next »

[Telesco]

According to


Author: Telesco
Date:   01-19-06 20:42
"
Burd's AIU and for profits slam in my opinion comes from an elitist position

"

Slam?

elitist position

Note well--the second is either ad hominem or simple name  calling.  An argument might be more convincing.  

That there are problems with AIU should be clear from the numerous violations listed in the SACs  document reporting that the school has been placed on probation.  

http://www.sacscoc.org/disclosure/dec2005/American%20InterContinental%20U.pdf

[yet another ex CEC employee]

01-20-06 17:28  is not from Telesco but from me.  Sorry I did not enter my own moniker (I entered nothing)

[Professor Geoffrey Alderman]

Promises and Profits: A Personal But Not Uninformed View from across the Pond

In its issue of 13 January the Chronicle carried a sensational article by one Stephen Burd, alleging that American InterContinental University - or possibly only AIU’s Los Angeles campus - has been pumping-up enrolment “while skimping on education.”

This response is written, in a purely private and personal capacity, without prejudice, by a lifelong academic whose CV and bibliography are publicly available at his own website: www.geoffreyalderman.com .  This Oxford-educated academic happens to hold a senior position at AIU’s London campus, having held senior positions at a number of other prestigious universities, including that of Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Standards in the federal University of London (which is not-for-profit).

I do not put finger to word-processor in order to defend everything that has happened at AIU’s LA campus. Clearly, the LA campus had problems, which the University is now addressing.  But I should point out that the pressure to recruit students is felt at all higher-education institutions, no matter how funded. I can think of at least two publicly-funded UK universities where vice-chancellors have pressured employees to enrol as students in order to avoid heavy penalties by the English universities funding council for missing annual intake targets. This is neither illegal nor immoral.  

At AIU-London I have never come under any pressure to recruit students just to meet targets. On the contrary, we do reject applicants and we do fail students their degrees. Academic standards are paramount - as the reports of our external examiners attest. In maintaining and enhancing standards I have drawn from CEC - and from AIU’s Governing Board (a body which, curiously, does not feature in Mr Burd’s exegesis) - nothing but complete support.

Mr Burd alleges that the problems he discovered at Los Angeles “do not appear to be isolated to the one campus.”  Will he name the other AIU campuses at which in his informed and expert view these problems are to be found?  What other campuses have he and his investigative team investigated? And what have they found there?

Some of the problems that have emerged at Los Angeles seem to me to derive at least in part from federal and accreditation rules whose wisdom is questionable to say the least.  A recent contributor to the Chronicle’s Forum has drawn attention to AIU’s alleged violations of the Southern Association’s accreditation principles, as published on the SACS website.  SACS apparently accuses AIU of not fully embracing a philosophy of institutional effectiveness.  The truth is [as I suggested in my presentation at the SACS annual meeting last month] that SACS deliberately fosters a culture of paper-based compliance.  The SACS Principles of Accreditation say nothing of the slightest value about academic standards, which SACS nowhere defines. Its approach is entirely that of the check-box.

I doubt that there is one SACS-accredited university at which SACS inspectors will find a one hundred per cent compliance with all its paper-based rules.  I challenge Mr Burd to name one - just one - that is a hundred per cent compliant. And if he meets this challenge, I further challenge him to demonstrate that, simply because that institution is a hundred per cent compliant in terms of the criteria SACS believes are important , its quality of student support is - therefore - of the highest and its academic standards are - therefore - appropriate.

I have worked in university education (public, private, not-for-profit, for-profit) all my working life.  I have never worked in an institution so caring about its students as AIU - London.

Insofar as I am able I associate myself entirely with the remarks made by my colleague at our South Florida campus, Dr Telesco.

Professor Geoffrey Alderman
MA DPhil (Oxon), FRHistS, FRSA, FICPD, MIQA, MCMI

geoffreyalderman@hotmail.com

+44-20-8205-7168

[yet another ex CEC employee]

Professor Alderman has missed a couple of points about the "spirit of accreditation"  that suggests he is not  all that familiar with the basic philosophy of the SACS  accreditation process, and is committing certain logical fallacies.

1.  "SACS deliberately fosters a culture of paper-based compliance. "

As in any auditing process, lack of  documentation amounts to lack of evidence that the institution is following accepted practices.  I would not expect SACS to take verbal reports as evidence of compliance.

2.  "I doubt that there is one SACS-accredited university at which SACS inspectors will find a one hundred per cent compliance with all its paper-based rules. "

This objection would have more force if there were no difference between the crime of murder and the crime of violating parking regulations (meter runs out).  SACS does recognize that there is such a difference in compliance failures.  


3. "I challenge Mr Burd to name one - just one - that is a hundred per cent compliant. And if he meets this challenge, I further challenge him to demonstrate that, simply because that institution is a hundred per cent compliant in terms of the criteria SACS believes are important , its quality of student support is - therefore - of the highest and its academic standards are - therefore - appropriate."

OK,  but  there are institutions,  programs are acceptable to certain state regularity     bodies (http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html)whose , yet are not acredited by any of the regional agencies.  So if any instution does not wish to play the SACS accreditation game, they can abstain.

Of course, SACS does not dictate teaching methods, etc to its member institutions.  Rather,  SACS is interested in determining whether the institution is behaving rationally in carrying out its advertised mission.

[Professor Geoffrey Alderman]

May I briefly answer "yet another ex CEC employee?"

I do not accept that "as in any auditing process, lack of documentation amounts to lack of evidence that the institution is following accepted practices."  Paper evidence can be manufactured, can't it?  I worked for a number of years as an academic auditor and teaching inspector with the [UK] Higher Education Quality Council and the English universities' funding council.  There is only one sure way of assessing teaching quality: go into the classroom and hear and see what is being taught and how it is being taught.  Why should we not accept this verbal evidence?

Incidentally, I have today had an email inquiry about my SACS presentation in Atlanta last month.  Whilst this paper has not as yet been published, it drew on materials and views I made public in my article "Compliance or Quality?" published in the College and University Journal last summer.

[%sig%]

[yet another ex CEC employee]

Professor Alderman wrote:

"Paper evidence can be manufactured, can't it?"

and

"There is only one sure way of assessing teaching quality: go into the classroom and hear and see what is being taught and how it is being taught. Why should we not accept this verbal evidence? "

Regarding the first comment-- Yes, it can be manufactured.  But it would certainly be tough to produce documents of the size required.  Moreover, SACS visitation teams do not rely on the documents alone, but interview faculty, students etc.  If the self study document does not reflect oservable practices on the campus, then SACS is going to be displeased.

Regarding the second  comment--SACS is not merely concerned with assessment of the  teaching excellence of the individual instructors.  A casual perusal of the SACS    
standards makes this clear.  See
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF

Finally
" I do not accept that "as in any auditing process, lack of documentation amounts to lack of evidence that the institution is following accepted practices."

SACS would disagree, and so would any regional accreditation agency.  In any case, note that documentation provides evidence.  I do not claim that the evidence is conclusive.

[Professor Geoffrey Alderman]

The systemic fault with the SACS accreditation model - and this holds true in my view for all the Regionals - is that it is preoccupied with inputs - understandably so since it is far less of a hassle to mandate and measure inputs than to evaluate outputs in the activity we call higher education.  This preoccupation pervades the SACS "Principles of Accreditation."  Whereas I, as an educator, am much more concerned with outputs, and especially with the question 'what value has my university added to the intellectual abilities and competencies of its students by the time they graduate?'  SACS seems to me unconcerned with this central issue. Indeed, I can easily envisage a situation in which an institution complied religiously with all the SACS principles but actually provided a poor educational experience for its students.

[%sig%]

[yet another ex CEC employee]

A: "The systemic fault with the SACS accreditation model - and this holds true in my view for all the Regionals - is that it is preoccupied with inputs - understandably so since it is far less of a hassle to mandate and measure inputs than to evaluate outputs in the activity we call higher education."

What inputs are you talking about:  
 1.  the documentation required by SACS
 2.  the students admitted to the college or university in question?

A: "Whereas I, as an educator, am much more concerned with outputs, and especially with the question 'what value has my university added to the intellectual abilities and competencies of its students by the time they graduate?' SACS seems to me unconcerned with this central issue. "  

On the contrary, to quote from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF :

2.12 The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan and demonstrates that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. (Quality Enhancement Plan)


3.3 Institutional Effectiveness 3.3.1 The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

A: "Indeed, I can easily envisage a situation in which an institution complied religiously with all the SACS principles but actually provided a poor educational experience for its students."

Two comments here:  Details and examples might be nice.

Secondly,  It might be argued that  Hume could envision a world in which the laws of physics were suspended.  There is nothing logically necessary about physical theory or educational theory.   Education and phyisics are empirical- hence nothing is certain about either.

[another ex-CEC employee]

Prof. Alderman..

I've read your comments thus far, and you have successfully turned the topic from "for-profit education" to a tangled argument on the value of accreditation. Well, everything in the original article is true, as I stated in an earlier posting. I have actually spoken to you on several conference calls, specifically those on Academic Integrity. CEC has none. The things discussed in the article and in this forum may not have happen in London, but they happen here, and not just in the AIU campuses. (I worked in another division) I had a CEC corporate VP sit in a room, look me in the eye and say that "60 Minutes" did a bad job of investigating and that what the report revealed were a few disgruntled students and ex-employees. I considered it a bold-face lie and insult to my intelligence. I could have walked down the hall of the campus and found more unhappy students, faculty and staff in one building, probably even one classroom,  than "60 Minutes" found. So, I guess they just didn't do enough investigating. AIU London may not play games with graduation and placement numbers, they may not enroll "ghost" students, but it happens here, a lot. I have seen it. Was I imagining it all?  I think not.

[Dr. Telesco]

Is there any match between the caliber - credentials and credibility of an established, well known and published academic such as Dr. Geoffrey Alderman who has countless pages on a Google search (to my limited 3) and those who identify themselves only as "former CEC employees" - Does that not speak volumes?

[Professor Geoffrey Alderman]

I find it odd- to say the least - that "another ex-CEC employee" should find it necessary to post comments anonymously when I and Dr Telesco have not done so.
Be that as it may, we can all agree that there were problems at the Los Angeles campus of AIU.  In my judgment, however, the article by Mr Burd attempted, without evidence, to visit the sins of Los Angeles upon the entire university. My purpose in drawing attention to the SACS accreditation model was to emphasise that where an accreditation model places far too much reliance on inputs, it is hardly surprising that some at least of the institutions so accredited come to believe that compliance equals quality - which is (of course) a nonsense. The SACS model posits that if your faculty are credentialled at a predetermined level, if you have "qualified" [whatever that might mean] adminsitrative and academic officers, if your library staff are "qualified" - and so on - therefore a quality education will result.  This assumption is quite unwarranted.  I note, incidentally, that my criticism of the inputs-dominated approach of the Regionals is shared by a number of distinguished US Congressmen and educators.

[%sig%]

[another ex-CEC employee]

The anonymous postings are to protect myself from being sued. Also, I still have friends that work for CEC and share my feelings about CEC and other for-profit institutions. I do not want to bring about any retaliatory actions against them. (I've seen that happen before also) The campus that I worked at is currently being investigated by several state and federal agencies, as are ALL of the CEC owned schools in my state. My credentials are quite good, else I would not be employeed by a fully accredited State University.

But again, this discussion forum is not about anonymous postings, or my credentials. It's about the investigation done by The Chronicle of Higher Education of the improper and unethical activites practices by a CEC owned institution. Questioning my credentials is just a way to distract others from the true discussion. Attack at will...but it won't change the bottom line...and that's all CEC is worried about isn't it...the bottom line?

[yet another ex CEC employee]

Dr. T wrote:

"Is there any match between the caliber - credentials and credibility of an established, well known and published academic such as Dr. Geoffrey Alderman who has countless pages on a Google search (to my limited 3) and those who identify themselves only as "former CEC employees" - Does that not speak volumes?"


Several comments may be made:

Professor Alderman is an historian, not an exprert in accreditation.  While his work may be impressive as a historian, that does not imply that his pronouncements regarding the SACS have merit.  Moreover, his posts indicate indicate that there he does not understand the accreditation process.  For example:

Firstly , he does not understand the reasons that SACS requires the self study document  as part of the accreditation review process.

Secondly, he  mistakenly believes that SACS is not concerned with measuring student outcomes (outputs).

Thirdly,  he has stated that the SACS requirements do not imply (logically, that is)  that accredited institutions will be of high caliber.    

The third point is most serious, Alderman appears to demand certainty in empirical matters- a fundamental failure to understand the nature of science itself.

It is clear that Dr. Telesco's representation on Professor Alderman's statements about the SACS process as authoritive amounts to a fallacy.

As long as fallacies are committed-- to complement Dr. Telesco's ad hominem-- Of course a senior person at AIU London and A professor at another AIU campus are interested in defending AIU whether or not that defense is rational.

[another ex-CEC employee]

To "yet another ex-CEC employee" regarding your last posting...Bravo my friend!!

[another academic]

anyone who is interested in a great critique of SACS should read Alderman's paper on it.  Additionally, anyone who has been through the process of re-accreditation knows that the standards are not applied equally - accreditors interpretations are arbitrary and ambiguous.  Lastly, Bravo to Telesco and Alderman who are loyal to an institution.  It is clear to us that "former employees" obviously have an ax to grind.