U. Of Phoenix Loses In U.s. Court

U. OF PHOENIX LOSES IN U.S. COURT

Appeals panel clears way for lawsuit charging for-profit university with defrauding government of billions.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/06/phoenix

 

I like the liberalism of the American system, but there are some sectors like education or health that cannot be ran like a corporation. When you maximize profits, it is done (usually) at the expense of quality. I think these for profit schools should be invited to leave. This lawsuit may mean the end for many of them anyway.

 

See, I disagree. I think that when you run health care and education (etc.) without an eye on the bottom line you end up with an over-priced product that serves neither the provider nor the consumer. You also end up with incredible waste of both material and human resources.

At some point, if the consumer does not get what he wants, he will find a new supplier. It seems to me that the consumer is still picking the for-profit in record numbers. Let's be realistic here, why do we care if admissions counselors at UoP got paid by the head? Is that really so much differerent than getting paid piece-rate in any other business?

Sure, I understand that they may have lied to some consumers -- that's a different issue altogether. But what Uncle Sam (and some lawyers) seems annoyed about is that UoP paid their "salesmen" on the commission plan and for some reason, that's not allowed. So, UoP will pay for their transgression and they paid today in the stock market. Not unlike the way Corinthian paid for their errors a year ago and still haven't recovered their stock price.

To assume though that 1) only for-profit school use unethical recruiting practices and 2) that the profit motive isn't alive and well in the non-profit sector isn't exactly going to find the solution.

So what we really have here is a way for some lawyers to make some really nice bling off of UoPs stockholders. It's not really about "oh my! UoP was bad" because most people could care less. It's not about "I got a useless degree from..." (as we had a case of not long ago regarding NA vs RA in Fla. ) -- it's about "damn, law partner buddy, looks like we got'em on a loop-hole here! We can get 'em by the n**s and take some money from them..."


============

Disclosure: while I am not a student, alum, faculty member, or employee of UoP and have never had any academic experience with the company; I do own stock in both Apollo Group (NASDAQ:APOL) and Corinthian Colleges (NASDAQ:COCO).

I am also a proponent of student consumerism in higher education. For $50-100,000 I expect to get what I pay.

 

Now wait a minute......our entire K-12 education system is nothing more than an experiment designed and implemented by the government and the results are nothing short of incompetence and are nearly criminal. On the one hand we can have football stadiums, basketball areana and pools that are nothing short of olympic in quality yet these kids can't even read and write. You can't rid the system of the poor performing teachers because of the blasted unions yet these jokers scream for more money. I won't mention that tuition has went up by nearly 500% (at the university level) in the past 20 years with no improvment in quality or outcomes. Nice try but no cigar.

 

As we all do. Where the consumer model fails, in this regard, is that one is more likely to receive fair value and better quality for that money at a not-for-profit school than at any one of the private or quasi-private for-profits. Why is that?

I would argue it's precisely because the not-for-profits are influenced more by notions of what constitutes acceptable behavior within traditional academic culture, not by an impulse to subsitute from American capitalist culture the notions of a "customer-centered" seller-buyer relationship.

For $50k I'll take the University of Washington - with its tenured faculty who have nothing to fear from challenging students - over Phoenix/Capella/AIU/CTU every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Universities: don't forget your roots. Teach and hold accountable, don't sell.

 

Wow. Every unfounded generalization and specious canard about the weaknesses of our K-12 system boiled into one paragraph. Nice work.

 

Excellent point!!! I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but I couldn't let this go unnoticed.

 

Dude....if you believe that you need to either get your head out of the sand or support John Kerry <again>. Seriously, this was just an illustration - let me spell that for you....i-l-l-u-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n of what happens when education is delivered through the NFP prisim. Unlimited sources of cash, no expecations, terrible outcomes, lack of supervision, excessive regulation, waste, etc......I guess what I can't understand is that all of you proclaimed "really smart people" want to compare DL education delivered though the FP model (which by the way for the most part is less than 20 years old) with the NFP model that has hundreds of years of history and experience. The bottom line is that if the established education institutions would have gotten their heads out of their asses then there would not have been a market for the FP's. Why is UOP so big?.....because they are meeting a need that none of the others are meeting or that the others are meeting poorly. Build a better mouse trap and they will come.

Oh...I am not a student, faculty member or alumni of UOP.

 

"...marketing and lobbying machine and the money will come, deserved or not".

Fixed that for you.

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the accusations. UOP has some very good teachers and people working for them, but the Academic departments are horribly overshadowed and underpaid compared to Enrollment. Enrollment are treated like superstars while academics, finance and administration are treated like crap (and paid way under the cost of living).

I WAS an employee and AM a graduate of the program. I have no qualms with the academic process, I feel I learned a lot, but the "buts in seats" approach has to stop. I would absolutely testify if I knew how to go about it, and welcome any questions anyone has.

 

I tend to agree....UoP simply makes Higher Ed more convenient - something people are willing to pay for...like fast food. They will continue until the business model fails - and it will...because you can't have FT administrators "on the cheap" like a fast food franchise without people who really don't know s*** about education will f*** it up - and I speak as an adjunct UoP faculty who has watched the admins come...and go...in a revolving door. This recent decision highlights that. I have heard students in their first UoP class...who clearly did not belong there...STATE that the recruiter PROMISED them they would get "A's" for their money.

I have to say...I would look really hard at any potential hire with a UoP degree.

 

CoachTurner, I see your point, but you'll agree with me that the finest institutions of the world are non for profit. That is because they have educational criteria directing their decisions. I can't think of one for profit university whose education could be outstanding, first class. Those models should be the ones to succeed. This law suit will demonstrate (I'm afraid) that tax payers are indeed paying those benefits that stakeholders from for profit schools collect.

 

Harvard and MIT are non for profit organizations, and for many, using your own nomenclature, they are the finest Cuban cigars there exist

 

"The State" is not a non-profit and it runs some fine schools and some poor schools. Seriously, we're not talking organizational form here but instead operational model. If you think that all non-profits operate without a profit motive then you've never worked for one.

Any operation must examine the bottom line in order to remain in operation. Operating without doing so is called poor fiscal management. What the 'for-profit" sector is doing is exploring fairly uncharted water -- they are bound to make mistakes. The non-profit sector has had plenty of time now to learn how to run a college and in many cases they've failed as a model.

You can't fairly point to a fine dining experience and suggest that fast-food undertake that operational model. You similarly can't point to Harvard and MIT and suggest that UoP etc... folllow that model. I would hazard that Harvard and MIT have a bit more endowment than UoP just for starters. I'm also betting that the overwhelming majority of college students can't function within the Harvard and MIT academic model.

The market decides if there is value added when comparing fine dining to McDonalds -- the market has decided it likes McDonalds. The market also decides if there is value added when comparing Harvard to UoP -- the market has decided that it likes UoP.

Unless we are to go to a governmentally supervised and socialized system of higher education, there is no better barometer than the market - both in terms of students as consumers of education and of students as brokers of their education after graduation.

 

The students are really enjoying the counselors:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?searchtype=1&q1=366&q3=&q2=&submit2=Search%21

 

Coach...you might want to take a breath...

I CAN certainly point to a fine dining experience if my desired goal is a fine dining experience vs. a Big Mac...or the chef who produces that fine dining experience vs. the cook who produces the french fries that go with that Big Mac. One adds considerably more value than the other to the organization.

"The market" being in this case a "market segment" who appreciates the convenience (not knocking that) and/or the chance to masquerade as having earned a degree they could not get at a school that does not regard the "student" as a "paying customer" who is always right. With few exceptions, I consider UoP another example of "the poor (and none-too-bright) pay more - for less.

We already HAVE a governmentally supervised system of higher ed, the Dept. of Ed who decides what accrediting agencies they will accredit and what they will not...otherwise the Lincoln Tech and Westwood Colleges would rank as RA schools.

What UoP IS...is the academic equivalent of a branded item "knockofrff" (college)...and the jury is still out on whether they wll be branded as illegal. You have people who can't think beyond the next quarter (because they might not be around after that) making decisions based largely on "making their numbers" and following checklists.

And the market IS deciding...quite a few people involved in hiring have some sceptism re: the UoP degree's value. UoP's value is as a "check the block" requirement satisfier - and sadly, there IS market value in that.

 

Just so we're clear....Harvard and MIT's perception of quality is based on the selectivity of their students going in...an issue in higher ed right now is how to measure the quality of the product - no one can agree on a standard of measurements.

 

I have to say...I would look really hard at any potential hire with a UoP degree.

Jim,

This is completely dependant on the campus unfortunately, and most employers do not know that. That is your personal decision, and that's fine. I work for Northrop Grumman, and they had no problem taking my degree, and my boss is actually pursuing one. If it "checks the box" that's fine w/ me, I am past the "prestige" point in my life.

I have a degree from UOP and worked very hard for it, but I also have 2 degrees from a local community college, Longwood College (in southern va, 200 year old school), and have taken graduate classes at George Washington University.

I think UOP suffers from all the things you mentioned, but they do have some good administrators, instructors and counselors, they are just underpaid and under appreciated, so they eventually go elsewhere (like me).

 

So you are saying that people perceive Harvard to be a high quality educational institution based on the low numbers of applicants they accept? Well, maybe that is your idea. I was actually thinking about the quality of the instruction, of the instructors. Their contribution to the field of engineering, science, or management, to name a few, is extraordinary and by all means measurable (even in quantitative terms).

I salivate when I imagine those fascinating classroom debates with world renowned scientists (and formidable classmates).

Here in Europe, the EC wants to create the European MIT (and not the other way around). I think we all understand fairly good the superior quality of those universities, and it is not necesarily related to the percentage of applicants they accept.

 

I'm already on the record as having said that a colleague highly respects a UoP PhD at their school - but it appears to be a matter that SOME good people get the UoP credential for reasons of expediancy (I could see doing it myself, if better, cheaper alternatives were not available).

The the fact remains that UoP is a "bottom-fishing" institution.