been an A student with perfect attendance…cripes.

  • lizziec

    I wonder if Senator Harkin knows how prevalent this is (admitting these students).

    I wonder what the various advocacy organizations for learning disabled and MH/MR students think about these practices that certainly ruin these students financially and for no reason aside from adding profits to the coffers of the top executives and the shareholders.

    It would be interesting to know their perspectives on this issue

  • davehamilton

    So ramdomly out of 50 questions (assume all MC) you should be able to get 12.5 by just say choosing “C” and the minimum is set at 10? And don’t forget with the Wunderlic they give back points for minority, single mother etc. I think some of those well trained proctors were also found to be coaching during the test; thus they needed to know the answers.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Angela,

    Thanks for sharing. It seems to be a pervasive pattern in the publicly traded online for-profit schools. I’ve talked to thousands of students who had enrolled at other online for-profit colleges and all of the stories are quite similar. An assembly line is an accurate way to describe it. Were you graded on “group work”? Often times one person in the online group does the work, yet the entire group receives the grade even if they didn’t participate?

    I always had the impression that Walden was one of the better ones. I guess that only stems from Franken’s words at the HELP committee hearings. They use the shady lead sources just like the others.

    Ed

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    Let me add, a faulty assembly line with no check for product quality, viability or final outcome.

  • don_heller

    It’s not 45 schools that are test-optional, but hundreds – I believe over 500 – that have dropped the SAT or made it optional. You can see the full list on the FairTest website at
    http://fairtest.org/university/optional

  • mkant69

    How do Ability-to-Benefit Tests, GEDs and a high school diploma compare with the Wonderlic tests and the SAT/ACT?

  • nugatory

    I second points made by ‘rwt’ and ask that Professor Donoghue respond to them. I find it reprehensible that someone so unqualified on the topic can hold court in an academic forum, unchallenged on grounds of fact and professional integrity.

  • johnbarnes

    Ability to benefit tests can be and are gamed; some students go shopping from one for profit admissions office to another, looking for a place that will coach them through an ATB. It’s a good concept but the implementation is a mess.

    The for-profit where I occasionally teach has a rapidly growing GED program that is rapidly filling the gap caused by the absence of officially “remedial” programs. Students who complete it before heading into their gen ed and professional courses are conspicuously better in those classes.

  • willynilly

    In a way, haohtt is correct – but the motives of the institution are very different – and it is a difference that really matters. With respect to athletes, the institution wants the students athletic talent, for which it usually provides free tuition, etc., and makes a “good faith” effort to get the student educated and graduated. It is in the best interest of the institution to retrain the student as long as possible. With respect to the non-profits, the institution wants the students money (or yours and mine re: financial aid) for its staff/faculty and/or stockholders personal enrichment. Little effort is made to ensure student success or to advance the students to completion/graduation. It is in the best interest of the institution to separate the student as quickly as possible, so as to be able to fill the seat quickly with another paying student. This is easily accomplished by these scam institutions, because a very high percentage of the students they enroll have zero ability to benefit.

  • seniorprofessor

    Add me to the list. The side he’s on doesn’t matter to me. FD’s irresponsibility and poor reasoning skills do.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd
  • http://twitter.com/#!/ProprietaryEd ForProfitEd

    nugatory, seniorprofessor and betterschools:

    Those who are obviously stakeholders in for-profit education do not respond to questions or arguments — instead they launch narcissistic tirades or ad hominem attacks against those of us who have had personal experience in the industry and have come to know those that the industry claims to serve.

    Give an example of a good actor! I’m sure they are out there somewhere, but I challenge you to give us an example. How about an example of a good actor with 20%+ online students?

  • lizziec

    My position on the bad actors in the for-profits is by now, well-known here, but I need to make a comment.

    I have personal knowledge of some good actors, and I almost went to work for one in the Cosmetology business as a Regional Director. These schools are providing a good service and are dedicated to the industry they serve and are examples of what I would hope the other for-profits enterprises would aspire to.

    I think we have to make sure that as we have experience and first hand knowledge of some of the most egregious behaviors out there that we do not stoop to the level where some on here seem to reside permanently. I’ve done so, although unintentionally.

    When I lambast the “for-profits”, I am very specifically referring to the for-profits who recruit illiterate and academically incapable students for “degree programs”:

    1) that the students will NEVER be able to complete without gross faculty misconduct involved
    2) that lack the rigor for the “credits” assigned
    3) that are outrageously priced for the “product” they sell, and
    4) that will never result in meaningful employment for the “graduates” that was not available to them PRIOR to getting their worthless piece of paper stamped “DEGREE”

    I do not have any issues with for-profit education, per se. I do, however, take MAJOR umbrage with the behaviors that create obscene wealth for a few at the top at the expense of society’s most vulnerable.

    It is pretty clear from the personal accounts posted here and the increasing news reports on the industry, that education is being used as a vehicle for access to federal student loan and grant monies by too many greedy and shady operators at the expense of thousands of ignorant (and sometimes lazy) people whose financial ruin is almost certain, while their educational outcomes are not, and who do not have the intellectual fortitude to make a well-informed decision on the matter.

    No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it still oinks and lives in a pen.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    Community colleges don’t create black holes of debt in students lives.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    200% True.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NHZO25JZG6AONOHE65YWZ62I3I HeXt

    The for-profits won’t disappear until the federal funding is cut off. As long as they have the ability to access the federal funds, they can offer snake oil and prey on the vulnerable in a never-ending cycle. Most for-profit students hide the pain of the debt. I know I did for years. The students blame themselves and assume they can fix it until it gets too much to bear. If the students don’t speak up, the marketing continues…and so do the schools. Churn and burn. Debt factories.

  • lizziec

    Have you logged your story with Senator Harkin’s committee? Here is a link to his page on for-profit school: http://harkin.senate.gov/forprofitcolleges.cfm

    There is also a link for you to fill out a form, and provide your story. I encourage you to speak up. Tell him what you were promised, and what you got out of the deal.

  • Student_Advocate3

    No, the difference is the Community College charges about $200 per class while the “quickie-online” schools charge $1,500 – $1,800 per class. Marginal students can afford to take a chance on college at a community college where they have a live teacher in front of them to help them succeed. Online they have “facilitators” who give them good grades without really teaching them anything useful. I dare to dream that the online for-profits will “go ‘poof’ and disappear”. The financial futures of every student hoodwinked into believing they will receive a viable education at these diploma mills lies in the balance!

  • Student_Advocate3

    I agree “200%” from first-hand experience. While working for one of the biggest “schools” in the for-profit online industry I witnessed prospective students failing miserably on the entrance exams multiple times, only to “ace” it on their last chance. I witnessed supervisors instructing admissions personnel to go outside the office and use their personal cell phones to call the prospective student to advise them that nobody would know if someone else took the test for them or if they created a new email address they could “proctor the exam” for themselves. Finally, near the end of my time in the Admissions department, they eliminated the entrance exam altogether. At that point, all one needed was a pulse and a social security number to tap into the federal financial aid system and they were “golden”.

    Additionally, I took classes at the school. I, unlike many of my classmates, had been to a “real college” and understood what was expected of college level work. I was in class with many who could not write in complete sentences, could not follow directions, could not comprehend the subject matter of the lesson. As noted by “Forprofited”, our grades were based on our commentary to our fellow classmates. I found myself wasting exorbitant amounts of time trying to glean some minuscule point upon which I could expand, just to meet the requirement. Much to my dismay, I rarely received any feedback on the content of my work. The most “constructive criticism” I received was on the structure of the document submitted, i.e. whether or not my paper met APA standards. While that may be somewhat important to the learning process…I was looking for feedback on my research and point of view rather than whether I placed a period in the correct place in my citation.

    From my experience, I wish to stress, for-profit schools are bending all the rules and are denigrating the college experience that these students are paying so dearly for. While I would agree that this attention needs to be spread across the board to all sectors of higher education, clearly…again, from my experience….online programs at for-profit schools deserve our foremost attention as they are the most egregious offenders.

  • Student_Advocate3

    Kudos to your university for holding high standards. Please note that you are the exception and not the norm in this arena. You, nor your university, need to fear the legislation that is proposed for the intent is to weed out the bad actors and not those who are providing a viable service. Our goal is not to eliminate all for-profit education…only those who prey upon the vulnerable and exploit them for their ability to gain access to federal funding without returning any educational gain to the student.

  • Student_Advocate3

    Thank you for being bold enough to tell the truth.

  • Student_Advocate3

    I witnessed, while “on the inside”, one of my co-workers who was responsible for providing services for students with disabilities, print out a portion of an email from a student that stated, “I have a lerning disbility” and post it in her cubicle as a joke. The department head passed by this posting every day for months and never found it to be objectionable. How much do you really think they gave a “rat’s ass” about those who genuinely needed their help? Those disabled students were an acceptable joke and were nothing more to them than another avenue from which to suck even more federal financial aid monies.

  • Student_Advocate3

    I wish I could ‘like’ this comment 10 times, you nailed it! Yes, there are some good actors, and they deserve to continue doing what they are doing…but you are right on point taking umbrage with those whose only objective is in profits for their shareholders and CEOs with no consideration for the student’s best interest!

  • lizziec

    The problem here is that the value proposition for many of these schools makes them unattractive to people who have the intellectual capacity to look at all the options available to them and make a good decision based on cost, accessibility, quality of education (rigor), and more.

    Most of the people flocking to these factories are not smart enough to realize that they are not learning enough to justify what they are paying, and they are not skilled enough to research how these “degrees” are viewed in the workforce. This makes the “less smart” students ideal for these places.

    Very sad, and troubling.

  • nugatory

    With apologies to RWT, Mr. Donoghue has yet to respond to these comments which would appear to render his article deceptive and poorly conceived. Does he intend to respond?

    QUOTE: “For anyone interested, Wonderlic raw scores of 10 interpolate into an IQ estimate of 80 which is about 1.5 SD below the mean on common standardized IQ assessments (WAIS, WISC, etc. SDs are approximately 15). It is essential to understand the non-linearity between raw scores and standardized scores before commenting on such topics. To do otherwise is to deceive.

    “While they are not common, we do have doctorates who graduated public universities with IQs in this range, and many more who earned associate’s and bachelor’s degrees with IQs in this range. Although the issue is a bit technical for this kind of forum, the range of IQ differences under discussion are material for college education largely in terms of time-on-task not mastery; i.e., the lower IQ translates into extended time-to-mastery. Setting aside his dislike for for-profit schools, Mr. Donoghue seems to be suggesting that we should close certain doors of opportunity to those whose IQs are below average by some measure and to some extent. I don’t know where he would set the IQ bar, by what metric, or how he would allocate the power to make such decisions. While I recognize that some people believe in this kind of policy, it is not a social policy I would pursue.”

  • drdonnaw

    Catching up on Chronicle articles this week certainly drew me to this recent posting. My “welcoming” saga to my academic academic administrative position occurred  several years ago. As an out-of-state finalist, I was invited to the campus interview, but told to make my own travel arrangements (flight, hotel, car rental). I received no communication about who would meet me at the college, no driving directions, travel reimbursement forms/procedures–get the picture? As an experienced professional educator, I should have known better than to have accepted the position, which I did in the interest of a new professional challenge! I also thought that in the interest of collaboration, we all need to help one another and not stand on ceremony to get things done.  A challenge it was–no voice mail (go and purchase an answering machine at the office supply store), requesting my assistant be on the lookout for two surplus filing cabinets (you can go out and buy some for yourself), requesting an appropriate desk chair from facilities since the straight-back dining room chair did not fit. In this case, what arrived was a desk chair with broken leg, torn, dirty and non-working height adjustment. Few individuals dropped by to say “hello and welcome”. Those who did make their way to my office were not the Welcome Wagon. Instead, they were the “Personal Agenda Wagon”, requesting favors, reduced workloads, travel money, etc. Like others who have posted to this message blog, I was more than stymied. Unlike others, I should have learned early on with these events, that the workplace environment would not improve–it certainly did not. What should have been my clues to exit, lingered for almost four years–thinking that I could survive by determination and fortitude.  I did leave and left academic administration permanently.  

  • kinnewoman
  • Guest

    Music teachers are the right kind of gays in the eyes of the mainstream liberal media, so they are allowed to sleep with underaged boys without being demonized. 

  • jffoster

    For the record, you will note I used the pluperfect subjunctive.  I know of no cases where this actually happened in a Music College / Conservatory. Perhaps I should have written “If this were to have happened…..” to make the hypothetical abundantly clear.

  • cwinton

    The decision to play the last 3 games, whatever the motivation, at least fits with how teams that have been placed on probation are treated (although some might argue this case rises to the level of the one at SMU, where the NCAA required the school to shut down its program).  PSU will be bowl eligible, so the real proof in the pudding will be how they handle possible post season games.  To my thinking the school should announce it will not play beyond already scheduled games (which also means they would not contend for the Big 10 championship).  The argument that you would be punishing innocent players doesn’t wash, since infractions by one or more players can lead to the same kind of outcome.  Isn’t that one of the lessons teamwork is supposed to teach?

  • moehnandasc

    Perhaps this might be considered. Play the reaming scheduled games as to cancel them will hurt not only Penn State, but the Universities they are playing. Accept a bowl bid so as not to hurt the players that have worked so hard, but donate all the proceeds from the bowl game to an orginiztion that helps protect and heal victims of this type of abuse.
    Just a thought

  • sand6432

    If the incidents had involved a currently employed coach and been recent events, then cancellation might have been appropriate. But to take such a step in response to an incident involving a nonemployee occurring nearly a decade ago seems extreme. But I do like the idea of donating any bowl game profits PSU makes to child abuse charities (to the extent that Big 10 revenue sharing allows).—Sandy Thatcher

  • victorl

    Penn State is only beginning to learn what the actual “costs” are to arrogance and contempt toward the truly vulnerable.  The students at Penn State who feel they had “nothing to do” with the priority given to sports over other issues are learning that there really is a price to pay for keeping one’s head in the sand (or bleachers, or sky boxes).  Penn State should not just bemoan their fall from grace (if that is how they consider what’s gone on), but reflect on what else might have fallen by the wayside with this coordinated lack of oversight of the university’s athletic program.  If such a horrific and egregious disregard could be sustained for so many years at such an high administrative level by so many, can this truly be the only crime, abuse, etc., that has been brushed aside in the name of leaving the school’s image (and sports profits) untarnished?  An ethical lapse like what’s gone on at Penn State did not emerge from nowhere.  This is a culture of “no-higher-priority” athletic prominence.  I’ll be surprised if it were the only instance we learn about. 

    In part, this ethos gets sustained by pandering to what your “customers” (students) want, rather than what faculty, educators, administrators, etc., must understand a university to be.  They’ve proven that they know how to run Penn State as a business, and can show a profit, and can please their share-holders, advertisers, and sports alumni.  It might be nice if they could come round to a sense of what a non-profit educational organization should be doing, and how this is so very different from big business, or, as we’ve seen, a “winner-take-all” athletics contest.  It will be interesting to follow the trajectory Penn State’s trustees chart as the school moves forward.  Will there be any reprioritization?

  • academicvalues

    FYI Penn State is a fine academic institution.

  • dtroop

    This just in from Johns Hopkins: http://web.jhu.edu/thankyou

  • http://twitter.com/sacredheartuniv sacredheartuniv
  • dtroop

    And from Lehigh U.: http://www.lehigh.edu/holiday2011/

  • davi9187

    A short, but cute holiday greeting from the Pirates at Southwestern University:
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthwesternUniversity

  • http://twitter.com/daless14 Anthony D’Alessio

    Merry Christmas from Newman University!
    http://www.youtube.com/user/newmanuniv?feature=mhee

  • http://www.facebook.com/erinedlund Erin Edlund

    Check out ours: http://dctc.edu/go/holiday/