Union's new strategic direction

Union's new course

Do I detect a hint of desperation?

 

Looks like an upbeat article and I see nothing negitive reported in it. It would be great for Union to get greater exposure and recognition for their pioneering work.

 

Birds do it, bees do it, even Coke, U of Phoenix and the GEs do it...

The most successful organizations in the world have large advertising budgets. Perhaps Union is seeing the competitive landscape in distance education heating up and realizes it must put some dollars into marketing. Sounds like a positive thing to me.

John

 

Hopefully. It's what many of us have been hoping for.

There's no desperation to be detected from the article, but from the fact that Union was recently placed on probationary status by OBR, the office of degree authorization for Ohio's state department of higher education, which found that the dissertations of many Union learners were lacking in doctoral-level quality. (I agree with OBR, as I've found the quality of Union learners to go down the tubes somewhat over the past few years. It got to the point where I wouldn't even consider serving as an adjunct on any further Union doctoral comittees.)

Union is actively engaged in cleaning up its act by forcing its do-your-own-thing faculty to adhere to an institutional set of standards rather than the individualied standards that many of them have followed over the past few years. The issue has been covered in detail on the Union Learners Yahoo Group.

There are some political issues that have been operating in the background. The "retirement" of past-president Judith Sturnick referenced in the article, for example, was hardly an anticipated retirement - it was a forced issue resulting in the sudden but very welcome departure of a highly unpopular, personality-centered official.

The emphasis on advertising is separate from either of the two issues I've cited here. Advertising is something that Union must do if it's going to compete. It certainly took them long enough to realize that they have some major competition in the marketplace. A couple of years ago, when Union sought feedback from its internal community on this issue, I predicted that the school would not survive another ten years in light of the competition. (In fact, I recently cited the doctoral poll on degreeinfo.com, which showed that people here preferred other programs over Union.) Union is still the most unique doctoral program out there in terms of individual options; this could be the first step in their realization that they have to do something to do better than Capella, Touro, ad infinitum, if they want to maintain their existence, let alone their credibility.
______________________

Amazing, huh? I actually wrote this post without one Rich Douglas joke.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Steve. I see nothing wrong with advertising, either.

 

Re: Re: Union's new strategic direction

I just hope Union doesn't start advertising in USA Today.

 

My take on the Union issue is that most adult learners now realizes other better alternatives to Union. In the business world, when the intended outcome (income) is dwindling because the offered product (education/degree) is bringing less audience (adult learners), then, it is time for any company (union institute) to alter it's advertising strategy that would bring in more audience. I just hope it work out great for Union.

Ehi

 

I believe that Union has less than 3000 students (?), so it behoves them to increase their student body, just as all the other DL schools have. If Union doesn't meet the demand, then another school will!!!

 

I think there's another issue that has not been discussed yet. According to the article cited by oxpecker:

This has been one of Union's goals for several years. Remember, the number of students in the Graduate School (now the Graduate College, consisting of the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences and the School of Professional Psychology) has historically outnumbered the students in the College of Undergraduate Studies (which is the program with offices in Cincinnati, California, and Florida). Union has had a long-term goal of increasing their undergraduate numbers, since the Ph.D. program has historically sold itself. (Not to mention that the undergrad program has always had more competition than the doctoral program.)

As for boosting its image in the Tri-State (which, in Cincinnati, consists of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana), Union has always had a national reputation - and to some extent, an interntional reputation. The one place where they are relatively unknown in relation to other colleges and universities is good ol' Cincinnati. (Or to put it in a manner the religious types on the board will understand, "A prophet is unwelcome in his home town.") It's not that Union has a poor reputation in Cincinnati, it's that they have a minimal reputation when compared with like U. of Cincinnati, or even to "the other Union" in Cincinnati (the rabbinical school).

As an incidental note, Ohio is the birthplace of some of the best innovations in nontraditional education; in addition to Union, Antioch (John Wetsch's M.A. alma mater) is located there - just up the road from Cincinnati in Yellow Springs. Point of trivia: Which one is the most well-known nontraditional degree program in Ohio? Answer: Neither. That honor belongs to the Adult Degree Program at Capital University, a traditional school that was also an early leader in distance ed. Go figure . . .

 

Steve: "There's no desperation to be detected from the article, but from the fact that Union was recently placed on probationary status by OBR, the office of degree authorization for Ohio's state department of higher education, which found that the dissertations of many Union learners were lacking in doctoral-level quality."

Union is on "probation" with OBR? Is there a source for this? What I've read is that OBR has given Union a provisional license renewal while Union makes changes to address OBR's recent evaluation. "Probation"?

The lamenting over perceived declines in quality is a common one among alums, thinking they had it tough, and that the people that followed have it soooo easy. I would rather accept the views of someone not attached so closely to the school.

The quality of dissertations may or may not have declined, but the programmatic requirements to complete the degree have both increased and standardized over the years. It is a more complex and difficult degree process than when I matriculated (well before Steve).

A read of Roy Fairfield's "Person-Centered Graduate Education" (Prometheus Books, 1978) provides a contemporaneous account of Union in the old days by one of its founders. A dramatic difference that the Union Ph.D. program you find today.

 

Don't take Steve's statement personally, Rich. Even if your Ph.D. only requires 34 days of residency, the quality of Union's degree programs have exponentially increased since the early 90's. They can now do in 34 days what it used to take 35 to accomplish.

 

I realize I often don't get Russ's jokes, or feel the need to comment on the facts despite them, but what's with 34? It remains 35. However, it used to be much longer, with a 30-day Entry Colloquium and a 10-day concluding "Terminar." I was just told two days ago that the Entry Colloquium was originally 45 days.

Oh, and I'm not taking Steve personally. I just want to point out that he might not be right, and that his opinion reflects a common fallacy.

 

I just posted on another thread about quarter hours vs. semester hours, and it reminded me of the subject of this thread.

National University, where I earned my MBA, required 15 courses at 5 q.h. per course to graduate. That's 75 q.h., or equivalent to 50 s.h. Now, MBA students only have to complete 58.5 q.h. (13 courses). Obviously, those lazy NU students today have it much easier than we did! Or do they?

Yes, fewer quarter hours are required for the degree. But part of that results from lower the number of credits awarded for each class from 5 to a more reasonable 4.5 (comparable to 3-s.h. courses). Still, the total number of courses has dropped from 15 to 13. (Four courses are required for a specialization instead of the previous six.) Easier, right? Not necessarily.

The MBA now requires a set of foundational courses (finance, accounting, etc.), waived for those with undergraduate credit in any or all of those areas. Credits for these courses cannot be applied to the 58.5 q.h. required for the MBA. But this was not always so! In the old program, there were 6 500-level foundation courses that had to be completed or waived. But each of these could also be applied to degree completion. In fact, those with no business background at all could take these 6 courses instead of a specialization and still get the MBA with the same number of courses--15.

The NU MBA is a bit shorter for those with undergraduate degrees in business, but considerably longer for those with little or no previous credit in business. For them, the program could be as long as 19 courses--pretty long for an MBA these days.

None of this takes into account advances in quality that might have taken place over the last 20 years that would also make the MBA a more challenging degree to earn.

But we had it tougher.

Rich

P.S.: Don't get me started about how much easier it is to earn an Excelsior degree than when it was USNY/Regents. NOT!!!!

 

Hey Rich: What an elegant website for National University! Informative and very nice to look at. Their degree offerings are mostly in fields unfamiliar to me, but their structure for courses, etc., looks terrific.

 

Damn, not another pissing contest...

Rich's posts in this thread are easily among the funniest I have read from him since his MIGS days - multiple examples of d-e-n-i-a-l.

On one hand, he says that I bemoan the fact that today's learners are not as diligent as those from earlier days (which, indeed, I do). On the other hand, he does exactly the same thing a few posts down over his master's alma mater, National University. ("We had it tougher?" Puhleeeeze, Rich.) Unlike National, however, at which the program requirements have gone down (at least according to Rich's implication), at Union the program requirements never went down, the quality of the learners and their work went down.

Am I implying that Rich is among those doing poor quality work? Not at all. I have no idea of the quality of work Rich has done (although I could certainly speculate). I note, however, as many will recall, that this is the guy who got snockered by the Monterrey Institute of Graduate Studies, put his head in the sand, and played shill for MIGS until they were blown apart.

Whether we are talking about probation or provisional status with regard to Union is a matter of semantics. Union has been walking a thin line with Ohio OBR for quite a while. It actually goes back to earlier administrations, which have consistently put more emphasis on their regional accreditation by the North Central Association than on their intrinsic authority by OBR to offer degrees. Ignoring OBR finally caught up with them, and now Union has to engage in some major tap dancing - as they should - to improve their quality. I have no doubt that they will do so at this point, but they shouldn't have been caught with their pants down in the first place.

As for Rich's assesrtion that he "would rather accept the views of someone not attached so closely to the school," nonsense. This sounds like Rich bitching about the fact that he's not inside the loop as much I am, and he should get over it. If you want the real inside scoop, you go to someone on the inside. And unlike Rich, I have had several roles with Union - learner, graduate, peer member on doctoral committees, consultant, and adjunct. I have nothing to gain or lose from Union at this point; Rich, on the other hand, is still dependent upon them for his future doctorate.

Nonetheless, the current climate is probably the best thing to happen to Union in years - it's the kick in the ass they need to make them demand a higher level of performance from their learners and their faculty. And if he's lucky, Rich's level of work may become as good as mine was.

 

Steve: What does "intrinsic authority by OBR to offer degrees" mean?

 

You must truly be joking, Jank. Should I translate it into Latin for you?

This thred is beginning to bore me. I'm gonna go outside and play in the snow.

 

While $600,000 may seem to be a lot of money, it really isn’t. For comparison, the average cost of a winning congressional campaign is over $675,000 – and how may of those do you remember? In fact, your local shopping mall probably spends close to Union’s new marketing budget. Out of the $600,000 Union will have to take production, agency fees and related costs. Depending on what media they use they may have less than $500,000 to spend after expenses on a campaign that will have to cover the U.S. I will be surprised if a significant number of this newsgroup even sees their new marketing program and we are probably their target audience.

 

No, Steve, it is spelled "d-i-s-a-g-r-e-e," which is something you can't seem to tolerate.

When Steve is wrong, it is rung up to "semantics."

Steve has my National example backwards, of course. I illustrated that we had it easier than NU students today do, despite the fact there are now fewer credits to earn an MBA. But Steve's knee-jerk reaction (less "knee, more....) didn't give him time to actually read the post he disagreed with.

Steve's involvement with Union is undeniable. I guess that makes him part of whatever problem he describes.

As for the rest of his post, it's the same, tired act.

 

I know it remains at 35 days, Rich. Don't you remember--I'm just joking.

And what is this about the possibility of Levicoff not being right? Is this really possible?