diploma mills

I guess the point I would make is that isn't as simple as the current discussion makes it appear. At a for profit the school is responsible mainly to the shareholder, student, administration and faculty. At the not for profit the school is responsible mainly to the administration, faculty, federal government, state government and (possibly!) student.

Both the for profit and not for profit have adavantages and disadvantages. Both benefit from being in a competitive market where they must compete to survive. I am enrolled at a not for profit, but am very glad the for profits have pressured the not for profits into providing DL and an at least somewhat student focused posture.

 

No problem.

That question was answered. See thread: http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=74917#post74917

You did not answer some of my questions though. I asked you to define your definition of "high quality". If this pertains to Ivy League education, then no, there are no profits that come close to them and there never will be. I don't see anything wrong with any school that can't compete with the Harvards of education as long as they do they do a decent job.

Now if your definition pertains to the structure of a program's curriculum, number of full time vs. adjunct, etc. then I'd like to see any research with empirical evidence that clearly shows that the average non-profit student learns better than students at for profits.

In some states, a university cannot refer itself as one if it doesn't offer doctoral degrees or at least three as it is in the state of NY regardless of the above definition. There are for-profits that do offer undergrad, masters and doctorates. Don't want to call them universities? Fine. I don't have a problem with this like I don't see a problem with small non-profits being called institutes or specialized schools of higher education.

Ok then, so where do most non-profits get a great chunk of their funding for research? donations from major for-profit corporations that are consistently investing in academic research.


And btw, as I already stated in another thread, research by the faculty, although academically great, is not necessary in order for them to provide a quality education at the doctoral level IMO.

I will again post this quote from a top expert in this matter.

"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

There are dark sides to both types of institutions. Neither side is perfect, but I can also say that non-for profits' quest for prestige (especially the upper tiers) are motivated by vanity.
So which is worse, vanity or profit?

 

A few points and I'll leave this thread alone...

1. Massy isn't the only expert in the field. A review of doctoral program websites make clear the research component of doctoral studies. Statements like "The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is a research degree that requires high level skills in research methodology and analysis." make clear that research is an essential aspect of doctoral studies.

Massey's own school, Stanford, says on its website:

"The synthesis of teaching and research is fundamental to Stanford University. All faculty engage in scholarly research, most often in association with graduate students or advanced undergraduates."

I know of at least one school that was denied regional approval of a doctoral program - because their faculty lacked research credentials. I for one am glad to see this.

A student may earn a bachelor's degree or a terminal masters with faculty that lack research experience. A doctoral program taught by faculty without a research background is a cruel joke.

 

All doctorate programs at the for-profits require a good deal of research already by the students. Research by faculty is great but not essential in the education of the students which is what I'm aiming at.

Again, for profits are not trying to replace the non-profit system and they rather leave faculty research to the grand universities, which are already doing a great job (partly thanks to the funding provided by generous for-profit sources).

Stanford is Stanford, and is among the elite research universities in the world. Research is great, and Stanford is a great university. But great doesn't mean 'necessary' for students to learn. But based on Massy's last statements, the perception of research for educative purposes might start to change.

Ok, here is my answer from my previous thread:
For-profits have 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 of both types of schools is like comparing apples-and-oranges.

Something that I've seen lacking in non-profits is the lack of outside-work experience from their faculty. This is a weakness IMO if the student is aiming at a profession in the outside world.

And I'll add something more. Many, many adjunct professors have a great combination of experience (most have doctorates from traditional universities btw), in both research and practice. I have met quite a number of adjunct faculty who are full time faculty at traditional universities at the same time.

This is starting to look like a game of words, Andy. Ok, let me switch sides now. Which is better now, market awareness/placement or vanity?
Advantages and disadvantages can be found in both.

There is also a lot of bias involved. A quality program won't be ranked at all if it comes from a for-profit school, even if there is enough evidence to support that it is as effective in educating students as that of a famous school. Some non-traditional schools that have rather decent programs are almost always scored lower than schools who probably have about the same level of quality (e.g., bias against non-traditional education such as with Nova).

Plus lets not forget that there is quite a bit of controversy with how the top schools continue to get their top notch rankings. USNEWS does have its critics.

It seems to be more correlated with cherry picking the top students who would succeed in the real world with or without their Ivy league degree.

Fair enough. Also realize that any dl program will automatically get lower points that traditional ones. For example, the Fielding Institute has a sound program, yet because of its DL reputation and the small size of the school, it continues to have a low ranking.

I do agree that most if not all AACSB accredited schools offer superior education than that of any for-profit school or many of the non-profits that don't have it . I know that not everyone is a big fan of AACSB, but I have great respect for this particular professional accreditation.

But keep in mind that many people might just do fine going to Fridays or Applebees. Going to the best restaurants is great, but some might not find it necessary to have a great time.

-S

 

Bill, here is a couple ways to approach this.

We can view the student as the middle man. He is purchasing (with cash, time, and effort) a good, and hopes to sell that good to a third party (an employer.) As long as it is accepted by the ultimate consumer, the third party, as equivalent, it is in the students best interest to cut costs as much as possible. In the case with some for profits, the most relevant costs for the student choosing these degree programs are associated with time and effort expended. Because he is not the ultimate consumer, the student's demand will not adjust to a lack of quality in the product. In fact, the student might see a lower quality product (meaning less time and effort) as being a superior product.

We can view the student as ill informed. He is 'earning' an accredited degree, just like the successful business men and women he reads about in Fortune. He has learned about accreditation and knows RA is the gold standard. He is on the fast track to the corner office. The for profit schools lower standards as far as possible, because they know the customer is always right, and a lot of the customers gripe about the rigor of any program. Not only that, but highly rigorous programs are also highly discriminatory by nature. So the schools get the best of both worlds. They get to raise prices and increase their potential market of customers. Win, Win...right?????????

Tony

 

brick and mortar can be just as wasteful

... perhaps more so. yes, I'd say moreso. This is in response to a previous poster about financial problems. In my opinion (bear in mind I am influenced by radical libertarian political thinking, but I believe it still stands).

Universities that are tax-funded can and are wasteful because they don't have stockholders to be responsible to. They aren't co-operatives so they don't have members to be responsbile to.

Example: I used to attend high status UBC in Vancouver, Canada. I remember the anger I felt when I saw, at the end of the fiscal year, hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on totally unneccessary cosmetic changes. Why? Because if they didn't spend it and had a surplus their next year's budget would be reduced. Everyone working on campus knew it. It was a open secret.

So this idea that for-profit institutions are morally suspect - well I don't accept that for a minute. If anything government institutions are more suspect.

 

I work for the state's largest public university. I have seen exactly what hermes states, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on fancy stone entrances, copper guttering on buildings, etc., and don't even get me started on the money spent on the sports programs while the education offices are unscrewing every other light bulb to save on electric and counting paper clips (this really is happening here, it's been widely reported both in our newspaper and the university's student newspaper). At the same time, tuition went up nearly 20% over the summer. And then there is the constant hiring of consultants (millions of dollars) to "evaluate" different aspects of running the university.
And of course, no professors teach at the first two-three years of undergrad level, only TA's, some who don't speak english well enough to be understood.

I don't know if this is all because state government is somewhat involved in state universities or what. I can't pretend to know all about the in-depth discussion you all are having. I just know what I see and what I hear from the very people who work here and from looking around. And this is a university who is aiming to be one of the top 20 research institutions in the US in the next 10 years, and will tell anyone who will stand still long enough all about it. They need a dose of good old American business standards.