The future of the virtual college?

This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find anything in the archives.

Wanting to pursue my education totally in DL I started thinking about for-profit colleges that are nothing more than a mark in cyberspace with no brick & mortar roots.

As time goes on and offline colleges start recognizing the benefits and cash flow of the DL market and step in with their programs it will soon be a standard learning route and the distant learner left with a wide range of school options.

With this being said ...

Those schools that benefited from the first seat in the DL market have either grown or fallen off. For a while the competition wasn't as broad and now the DL market is starting to see saturation.

For the college that doesn't have those offline roots with students attending classes on campus, no range of appeal except it's online presence, no recognition through sports events or a community foundation in cities where students know of the college; the online school has to earn a track record or prepare to fall because a student could virtually attend a recognized offline college that offers DL courses.

So lets say I decide to go with a virtual college that hasn't been around for decades and the new learning appeal that it once had being a veteran to the online community falls short as more options arise. If I'm attending this college that only relys on it's online presence and things turn sour for it's future and it goes out of business, what kind of authenticity does my degree hold from a virtual college that is no longer in business?

It's bound to happen to good online universities. And where does it leave the student when they present a degree from a virtual college on their resume that is no longer in service?

 

This is an excellent question. Colleges and universities certainly come and go over time. When considering what school to go with, prospective students should consider the long term viability of the institution they are considering. Indeed, part of the perceived value of a degree earned in the past is based on the current status of the institution that awarded the degree.

Harvard has been around since the 1600's and their degrees have held their value over time.

But what about for-profit schools? A lot of dotcoms have failed (or merged) in the past few years. Will the same thing happen to virtual schools? Only time will tell. The one example I can think of is University of Sarasota becoming part of Argosy.

But in the case of a for-profit you can be sure that the deciding factor in deciding about a merger or liquidation will be maximizing the stock price - not the well being of past graduates.

Indeed, the potential for a school failing or otherwise disappearing is a factor that most of our "commodity" discussions (e.g. what's the cheapest RA degree on the market....) don't comprehend. You can enroll in the cheapest degree program - but what good will it be if the school shuts down?

One of the (many) arguments I have against for-profits and virtual schools is that they don't have the staying power of traditional institutions. In my case, I'm pretty confident that Vanderbilt and Nova Southeastern will outlive me. Not only are they large institutions with endowments - but by virtual of being non-profit they exist for more alturistic reasons than for-profits do. I wouldn't be so sure about the new wave of for-profit schools.

Regards - Andy

 

This works both ways. I think there are people pursuing degrees from disgraceful universities in the hope that their reputations will improve in the coming years.

And then there are institutions that change names. Kettering, for example. ...

 

You may be right on your first point.

As for Kettering and its name change - the case is quite instructive. It has taken Kettering years to overcome the name change - even though the school's basic operation remains identical. The first year, they saw a big drop in enrollment because folks couldn't find "GMI" in the ACT list of schools to send scores to . To this date all of our literature says "continuing the GMI heritage...".

With virtual institutions that fold into others and morph into new institutions, it may be even harder.

Regards - Andy

 

Re: Re: The future of the virtual college?

This makes me wonder about Wayne Huizenga and NSU.

Comparing Argosy and Nova at least in tuition and setting there is not much difference.

I can tell you that Florida Atlantic University, is not for profit but sure operates like one. Check the Master of Taxes program and talk to the admision people, the will admit you into the program with out being qualified and will ask for a $600 fee non refundable before each course start, hummm. I am sure there are more like this, oh wait University of Miami fall in this category as well.

About merging, if you have severals schools under the same adminstration it easier just to merge them into one operation and yes giving greater value to their stocks. Wait a minute, did Nova had a merge with Southestern as well. This happens in business and all universities are business as well, I learned this from Wayne which will get rid off any business that does not make him money. Non for profit, don't like the term and use of this word, since somebody must be getting something in return, oh wait the people that run the school can pay themselve even higher salaries. Oh boy. is all good.

So when you see this man around, Wayne that is, because he is cooking something! Can you smell what Wayne is cooking? I do.

 

Thats interesting, since I have always heard that the for-profits have had a reputation of putting more interest in the well being of graduate/ed students (work placement) than traditional schools (more focused on the input and screening of applicants).

As of late, I have been seeing a merging of these factors from both types of schools (tax exempt vs. tax paying schools).

Hmmm, you might want to be more specific with that. As far as I now, the for-profits are doing remarkably well. Plus, some non-profits have been here for a while now:

Strayer University: Founded in 1892
DeVry University: Founded in 1931
Argosy: Founded in 1975. In fact, Argosy has been buying smaller non-profit universities that were nearing bankruptcy and on the verge of losing accreditation.
UoP: Founded 1976. The huge success and controversy of this one seems to be the one that is making everyone in academia nervous.

I seriously think that for-profits are here to stay, whether we like them or not.
Some are not so good, and innoble maybe, but some others are actually quite impresive.

-S

 

Re: Re: The future of the virtual college?

Andy Borchers wrote:

> Harvard has been around since the 1600's and their
> degrees have held their value over time.
>
> But what about for-profit schools?

What distinction are you making here?

"Harvard University is stunningly rich. It's the wealthiest nonprofit in the world after the Catholic Church. It lives off the interest of its $18 billion endowment, which has doubled in the last six years. And tuition could be eliminated without harming a single leaf of the school's ivy. But all those facts had a way of disappearing when it came time to pay campus service workers."
-- http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/06/03/razsa/print.html

 

Correction: some "for-profits" have been here for a while now.

-S

 

Sulla - Some comments. Thanks - Andy

I'll agree that for-profits are here to stay and that I don't like them. How stable they will be once they saturate the market is hard to say.

My biggest beef - highlighted in prior postings comes from their financials. The for-profits charge as much (or more than) non-profits, but where does the money go? A quick review of the financials of UoP shows over half of their revenue stream goes to selling and administrative expenses, profit and taxes. Non-profits have non-tuition sources (such as gifts) to augment tuition revenue and don't pay out dividends or taxes. The net result is that non-profits spend a greater part of their revenue for educating students - whether it is in library resources, buildings, or faculty.

One other beef with for-profits, especially those involved in doctoral education, is that they don't conduct research. How can one hope to earn a quality PhD from an institution that doesn't conduct research?

Back to your post - Which for profits are "quite impressive"?

If you are impressed by the quality of for-profit schools, here are two questions:

1. Name a single for-profit school that has merited ranking by US News in the top 2 tiers of its category?

2. Name a single for-profit that has achieved AACSB (or even ACBSP) accreditiation?

For profits may offer accessible education. For profits have probably spurred non-profits into providing better service and more accessible programs. But where is there any academic excellence in the for-profit world? I can't find any.

Regards - Andy

 

As mentioned above, "Harvard has been around since the 1600's and their degrees have held their value over time."

Which segues to favorite factoid about Harvard: being so old in the New World as to have offerred Galileo Galilei a post!

One rarely thinks of a genuinely American institution as being so steeped in the mysts of time.

--Orson

 

I thinks its quite easy to say. For-profits are almost always more responsive to market changes, and as a result, will adjust to different market demands.

Where does the money go? On average, the largest expenditures for both non-profits and for-profits are salaries paid to the faculty, and they are about the same (over 50%) for both. Yes, that includes UoP, who mostly employs adjunct faculty.
Administrative expenses are the second big factor.
On average, compared to non-profits, for-profits spend less on administrative expenses.

For-profits spend little on programs and activities that are not directly related to the student's educational experience in classrooms and instructional laboratories. That is, no expenses on sports teams, president's houses, golf courts, residence halls, statues and stadiums. For profits keep amenities to a minimum by allocating resources to expenses that have a direct relationships to student's educations, such as classroom facilities, instructional labs, and educational technology.

OTOH, non-profits have been heavily criticized for spending much of their expenses not related to education. For example, budget cuts on library services and less availability of graduate class offered in a year (some offered only once a year), yet there is still enough money to pay extraordinary salaries/raises to the president, and build unnecessary state-of-the-art buildings that are costly to maintain). Very noble indeed. And lets not forget about some fraudulent activities that some schools have been accused of doing with their money.
So the "not-for-profit" claim is more a façade on paper IMO.
Greed and vanity are going to exist in both types of institutions no matter how they are ranked or judged.

As for serving the students, for profits tend to have a very good understanding of the students needs, are more receptive to their levels of satisfaction, and much more responsive to market forces. Not-for profits also have been known to be very slow and reluctant to respond to market forces. Because of the rise of the for-profits, now they are starting to change this….hopefully.

Define quality. Most research indicates little difference (if any) in the quality of classes taught at RA for-profits and non-profits.
As far as I have seen, many universities who are too heavily into research than education tend to be the low tiers.

For-profits have a more practical and professional goals, as well as paying homage to academic standards. At Argosy, for example, faculty is not involved in research but is required to be an active practitioner of the subject he/she teaches. Thus, their differences in the structure of their programs both types of schools is like comparing apples-and-oranges.

Plus, a doctorate that is both RA and professionally accredited from a for-profit is proof of a high quality doctorate, regardless of whether the institute conducts its own research or not. I have not seen any research that says doctorates from non-research institutes have proven to be inferior or low quality.

Argosy, both RA and professionally accredited (APA).
And rest assured that more are to follow on professional accreditations.
I have been impressed with old schools (yes, older than your and my alma mater) like DeVry and Strayer, and new ones like Capella.

What's with the resurfaced value of the USNEWS rankings? Many faculty from low tier institutions claim that the USNEWS rankings is a biased and an unfair ranking system that does not represent the true quality of their schools.

But to answer your question, I don't think that quality per se is the reason why the for-profits are not ranked. Bias against them can be one factor. Also, for profits don't offer the variety of programs that a traditional university does; Only those that are in high demand, about 4-5. Too small to be ranked by USNEWS. Plus, some of them specialize on graduate degrees only (Capella). Still, they are mentioned in their site.

The top tier institutions fight for prestige, compete and spend too much time fighting for their top spots. For-profits, or should I say, the tax-paying, are driven to create a successful product to make the profit. That is, successfully preparing students for the current market demands. Most students are highly demanding and want to get their money's worth.

If you abide so much about the rankings, then Nova's low (lowest for 2 yrs in a row) 4 tier ranking isn't saying much about its reputation (both undergrad and doctoral). Now I ask you, how would you rate a large school (such as Nova), that offers so many programs, but is ranked so low by USNEWS, and has quite a bit of student dissatisfaction with the undergrad programs? Surely it is not because the classes are "hard"?

And what will happen if they do get it? If the market strongly demands AACSB accreditation, then they will pursue it. They are now heavily heading into the professional accreditations. For example, An APA degree in psychology is on high demand, and Argosy has successfully achieved both RA and professional accreditation for their psychology programs. Capella is also on its way of doing so, and almost has CACREP accreditation for their counseling programs. Also, Capella University has been approved to endorse K-12 principals and superintendents for licensure in Minnesota.

Academic excellence depends on the quality of the program (regardless of whether it is for or non-profit), the incentive and professionalism of the faculty, and how much the student puts in his/her work. In the end, YOU make the degree, not the other way around.


The lines of demarcation between for and not-for-profit are fading. The fact that non-for-profits are developing officially for-profit avenues (Columbia's digital media division), and for-profits establishing non-for-profit foundations to receive gifts and grants for the students are evidence of this. Capella's Harold Abel School of Psychology now offers scholarships and grants to psychology students.

Please don't think that I see all for-profits as good, some I don't particularly like, but the same goes for the traditional institutions. And again, I don't think that the line between them is that clear anymore.


I hope I was able to placate some of your "beefs".

-S

 

Sulla - you make some good points. Indeed, there are some non-profit operations that do a poor job of educating students. What I've yet to see is a for-proift that does a good job.

Here are a few points.

Unfortunately, this is not true. In a prior discussion I presented the results of some analysis I did on the financials of UoP and NSU. UoP spends over half of their revenue stream on non-academic areas (administration, profit and tax). Non-profits spend far more than half their revenue on academic programs. Compared to non-profits (even agressive ones like NSU), the financial picture is quite different.

Also, realize that non-profits received significant funding from gifts and government grants that for-profits don't have.

Bottom line - for profits spend significantly less money on instruction than non-profits. How can this work? For profits employ large armies of adjuncts. While this can be a good thing - to a point - the lack of full-time faculty is a serious weakness of for-profit programs. Who conducts research? Who develops the curriculum? Who advises students? For-profits do not have a good answer to these questions.

In previous posts I've shown that the student to full-time faculty ratio of for profits is very high (300 or 400 to 1) compared to aggressive non-profits (such as NSU at 40 to 1) or traditional universities (20 to 1).

This sounds like an issue but it isn't. Sports teams and dorms are basically self funding. Dorm fees, tickets, contributions by alumni, etc. easily cover these costs.

An examination of library spending by for-profits is instructive. In a prior post I make the point that for-profits (such as University of Sarasota) spend far less on library resources than to do non-profits (such as NSU). Should this matter to students doing doctoral research? I think so.

Greed is a universal problem, no doubt. However, what are the public reporting requirements of non-profits versus for-profits? Non-profits are required to submit a form 990 to the IRS annually. These forms are available for viewing on the web at www.guidestar.com and they reveal much of the inner workings of a non-profit - including the salaries of the top paid employees. If greed is taking over an institution, one can certainly see it. For-profits, if privately held, don't have to report anything.

Perhaps the competitive challenge to non-profits is one of the few bright spots in the for-profit world. But what do for-profits respond to? "Student needs" includes a lot of territory - all the way from "quick responses to inquiries" to "I want a degree without a lot of work".

Can you provide any citations on this? I've seen a lot of research on differences in on-line versus traditional classes. I've not seen any thing that compares non-profits and for-profits.

I can't argue with this - but I can ask the question "What services does the institution provide students to help them learn?" What I've shown is that for-profits spend less of their revenue on faculty and libraries and more on selling/admin expenses, profit and taxes than non-profits. Further, non-profits receive gifts and grants that allow them to spend even more on educating.

Thanks for your post - but I remain convinced that the best universities in the U.S. are non-profits. For-profits (and some non-profits) are in the lower tiers.

-S

[/QUOTE]

 

[/B][/QUOTE]



So you are saying that there are for profit that are in the Highers tiers? UMMM! I am here still wondering about the relationship that Wayne has with Nova.

Let me see, Can Wayne make more money by having a relationship with Nova, Yessssss! He can and he will use it. No-for profit is a form of business same reason as you have Corporation instead of business Owner, Is an Umbrella to shelter themselves, non for-profit most important point is to acquire a lot assets and be able to pay higher salaries for the ones that run the schools, is this is a form on indirect profits?


So, why should I pay a non for profit University high tuition as for profits. For profit I would have things that matter to me more like services and convinience. Also I would be able to networking with people that can help me to get connections. I am strong believer that is not what you know is who you know and is not the school is the student.


If I go to schools of business to learn about maximizing profits, making money, etc.. I expect that school I go to be good at this as well and many more principles, but most important is to learn how to make profits, and this the idealogy of most business students have, to make money for themselves and others. If I go to a business school and mentalilty is inclined to non for profits the I am not going no where in my personal life and professional life.


What Argosy and Nova have in common:

They charge about the same tuition for students
They Both are RA.
Both have Merge for a common purpose.


Vini

 

Vinipink - here is a reply.

Thanks - Andy

No - my point was that non-profits range from the very best universities to some of the worst. For profits are always in bottom tiers. I haven't seen a high quality for-profit school.

Wayne, like many wealthy men and women, has chosen to give Nova some money. In return the university has named the school after him. Should students care? Of course, Wayne has given NSU money that they can use to operate the school, build a new building, etc. over and above tuition dollars. Do for-profits have such donors? Or course not.

Or does Wayne, like other wealthy folks, give money as a legacy that carries his name? Is it possible that folks do things that don't have a profit implication?

If you pay a non-profit as much for tuition as you pay a for-profit the difference may be where the money goes. Non-profits spend more on faculties and libraries than for-profits. For profits pay dividends and taxes. Where do you want your tuition money to go?

As for service and convenience - Non-profits like NSU have begun to wake up and smell the coffee. Service levels in many non-profits have improved.

And, what they have in difference:

1. NSU spends much more on library resources (see my previous thread)
2. NSU employs a much larger full-time faculty and they pay their faculty more (see my previous thread)
3. NSU receives substantial gift income and grants that allow the school to spend more on educating students.
4. Argosy must earn a profit (and pay taxes) to survive, Nova doesn't have to earn a profit (and it doesn't pay taxes)

The choice is yours.

 

Does anyone else feel that their are sooooo many non-profit colleges and universities that stating one spends more of their revenue on students is pointless?

First, we have to admit that we are ignoring the "minor" fact that more money spent doesn't = better. Secondly, each university/college have different priorities for their revenue so generalizations about how non-profits and for-profits spend their revenue is cRRaZZyy.

p.s. Sports programs "might" support themselves at some colleges/universities, but I'm positive this is not the case at most. Their is no way that Ripon College, Southeast Missouri State, etc... support their football, swimming, etc... teams on ticket sales. Football may be a money maker on the top 50?? 100??? programs, but how many college football teams are there?

 

Response to Andy

According to Education Industry, the percent spent on faculty for Argosy is 60 %, DeVry/Keller 59 %, Strayer 40%. Around the ballpark with non-profits.

The hiring of adjunct faculty no doubt reduces the cost, but faculty expenses still consume most of the expenditures of both non & for profit, as emonstrated in the examples above. That means that half of the money of non-profits from donations, tuition and government funding goes into people's pockets. Everyone is here to make a buck. And as seen in the traditional schools, the people on the top of the food chain get the most ridiculous bonuses and salary raises. Of course, these activities are not called making "a profit" by traditionalists, only they call it "receiving benefits". Unfortunately, the poor and underserved workers continue to get paid minimum wages.

As an answer to your question, I thought you might enjoy reading this quote.

"Already the distance education and joint venture arms of
traditional universities, and all for-profit universities, are demonstrating
that research is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for
educational prowess. While research can be helpful, such prowess
requires an organized and comprehensive set of activities dedicated to
improving and assuring educational quality."

William F. Massy,
Professor Emeritus,
Stanford University

Research by the faculty, although academically great, is not necessary in order for them to provide a quality education at the doctoral level IMO. BTW since most teachers at graduate level classes hold doctorates, they share their own research with the students.

Full time faculty.

Mentors, instructors, graduate students, and student advisors. Most of for-profit mentors are required to have doctorates of their own.
And all classes need to be taught by RA doctorate instructors only.

Probably, but they have enough faculty to meet the 16-1 ratio of faculty to student ratio.
Both adjunct and full time spent their time exclusively on teaching, without taking significant time off for research. Plus most of them teach the whole academic year. And benefits from for-profits and non-profits are usually competitive.

Unfortunately, it is an issue. With the high tuition rates and amenities that they get from other sources, yes they can easily fund these facilities, as well as mansions, gardens, non-usable lakes and other unnecessary luxuries. For-profits don't have to worry about these expenses, and can exclusively devote on classroom educations.

For the exception of UoP, most for-profits have less students than non-for-profits, are smaller, with significantly less programs (much less), and not nearly the amount of doctoral studends of different disciplines.

The University of Sarasota has already satisfied APA's library requirements. And believe me, achieving APA, like with AACSB, is not an easy feat for any university. Argosy has done so in almost every one of their campuses. Examples of APA failures include the University of Cincinnati and University of Massachusetts.
In other words, an APA doctorate from Argosy has more weight in the workforce than one from either of those two established universities mentioned.
BTW, and talking about libraries, Capella University has paired with Sheridan Libraries at John Hopkins University's virtual library.

For profits don't hide that fact they make a profit. Non-for profits shamelessly create their for-profit arms and make good money whilst being exempt from paying taxes. You would assume that corruption and greed in non-profits have already found a way around that 990, especially after the Stanford scandal back in the late 80s. With for-profits, if they offer quality education paired with providing the student with respectful treatment & services, and they provide me of something superior than what I am used to, then they deserve the profit.

Student needs that are not well met by traditional universities, and I think that is specific enough. And that includes, more availability of programs, education better responsive to market demands, better placement awareness in the workforce, better student treatment (as opposed as being seen as one more number) and a quality education that is worth the high price paid for. Students will complain if the quality is poor after spending all that money. It is in the best interest of the for-profit that they keep the quality competitive with the traditional universities. In most cases, actually, they use the same blueprint and keep most traditional methods of teaching.

With the possible exception of UoP, good example of rigorous programs are, as mentioned, those at Argosy, Capella and Keller. Students who want easy degrees usually do not last in any of these schools, and quickly drop out. Some of them return to traditional settings and pursue easier majors.

Community Colleges and Proprietary Schools: Conflict or Convergency? By Clowed & Hawthorne.

Well, since Nova is tax exempt, and receives all of these wonderful contributions from donations, wouldn't you expect them able to afford to LOWER their tuition a bit?

Yes, the best, especially the "non-profit" private universities.
You're not going to find any great for profits, but there are some very good ones. The quality of student work at Argosy is very rigurous. In fact, maybe even better than others since APA has demanded higher academic standards for a for-profit.

I would suggest placing more interest in the quality of the teachings, degree of the curricula, and quality work by the students before making knee-jerk reactions about quality education based on the financial goals of an institute.

But like I said before, the lines of demarcation between for and non-for profit are quickly disappearing. I think that using the terms non and for profit will no longer be adequate in the near future.

-S