Education for Sale!

I believe some posters have discussed the differences between for-profit educational institutions and nonprofit educational institutions. It is not my intention to start that argument again. I don't care one way or the other if the institution is public or private, nonprofit or for-profit, as long as they provide a quality education and meet my academic and professional needs.

So why this title, "Education for Sale," then? Well, I have made inquiries with Capella, Walden and Northcentral. In each case, I felt as if I was in a market with fish vendors trying their darnest to get me to buy what they call fresh fish. My sense is that it was all about getting the sale. Transcripts could be sent later. Just make a deposit and get started.

I don't know if other posters have had similar experiences. It is disturbing to me as an advocate of quality education. And quite frankly, it was a turn off. I want to know that I gained "acceptance" to a university based upon my credentials, not because they were desperate to get anyone they could.

Any thoughts on this?

 

David - the point isn't so much about for-profit and non-profit (for which I do have an opinion, but I digress...). The point is that each of these schools is "enrollment" (or "tuition") driven. Their revenue stream is based on getting warm bodies to pay money. They don't have state subsidies, endowments, etc. to help fund them.

You're exactly right - this leads to schools taking unqualified students in their programs. And they are motivated to graduate these unqualified students. They certainly don't want dissatisfied "customers"!!

I would say that all of the schools you mention (and all are for-profits) are "enrollment" driven to an extreme. They can't take tax free donations. They typically aren't eligible to receive government grants. The only source of revenue they have is getting folks to pay tuition. So if you have a positive blood pressure you're in - well, this is a bit of an exageration. If you have an RA (or national) BA/BS and your GPA is 2.5 or perhaps a 3.0 or above (but they'll allow you in provisionally if you're lower), then you're in. Such schools are always looking for fresh "meat".

This is not to say that there aren't some "enrollment" driven non-profits. Some of the non-profits can be almost as bad as the for-profits. NSU and Baker are so driven to some extent. However, NSU has an endownment and is taking donations, for example, for their new business building - among other projects. They do require, as another example, the GMAT or GRE and they actually say "no" to some potential students.

Thanks - Andy

 

I had a similar experience with Argosy, I had a few phone calls from its sales reps but what it turned me down is that when I asked if they were RA accredited they couldn’t answer. Then I applied to Touro and Northcentral and got in before my transcripts were sent, that wasn’t a good sign for me. I’m used to the old thing of having rejection letters and examinations like GMAT and GRE, recommendation letters, dissertation proposals and getting in to Northcentral after one week with no transcripts wasn’t my idea of a real university. The closest thing that I got to real universities was in Australia where I actually got a couple of rejections letters and the need to send transcripts and recommendation letters.

 

I agree with Andy. Tuition-supported institutions are under much more pressure to run like businesses. Every month or two I get something in the mail from Nova Southeastern, even though I only made one inquiry a few years ago and never followed up. The've spent more than a few bucks on me--including tracking me to my new address when we bought a house last year.

NSU is not-for-profit, of course.

(To be fair, I also keep getting stuff from Kennedy-Western.)

 

Many universities recruit aggressively, including most of the prominent ones. They have big PR departments, they send out recruiters to secondary schools, they mail glossy brochures, they offer targeted individuals (whether scholars, jocks or minorities) stuff like free trips to see the campus, early admission and financial aid grants.

I guess that most DL programs are kind of grafted onto an existing bricks and mortar school, and are run like an appendix. Little or no effort goes into promoting the program. But a few schools specialize in offering DL or continuing education programs, and these schools actually try to publicize their programs and attract students to them.

I think that I would enjoy being courted by a university.

 

You sound like Groucho Marx, Valve.

"I wouldn't think of attending any university that would accept me."

 

I think much of what has been said is accurate in terms of the pressure for profits are under. You look at the Off Topic Thread on Capella and the number of graduates, do some math, and realize it is big $$$$$$$. University of Phoenix's recruiters get paid based on numbers. One guy I interviewed with a few years ago, said they could not call it commission sales because the accreditor did not like that but that is sure what it sounded like to me. Hence the pressure.

The for profits are in the business of creating PhD's. The opposite side of that though is that many would be PhD's do not want to play the traditional games outlined on the PhinisheD web site that are played with PhD students at traditional universities. This may be *partially* what plays into some of the discrimination against DL PhD's. Someone who suffered and was tortured for several years in a tradtional program may not look well on someone who went DL and did their PhD in 2.5 years. In other words *I suffered so should everyone*.

North

 

I may sound too elitist, but the 99.99% admission policy of some of the DL programs makes them loose value in the market. Some universities only accept one or two PhD students a year on a very competitive basis for the same reason.

 

Rich - I too have been on a couple of NSU lists that don't seem to end. But realize that this is small change compared to the kind of hussle from sales reps I'm getting from another for-profit DL since I registered once at their website.

I've talked with marketing folks of a couple of non-profits (one is a big UoP competitor). They've told me that there is no way they can compete with UoP for marketing muscle. These schools have cost structures that include full-time faculties and campuses. Even with donations and endowment, they can't put 27% of their revenue streams into sales and administrative. They're stuck with 80-90% or more of their revenue paying for academic costs (especially faculty).

Forgive my digression, but consider this question - where do you want your tuition dollar to go? Using UoP's public financial statements as a benchmark, only about 53% goes to education. The balance goes to pre-tax margin (20%) and selling/admin costs (27%). Compare this to non-profits where 80-90% are academic costs - and the school is subsidized by endowment, gift income and tax free status.

Frankly, I remain sceptical of for-profits. Non-profits run the gamut from "enrollment driven" to lofty institutions. But I haven't seen a for-profit that is academically focused and well regarded.

Regards - Andy

 

Why should anyone care about admissions? Who cares who and how many people a school admits? What should matter is outcomes. Are students expected to perform at a requisite level? Are graduates exiting the program with sufficient skills, knowledges, and products (i.e., theses and dissertations)?

I'm not suggesting admissions with no standards. But I am suggesting that competitive admissions don't add to the educative process. Competitive admissions don't make the Ivy League better. But because these are such good schools, they get more admissions than they can or want to handle. In that case, competitive admissions do make sense. (As opposed to a lottery, I guess.)

David Owen noted once that about 90% of colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-competitive in admissions. They admit all qualified students. (This was offered as an argument against the use of the SAT for admissions.) Well, schools that serve adult students should admit all that can meet the qualifications.

If you want prestige, try to gain entry into a prestigious school. Fine. But don't criticize Argosy, NSU, or Walden for admitting every qualified student. Scrutinize and criticize their students' performances. Accrediting agencies do.

 

Rich, I don't have an issue with admitting "all" who qualify. The concern I have with some of the schools is that the bar of qualification keeps moving (typically downward) to accommodate applicants who don't seem to meet the qualifications.

 

Rich - Students should care very much about admissions for several reasons.

1. The outgoing quality of graduates is highly related to the incoming quality of students. As much as education may add to your skills, if you start a program poorly prepared it is bound to have an impact on the outgoing quality. Teachers have to teach to the students that the school puts in the room. If you give me a room full of students who don't know algebra - I probably can't teach calculus effectively. This may sound a bit extreme - but I teach a graduate class in statistics at a well known DL school and find I have students who haven't had math since they failed high school algebra. This sure does impact what I can do in class. I could talk over there heads - but then I'd get a poor teaching evaluation and I wouldn't have a job. What do I have to do? Compromise and give some sort of remedial help and hope that by the end of the class I can at least get them to the level of appreciating graduate level stats. Of course, I do have students who are very prepared for the course - I have to find a way to challenge them at the same time.

2. Rich - you say: "Are students expected to perform at a requisite level?". I have to laugh out loud. In the rush to sell credentials, "requisite level" gets battered over time in the DL world. For profits and "enrollment driven" non-profits don't seem to focus on this as they examine their P&L statements.

. The argument is stronger at the graduate level than undergraduate. For whatever reason, Americans have the notion that everyone has a "right" to earn a bachelor's degree. Ok - but the very degree names "Master of Business Administration" and "Doctor of Business Administration" suggest "mastery" of a field. If DL institutions ever wants to be recognized as adding to society's good, we have to get past the notion that everyone can earn an MBA or DBA/PhD. They can't. Folks with low academic skills aren't suitable candidates for graduate education. Effectively open admission policies by enrollment driven school create the illusion that "you can do this too!" and attract students who wouldn't be admitted to traditional programs. If you have the intellectual skills, you can "do this too". But if you don't, schools have no business giving you a piece of paper that says "PhD". If they do, it is nothing but a joke and will become recognized as such.

3. Frankly, IMHO any DL school that operates an effectively open admission program to a doctoral program is degrading the currency and is doing no favor to DL institutions in general. In my view a 2.5 GPA and no GMAT/GRE requirement are "effectively open admission".

Regards - Andy

 

I'm simply emphasizing outcomes over admissions. I'm not a big fan of exclusion. However, if a school feels pressured to graduate an unqualified student because it admitted him/her, that is a mistake, as Andy noted.

We do that in our high schools now, trying to educate people who simply would have dropped out in times past.

Yes, low admissions standards are the same as none at all. But the point is still outcomes. If schools "lower the bar," (as defii noted) they're wrong. Do they? Maybe. But tax status doesn't have anything to do with it. (Pressure for revenues, however, just might.)

Instead of concentrating on only letting in the "right" people, perhaps schools should concentrate on only graduating the right people.

 

Before passing judgements on entities labeled either "for-profit" or "not-for-profit" I would like to suggest that the two terms first be understood. Meaning are there actually entities that perform services "not-for-profit"? The form of the profit and the incentives change but it is absolutely done "for-profit". So before judgements are made it should be understood what the real essence of the entity is, how it came about, why there are differences and then pass judgement.

thought for the day...why did Napoleon B make it illegal for Jean-Baptiste Say to teach economics in France? to paraphrase NB, because if people actually understood economics they would understand the plunder of political intervention.

 

colleges need students

Actually many colleges recruit heavily. While the Harvards, MITs, Princetons etc. seem to get as many students as they want, most institutions have recruiters. Some get a commission. Some don't.
The for-profit vs not-for-profit can be confusing.
A non-profit organization may own a for-profit business.
The local mental health center is non-profit. For years they have owned a workshop whose goal is to make a profit. Some non-profit health corporation own for-profit laboratories.
A for-profit business may subsidize a non-profit. Look at the relationship between MacDonalds and the Ronald MacDonald house?
All the best!

 

Perhaps we should emphasize on graduation instead of admission, however, I have never heard of someone who wasn’t able to complete a university program in the questioned universities because of the high standards of them. So should we say easy graduation too?, I know that you will ask for evidence to support this but in this forum I haven’t heard of any comment of a student having to withdraw from a program from a “for-profit” university for low academic performance. So the research question is if easy admission is equal to easy graduation at “for-profit” universities? An interesting topic for research I’d say.

 

Okay, so what's with this GMAT "thing"? What about those who already hold advanced degrees? How about someone who earned a business degree from the likes of a Sloan, Wharton, or Chicago? Why is it necessary to force **every** applicant to take the GMAT (other than to enrich (the already enriched) ETS)?

 

If you earned a degree from Sloan, Wharton or Chicago - you already took the GMAT or GRE and you had a pretty good score. If a schools wants to take you the based on that - great.

Case Western in their EMD program only admits students who have an MBA from an AACSB school. Since virtually all AACSB schools require the GMAT, it isn't a big leap for them not to require the GMAT. Their requirements also include an interview. Overall, they are selective in what they do.

The point I'm getting at is that "enrollment" driven doctoral programs that require minimal GPAs (2.5 for provisional admission) and no GMAT/GRE program are doing the DL world little favor by admitting virtual every student that shows up at their door.

Worse yet are DL programs that progress a student from bachelors to masters to doctoral degrees - all at one institution. This may be profitable for the institution, but such inbreeding isn't in the student's best interest.

Regards - Andy

 

FWIW, one of the more persistent schools I've encountered in regards to marketing is the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. I requested information from them awhile ago (as I like to keep files on DL Criminal Justice programs), and I still get at least one e-mail a month. Obviously, a non-profit, state school (in fairness, Capella is pretty relentless also).


Bruce

 

Why not?

Andy,
Please excuse my lack of knowledge about this, but my question is why is it not in the students best interest?

Michael