next »

[Forums Moderator]

According to an analysis by a Stanford University business professor, for-profit colleges like the University of Phoenix have more in common with a chain of health clubs than with traditional colleges and universities. They spend a much greater percentage of their revenues on recruiting students, his model shows, and a much smaller proportion on teaching and support programs. Does his analysis support claims that for-profit colleges shortchange their students? Or are they simply more efficient? Does the model overstate the disparity of spending on recruitment? What does this broad-brush model fail to show?
Read more...

[%sig%]

[chemprof]

  Hmmm, an interesting study.  It is pretty clear that FACULTY are better off at traditional institutions.  Who would want to teach somewhere for a low salary and no academic freedom?  It is not as clear whether or not STUDENTS are better or worse off.  One one hand, students would be taught by faculty who were not as qualified as those at traditional instututions (the qualified faculty will go to places that offer more money and freedom).  On the other hand, traditional institutions hire a lot of people that are good reseachers, but poor teachers.  There is probably more accountability at the for-profit institutions.  Faculty who are poor teachers can simply be fired.
  I'd like to hear more.  How do the facilities compare from one type of college to another?  Do students who transfer from a for-profit institution to a traditional one do better or worse than a student who spends all four years at the traditional college?  What about the other way around?  Has anyone looked at the average salaries of majors at the different colleges?  Has anyone compared outgoing GRE scores to incoming SAT scores?  There is some interesting research to be done.

[John]

Are traditional not-for-profit colleges also short changing students?  They, like the for-profits, also spend lots of money recruiting and retaining students, plus great gobs of money on research and intercollegiate athletics.

[%sig%]

[Faust]

I have seen both sides of this argument and there are pros and cons for both. I have also attend both types of schools and cannot say I have developed a preference. I do enjoy the personal interaction of a traditional school, but it is possible to acheve much more at a quicker pace at a for profit. The for profit schools also tend to be on the cutting edge technologically, where the traditional schools often lag behind. I would not necessarily agree that the better tachers are at traditional schools - they often do both. They keep their traditional teaching position, while moonlighting at an online program at a for-profit. I think both types of schools can succeed and offer differering experiences for their students.

[That different?]

One thing that these for-profits can do is pay you a lot for in demand fields.  I disagree that they always underpay faculty.  There are two of these schools in my field and all faculty make 100,000 plus AS LONG as they are bringing in students.

What I see that they don't do much of is research or service; not very valued at the schools and why should it be?

[Former Humanities]

I once taught at for-profit, but never again.  I didn't pick my text book and I didn't write the lectures. I had no academic freedom.  I was able to edit the lectures to get rid of the mistakes that the original writer(s) made.  Yes, lectures that had been examined by many eyes and perhaps "brains" still had mistakes of fact.

I had a supervisor reading every e-mail I sent to students.  I was told keeping the students happy was more important than teaching them  The people learning were customers, not students who needed instruction and guidance.

The students evaluate the teachers.  If the rating is below 3.30 out of 4, the school says goodbye to the teacher.  I got a 3.29.  Even graduate students at top universities don't need a 3.30 to remain in the program.

While the students may get trained in the cutting edge technology for today, their skills are soon dated. They have none of the skills needed for lifelong education.  They may learn the bits and bytes of a computer program, but don't learn how to write documentation, memos, and reports. The university said a bachelors degree could be earned in 3 years.  That means they are missing 25% of their education.

The university did give me some good training that I was able to take to my other teaching jobs.Faust wrote:

> I have seen both sides of this argument and there are pros and
> cons for both. I have also attend both types of schools and
> cannot say I have developed a preference. I do enjoy the
> personal interaction of a traditional school, but it is
> possible to acheve much more at a quicker pace at a for profit.
> The for profit schools also tend to be on the cutting edge
> technologically, where the traditional schools often lag
> behind. I would not necessarily agree that the better tachers
> are at traditional schools - they often do both. They keep
> their traditional teaching position, while moonlighting at an
> online program at a for-profit. I think both types of schools
> can succeed and offer differering experiences for their
> students.

[mc]

I am a dept. chair at one of the for-profit Online schools mentioned in the article, and I don't think it is clear that faculty are better off at traditional schools, despite higher salaries.  Good teachers are more than happy to trade the convenience of working online for driving to the school.  In fact, many of my teachers work for on-ground schools, and moonlight online; many are experienced, published, and tenured.  If salaries are low, the tradeoff of convenience is apparently worth it (there is no lack of qualified applicants).  Some teachers are overseas, and bring that perspective into the classroom as they live it.

The lack of research in for-profits means a focus on teaching.  Is that a bad thing?  I think there is room for more institutions that do not add much to the volumes of research occuring in the country, but rather make sure every teacher in the classroom is doing her job of teaching students.

Part of my job is to go into each classroom, and see exactly what prof's are doing in their classes. There are no athletes waltzing in late to exams with permission from a star-struck professor, the Dean, or the Chancellor, and there is no 'demonstration' outside the window.  No professor is continually proselytizing, or habitually slapping students down for stating oppossing views.  The focus is on learning the material, which is paramount for adult learners who have already seen protests, athletes, and pet causes come and go, and just want to make a better life for themselves and their families.

There is no lack of academic freedom at this online for-profit.  Yes, classes are prepared for instructors, which most consider a blessing.  But the cutting edge technology gives instructors more freedom; with a touch of a button, teachers can add a new discussion board, assign a new reading, send everyone the latest book update, or send them to read today's hot blog.  If something does not work in a class, a teacher can change that in an instance, or ask the Chair to have it changed in all sections of the class that same day.  

I agree with Faust above; there is room for traditional and for-profits to succeed.  For-profits are just another choice for students, for whom traditional education is simply not an option--such as students with limited mobility, students who must work, or who live overseas or in remote areas.

[taught A&P at Sanford Brown]

I taught Anatomy & Physiology at Sanford Brown College in St. Louis.  The main difference wasn't with grade inflation as much as lack of failing.  There also were insufficient resources and equipment.  

I taught a course of 67 students which was my total lab section as well!  I did this with few dissection specimens and limited skeletal elements.

After the third test I was called in to the Dean's office.  I had 4 F's and 2 A's among the 67 students (and about 20 D's).

They wanted me to pass the 4 F students.  Ultimately, if you earned an F in the program they dumped you.  I told the Dean that many of the F students deserved D's, but I could not find it in myself to pass someone who only earned a total of 2% on three major exams.  They wanted these people to pass.  So I quit.

Must admit that the resources weren't that much different from what I saw in the Louisiana Public University where I later taught; however, there was clearly no interest in academics.  Louisiana was just underfunded, at Sanford Brown making money was the goal, not educating.

Having taught in Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas I have to laugh at the idea that for-profit institutions have any resemblance to universities in any of those states other than Louisiana.  Louisiana's economic situation before Katrina was so destitute the colleges could not afford minor items.  Despite this, even louisiana's poorly funded institution had education as its goal and the faculty were in a learning atmosphere rather than a diploma mill.

Been there.

[eyes wide open]

This is another absurd analysis that assumes traditional expenditure patternd are inherently superior. More foolishness from a so-called academic who had already "the answer."  My alma mater (a state university) sends fundraising literature and phones me after I give simply wanting more. One only has to look at capmpuses that look like resots and big-time college sports to see that the so called "not-for-profits" are money siphons of the first degree. CDompare what for-profits spend on recruitment versus what state schools spend on student scholarships (academic and sports) and what state schools spend on development offices.

[to eyes wide open]

I agree with you in part.  the difference is not in what is not in the $ amount but the fraction spent on attracting students. It is also in how the institution enforces academic standards.  the for-profit I taught at had no academic standards, although its total budget was undoubtedly less than a university.

[jt]

I have problems with the following paragraph by mc.

''There is no lack of academic freedom at this online for-profit. Yes, classes are prepared for instructors, which most consider a blessing. But the cutting edge technology gives instructors more freedom; with a touch of a button, teachers can add a new discussion board, assign a new reading, send everyone the latest book update, or send them to read today's hot blog. If something does not work in a class, a teacher can change that in an instance, or ask the Chair to have it changed in all sections of the class that same day. ''


1.  No instructor with academic integrity consider classes that are prepared for them to be a blessing.  Such "canned" classes are demeaning to the instructor in so far as the instructor's informed personal professional point of view is ignored.  Secondly, by canning the classes, the instructor's chances for professional development, by simply learning new things about her specialty, hence becoming more knowledgeable, are diminished. Finally, why require instructors to have graduate degrees.  According to the canned classes scheme, an associate's degree would do fine.



2.  Academic freedom has nothing to do with ''cutting edge technology''.   History suggests that the all but a small fraction of the latest ''hot blog'' will be deemed nonsense, or not worthy of consideration in the near future.




3.  Obession with the  latest, and apparent lack of regard for fundamentals,  reveals the misunderstanding of education:  To be educated as a ____ amounts to having learned to think like a ____.   So, a person  becomes a computer programmer, not merely by concentrating on the details of latest language pushed by Microsoft, but by learning how to approach problems from a programmer's point of view--applying principles of problem solving and program design.  The language is merely the medium for  teaching such principles.


There is, by the way an apparent contradiction between canning classes and keeping up to date:  The former implies that knowledge is static, that it can be placed in a box.  The latter implies the contrary.
 
4.  The last sentence in the quote suggest that there is virtue in having all sections of a class covering exactly the same material in exactly the same way.  Sounds like McDonalds.  Presupposes that there is one right way, and many wrong ways to conduct a class.  



MC ascribes noble sentiments to the for-profits.  In the third paragraph:

''The focus is on learning the material, which is paramount for adult learners who have already seen protests, athletes, and pet causes come and go, and just want to make a better life for themselves and their families."

and in the closing:

"For-profits are just another choice for students, for whom traditional education is simply not an option--such as students with limited mobility, students who must work, or who live overseas or in remote areas."


By definition, for-profits are in the business of making money for the investors--helping people improve themselves, or providing opportunities for the disadvantage is merely a fortunate side effect.

[John]

And, lest we forget, UOP is actually regionally ACCREDITED by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools!  So much for the accreditation process.

[%sig%]

[A view from the inside]

I have worked in the Admissions department for one of these schools for the last couple of years -- both as a front line "Sales Rep" and as a mid-level manager.  Make no mistake, increasing value for shareholders trumps the stated # 1 purpose that "students come first."  Currently our school is on probation for (among other things) our advertising and Admissions practices.  Every day one of the top level executives comes around and asks "How many enrollments do you have for me today?"  The corporate culture in this University is very much based on driving sales to increase profits.

I hold several advanced degrees obtained from traditional schools (both state and private).  Yes, For-Profit schools are different, and yes, they are a lot like a health club chain.  But would I attend one of these For-profit institutions?  Perhaps I would.  They seem to fill a niche that traditional schools have been slow or reluctant to fill -- namely that of meeting the career training needs of working adults.  The quality of education is generally pretty good  -- and the standardized format ensures that quality throughout the program.  The MBA program at my current school is not nearly rigorous as the one I attended at the state university, but it would definately fit the needs of someone who has worked 15-20 years as an executive.  These schools definately fill a niche.

My biggest criticsm is that, because we need to recruit so heavily in order to drive up profits, we accept a high majority of students for whom this type of education is not apprpriate.  Is that really in the student's best interest?  Oft-times I think it is not.

[%sig%]

[Another Inside View]

I am currently working at one of the Art Institute locations.  The Art Institute is a for-profit school that offers associate's and bachelor's degrees in graphic design, game art and design, culinary arts, etc.  I admit I had some trepidation about taking work here because of the reputation that for-profit schools have in general, but my job search was limited to a small area by several factors, so I decided to see what working at a for-profit was like.

My job is a lot of work; I teach five classes of composition and literature year-round (4 quarters), serve on 2 committees, and participate in many other school-related functions.  However, my pay is certainly on the same scale as if I were an "instructor" at a university in this area, and not even too bad compared to what new assistant profs. in my state make (and I've been full time for less than a year).

Additionally, although I do acknowledge the pressures on my school to recruit students (it is, after all, a business), I am proud of the fact that everyone I know at this school, from the staff of the admissions department to the administrators to the instructors, is dedicated to assuring that these same students receive a quality education in their fields.  I cannot tell you how many serious, innovative, and smart people we have here.  We also have a faculty development coordinator who works nearly round the clock to ensure that we are all teaching to the best of our ability--there is a commitment to teaching here that I've seldom seen during my time in nonprofit education, where undergrads are often "pawned off" on overworked and underpaid graduate teaching fellows or harried adjuncts who seldom receive feedback about their performance.

I have a great deal of freedom in my classroom; although we have a standard syllabus (a basic outline) and pick textbooks together to ensure a certain homogeneity in our instruction from course section to section, we are free to develop our own lesson plans to accomodate our own style.  I've never felt restricted here in what I can do in the classroom.  My students, by the way, show no appreciable difference in skills from the students I've taught at universities while receiving my MFA and PhD.  Lately, it seems like the new students' writing skills are becoming even more advanced.

I would suggest that, although some for-profit institutions should be scrutinized closely, in the world of for-profit (much like the world of nonprofit), the quality of education can vary greatly.  I think we should all resist setting up a scenario in which the "nonprofits" view the "for-profits" as cartoonish generalizations, rubbing their hands together in greedy anticipation of stealing the money of the next student.  Haven't those of us in the liberal arts learned the futility of setting up binary oppositions?  The culture where I teach is different from a university or community college: different, but not "worse."  I work for a company that realizes that if the students are successful (not just making it through, but successful in their industries post-graduation), we will be too.

[%sig%]

[good ole boys]

I hate to say it, but my experience teaching in Louisiana and observing the SACS accreditation process makes me question whether it means anything.  The budgets I had in LA were the lowest I have seen in four states. The standards approached a joke.

I don't support for-profit schools, but one has to question whether accreditation means anything more than membership in the good-ole-boy club of academia.