next »

[a niche??]

actually the niche they are filling, and many universities are starting to inhabit is the "fulfill the get-rich-quick" mentality.  Get a degree in less time than it takes!

Lets face it.

A quality degree requires a quality investment of time, money and effort.  

For profit schools and accelerated programs are nothing more than academic get rich quick schemes.

People graduating from these programs have a degree, but they are not as qualified nor are they as competitive as traditional students.  

This is the biggest joke on academic standards in the US, the problem is the joke aint funny and nobody is laughing!

[Federal Dog]

"People graduating from these programs have a degree, but they are not as qualified nor are they as competitive as traditional students.

This is the biggest joke on academic standards in the US, the problem is the joke aint funny and nobody is laughing!"


Only 31% of "traditional" college graduates' having proficient literacy skills, after laying out over $100,000 in tuition and fees alone,  is the biggest (sickest?) joke here.

Are online students less literate than that? Really?

[Linda J]

MC, I think you have, indeed, tried to compare apples and oranges in your post.  The comparison being made is between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.  However, you seem to imply that for-profit schools are completely housed online.  This, as we all know, is not so.

Certainly, for-profits are leaning more towards online learning--for several logical reasons.  First, it is much cheaper to support a web portal than a brick-and-mortar school.  Second, there is a great demand these days for online degree programs.  Third, the potential to enrol online students--where distance is not a factor--is exponentially greater than geographic limitations.  All three of these reasons share a common denominator--profit.  Thus, for-profits are proceding with their online schools at insatiable rates.

Nevertheless, not-for-profits (both public and private) have been increasing their online presence--albeit, usually at a slower pace.

Currently, I teach online solely for several different institutions--for-profit, not-for-profit, private, public.  This was a considered decision I made three years ago.  As you mentioned, I enjoy the flexibility--both in time and travel.  And, with the array of schools for which I am able to teach, I now earn considerably more than I ever did as a full-time instructor (this even assumes a benefits package which now comes out of my personal pocket).

You mention that, at for-profits, "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."

This is certainly true.  However, as a former professor at a brick-and-mortar for-profit, I certainly know that MANY students waltz in late--for myriad reasons.  And, as long as the accreditation board doesn't find out or find fault, faculty are urged to accept this behavior from students--in the name of the mighty RETENTION.

I'm also curious to know the problem you have with demonstrations outside the window.  Aren't these the truest sign of what this country is supposed to stand for?  Aren't they clear and specific examples of critical thinking?

Finally, I'd like to suggest that you may have two logical fallacies in your post.  First, you suggest  "The lack of research in for-profits means a focus on teaching. Is that a bad thing?"  Of course it's not a bad thing.  However, you continue by stating that many of your teachers "moonlight online."  Thus, they are far greater distracted than they would be by doing relevant research.  Secondly, you state, "No professor is continually proselytizing, or habitually slapping students down for stating oppossing [sic] views."  Correct.  Administrators make sure that for-profit instructors do not "rock the boat" (again, going back to retention efforts).  Yet, isn't this quite the reverse of the "academic freedom" you aver exists at your for-profit university?

[%sig%]

[Linda J]

Accreditation (especially regional) is an essential component in the for-profit business plan.  Without it, these schools could not offer government financed grants and loans.  Greater than 85% of the income received at for-profits comes from these sources.

Yet, since the government enacted stricter regulations in the 1980's (to combat, once again, the growing number of diploma mills), regional accreditation boards continue to grow laxer in their requirements and oversight (most of these startling changes have taken place since the Bush administration).

At one for-profit for which I taught, the parent company and local administrators consistently acted in opposition to the very specific SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) guidelines by which the school was governed.  For several years, the school continued to "fly under the radar."  In fact, as a Program Chair, these unprincipled practices caused me so much angst and physical pain (beating my head against a brick wall to initiate changes) that I had to go on Disability leave.

Finally, the school has been placed on Probation status (with twelve months to rectify problem areas), but I have no doubt that a few cosmetic changes will have them back to an acceptable status.

[%sig%]

[Bottom Line Counts]

I taught for a few semesters for a non profit private (church affiliated) university and a private for profit university. The private university has outstanding traditional undergraduate programs in a semi-rural location. They also have several off-campus graduate programs in many metro cities. The driving force for the creation of these graduate programs, I suspect, is to use them as a cash cow for their traditional undergraduate programs. Students are customers, all exams are take home types, and 99% of the students expect A or B because that is what every instructor is expected to do by the deans and department heads. The students' quantitative skills are non existence. The majority of students are highly motivated working adults but are very weak in math, statistics, and anything that require number crunching.
The private for profit university has a highly standardized mostly vocational type training and the expectation of the administrators is to make the students happy (read pass them). I decided not to work for the profit institution because it simply did not meet my standards. I am also not teaching for the private (church affiliated) due to lack of time but they are slightly better than the for profit institutions.  The bottom line is: US higher education 20% of it is excellent; 40% of good or very good quality, and the rest is either mediocre or of questionable value particularly in the sciences and engineering. Add the for profits into this scenario it is depressing to say the least. My 2 cents on the topic.

[%sig%]

[jt]

``Only 31% of "traditional" college graduates' having proficient literacy skills''


OK, so where does this number orginate?  What is the measuring instrument?  
I am more than suspicious about such percentages.

[state u]

The postings about Capella U scare the hell out of me. I teach at a regional not-for-profit state u in a rural location. Because of its location, we have a hard time recruiting PhDs in certain fields to take tt teaching positions.  The administration's solution has all too often been to hire MAs and require them to enroll in an online PhD program, most often at Capella, and complete the program before they can apply for tenure.  This has always struck me as ludicrous, but after reading the links with more info about Capella, I feel like my institution is colluding with a diploma mill to credential and tenure faculty who should never have been hired in the first place. Now I can't sleep!

[mc]

Hi Linda, I have responded to others who responded to my posting, but those responses have not shown up on the board, so I will try again, and hope for the best.

My comparison of traditional schools to for-profits schools focused on online classes because that is what I handle, but the statements apply regardless.

Teachers who moonlight as teachers are practicing teaching, and thus becoming better teachers (one hopes!), whereas researchers are practicing research, something entirely different.  Thus, as far as teaching goes, research is more of a distraction---it generally does not enhance teaching skills.

Of course there is an inherent conflict between academic freedom and oversight of classrooms, but what is the alternative?  Either you look at what professors are doing in the classroom, or you don't.  If you don't, you not only violate accreditation requirements, but you also violate a school's ethical obligations to students.

If you have a professor teaching nothing---that is, coming in and giving everyone an A, and saying five minutes in to class, okay, you can leave, then that is wrong.  If you have a professor teaching that a certain ethnic group evolved from monkeys, but the rest of humanity was created by God, that is wrong and should be stopped.  If you have a science professor requiring students to correctly write the Ten Commandments to pass the class, there should be someone to step in.  

In short, a school has to have oversight of classes; the only issue is how?

Finally, the idea that student protests are about critical thinking is simply wrong.  Most student protests are about a few groups lobbying for a pet cause, or railing against a real or perceived wrong.  Time is better spent reading an essay on the First Amendment.  

At any rate, any student is free to join any protest anywhere; the fact it happens outside the window simply means you cannot concentrate on what you are doing.  On the outside chance there was some critical thinking going on, it certainly could be accomplished indoors, or could be accomplished at another time and place.

[jt]

"Teachers who moonlight as teachers are practicing teaching, and thus becoming better teachers (one hopes!), whereas researchers are practicing research, something entirely different. Thus, as far as teaching goes, research is more of a distraction---it generally does not enhance teaching skills.
"

I would like to see some studies the last statement.  Doing research may, and often does enhance one's ability to teach.  The claim that they are entirely different cannot be supported if for no other reason than both involve learning.

"Of course there is an inherent conflict between academic freedom and oversight of classrooms, but what is the alternative? Either you look at what professors are doing in the classroom, or you don't."


It is simply false to suppose that the issue is either-or.   Further, the three examples of professional abuse given by mc together amounts to a straw man argument.  Traditional schools do address such issues.

What mc fails to realize is that the process of obtaining the PhD is no joke.  Those who do not love their subject, and are not serious about about doing an honest job for their students are rarer than mc would have us believe.  MC writngs reflect  a lack of understanding of the academic process and a lack or respect for professional academics.


Now for the final howler

''Finally, the idea that student protests are about critical thinking is simply wrong. Most student protests are about a few groups lobbying for a pet cause, or railing against a real or perceived wrong. Time is better spent reading an essay on the First Amendment. "

I suppose that the anti-slavery, the civil rights, the anti- Vietnam War, and the anti-globalization movements,  and protests about human rights abuses are counted as pet causes by mc.   Finally, mc has conveniently forgotten that our founding fathers were counted by the English establishment did not simply lie around reading the first amendment.

The problem with mc is is that (s)he simply has not lived long enough, has not learned from experience, and has not acquired basic critical reasoning skills.

[Bob Boston/DE Consultant]

After having worked at both an apple and an orange, I would have to agree that for profits are more concerned with getting students in and out no matter what the cost.  I spent the last two years at a for profit in Visalia, CA and despite their overwhelming concern for the student, it turned out to be more to make sure their numbers look good for the Department of Ed and accreditation.  They were constantly dumbing down the curriculum, insisting that our instructors find more ways to pass students, and they would out and out lie to get students into the program.  

And academic freedom?  Let's talk sweatshop!  You had better be careful when you express an opinion or even a suggestion.  It could easily be taken in the wrong light.  The place was nothing but a revolving door for true professionals.  

Non-profit?  I was treated like I knew something.  Often times I was given tasks far beyond my capabilities and was required to research out solutions.  Sure there were problems, but I was never afraid to speak my mind or to make suggestions, or to try something new.  If I had my choice, from my experience, I would always take a traditional non-profit over a for-profit.  That is if I wanted to remain an educator.  And I would never send my child to a for-profit.  I think that going to a for profit says something about your philosophy of education.

[MC]

Jt, the issue here is not "MC"; rather the issue is do for-profits provide students a decent education?  Despite your personal attacks on me, you have not provided any evidence to support your allegations that for-profits do not provide a solid education.

Concord Law School provides good example of the type of education for-profits provide is found in the online law school.  The graduates of that for-profit school who took the CA bar exam had a pass rate double the state average.

You make a good point about some protest movements being important, but you do not address my point, which is that most are not important, do not involve critical thinking, and are therefore a distraction for non-participants.

You don't address at all how protests involve critical thinking, and in particular, how they involve critical thinking that cannot be obtained in a classroom, nor do you address why they would be important for a protest to be outside your campus window, instead of across town, where you can join if you care to, or focus on what you are studying, if you so prefer.  

You are correct that traditional schools do address the issue of academic negligence; they do so by academic oversight, as I stated.  Linda said there is conflict between oversight and freedom, and I explained there was no alternative to oversight, and that the only issue was the nature of the oversight.  Do you have insight on that issue?


Linda's point about distraction was that teachers who moonlight as teachers are as distracted from teaching as researchers, and I disagreed, pointing out that teachers are actually practicing teaching, whereas researchers are doing something different, which is researching.  Research is research, and teaching is teaching, and singing is singing; they all can involve teaching somehow, but only one is teaching.  

I agree that researchers can sometimes enhance their teaching by researching, just as singers might enhance their teaching by singing, but the issue is, are moonlighting teachers as distracted from teaching as researchers?  I think it obvious they are not, and said so.  Do you have insight on that issue?

No, obtaining a PhD is no joke......and so....what?  The issue, again, is do for-profits provide a decent education for students?  Okay, those dedicated professionals are rarer than you assume that I would have you believe, but what does that tell us about for-profits versus public schools?

[Capella U.]

 There are some people who have an ax to grind and one particular individual who builts and owns all the capella-hate web sites. He was expelled from the school as a result of innapropriate behavior towards the faculty and towards other students. His hate-sites need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Some facts about Capella:

It is NOT a degree mill.
It is regionally accreditted. Its counseling programs are CACREP accredited, which is the golden standard for graduate counseling programs.
The Capella school of psychology has officially applied for the prestigious APA accreditation this year and expects to get it by early of next year. If it gets APA accreditation, it will be the second distance learning institution in the US with APA.
Its programs are very demanding and some require up to one year of residency.

[%sig%]

[Federal Dog]

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/

[jt]

Re: Federal Dog
Author: Federal Dog
Date:   05-16-06 12:53

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/


Ok,  but looking at the dismal pre-bachelor's level scores, I wonder if the 31% is a fault of the colleges or the can be traced  to a culture that places little value or emphasis on the skills measured: reading and problem solving.    In any case, the literacy levels are not going to be raised by those for-profit institutions  that emphasize career training and rely on multimedia goodies.

[jt]

Truth writes

Another great review about Capella may be found at:

http://www.epinions.com/content_200484556420

Perhaps Capella U. would like to provide us with the source of his information?


So the guy who is complaining about Capella complains about the high number of students failing the PhD comprehensives, and that both comprehensives and defense of dissertation are required--such complaints suggest to me that the author has no idea of graduate education.