Touro or Capella

The issue is a philosophical one. In the for-profit institution, the student is the primary customer and society is secondary. However, in the non-profit institution, the student is not the primary customer but society, ostensibly.

Consider the role of the teacher. In the for-profit institution, the student tells me what they want and I tell them what I can give them. In the non-profit institution, I tell them what I can give them and to a lesser degree they tell me what they want. In the for-profit institution, I am held accountable by students who don't know enough to hold me accountable. In the non-profit institution, I am held accountable by people who determine what and to what degree they will hold me accountable. Both systems and have advantages and disadvantages, so it is not so easy to tell which is best.

Dave

 

"Show me a for-profit school in any of the top ranking lists - such as USNews".

I would hope that you (we) base our opinions on something more credible than US News. We all know how US News puts together these popularity polls and besides these types of rags have more than their own problems with crediblity and accuracy. I mean.....are their really people who still believe what they read in the New York Times? The bottom line here is that most of the for profits have been created within the past 15 years. Wanna bet that if Harvard were founded in 1991 they wouldn't be on the list either?

 

I would generally agree with you on most of what you said. I do, however, believe, that there are more than one reason for getting a Ph.D. "research degree" than for research only. I know plenty of Ph.d.'s that have gone to standard "research" programs and never intended to do research for their life mission. One clear example are those who get the Ph.D. for licensure in Clinical Psychology. They are capable of doing research if they need to but don't do it.

I can tell you that "non-profit" schools like Miami Dade College (which until recenlty was the world largest "junior college with over 77k students [now a 4 year school], about 1/3 faculty are full time and the rest 2/3 is all adjunct. I can tell you that the main reason MDC uses adjuncts is to make more money by not having to pay full time salaries. I teach as many courses as a full time but I'm paid less and have no benefit, other than using the athletic facilities (big deal).

That the n-profits use their monies for more research and teaching, may be true in your experience... not in mine. I see bigger buildings being built and bigger payrolls of top dogs... and more perks (free house for the Prez). Chairpersons making upwards of 80k starting packages. Not to mention also when a patent is obtained, millions come into the coffers of the n-profit going into the same bank account that big footballand b-ball money goes.

YOu may be right but I have found that it borders on insanity and ridiculous that many Ph.d.'s are just plainly abused by egotistical professors who had to take 8 years themselves to get their Ph.D.'s and who will get credit and money for the research the dog-Ph.D. student is losing blood over. I see no virtue on having a Ph.D. take more than 3-4 years. It may be a sign of despotism and idiocy with that institution and maybe that it is frozen in the Dark Ages.

As for Saybrook, maybe it is tougher (though my Committee chair got his Ph.D. from there) or just plain archaic in terms of making their students repeat classes they already had in the masters. That is certainly true in typical psychology dept.'s It is quite common for a Masters Level clinician decide to go to get a Clinical Pysch doc and then find out he has to retake most of his classes, often only getting two classes transferred in. That is a waste in my opinion. I asked once the dean of the Clinical Psych program at Fielding about this (years ago). He said, it is a racket in his opinion.

So I say it is not a virtue to make you retake classes you've already passed with outstanding grades. It is a $$$$$ thing. Most n-profits and profits do this but are not mandated by either Regionals or organizations such as APA.

It varies, in my opinion. Capella is furiously on fast-speed to obtain APA accreditation of school psychology and clinical/counseling psychology. It is also working on business, IT, and educational accreditations.

Right now, only Fielding is the game in town but not for long.

I believe that many private non-profit schools operate lke "for profits" and like someone already said, they are "non-profit" only to avoid paying taxes. They pay their top dogs mucho mula ($$$$$) with golden parachutes and many perks... just like CEO's of private industry. With all the patents, grants, egoes, sports programs, more feathers in prof's caps at grad student expense, etc.... these institutions are powerhouses of lots of money. It is BIG business (which utilize many lobbyists to protect their interests and turfs).

 

Here is the largest community/junior college. Miami Dade's enrollment wasn't even close.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ccaf/message.php

 

Daniel,
I would be interested in you naming one for-profit (accredited) that advances based soley on paying tuition and how did you come about that information? Is this first hand knowledge?

 

OK... I stand corrected. I am parroting what many in administration would say. Probably this is the kind of thing that might go like, "Miami Dade Comm. College is the largest JC that is in one city." Obviously, the Air Force school is larger when you transcend geographical barriers involving my institutions, etc.

Thanks for the enlightening work!

 

No problem. Enlightenment is my general goal.

BTW - I just noticed your location. Good stuff.

 

Phoenix.

Without exception, every person I know who has attended Phoenix for undergraduate work - and there are many - has reported something fishy. I'm not in a position to comment on graduate work.

Group work where the strong pull along the weak/lazy is the most common complaint, but we have one outright case of someone in our office receiving an A for a course despite never attending the class or submitting any work - none.

There were problems with my very large public B&M, and for sure there are problems with the private non-profit I attend now. But not *those* kind of problems.

 

In other words this is second hand information? Even if it is true - and I don't know - is it wise to paint the for-profits in such a manner based upon the behavior of one school? Do you know of another?

As far as the strong pulling the weak/lazy...I will tell you that I graduated from one of the largest public university in the midwest (8 campuses, about 100K students system wide, law school, med school, etc...... That university had many schools/programs in the top ten - some were #1. If I utilized that criteria (strong pulling the weak) to judge a school then I would have to conclude that my alma mater was indeed inferior.

As far as a student receiving an A for never attending class......gee.....sounds like a lot of college athletes from a lot of the not-for-profit schools who graduate on time. Interesting.

 

Your example about the athletic departments only underscores my point: money corrupts. Greed undermines academic standards, and in a completely mercenary, for-profit environment
the level of corruption is that much higher.

Not-for-profits bounce students for academic non-performance all the time. We probably all know someone to whom this has happened. (Athletics? Indiana finally kicked out Bobby Knight. UNLV kicked out Jerry Tarkanian.) Do you know of anyone who has been kicked out of Phoenix or Capella for academic non-performance?

 

I've heard this assertion about Phoenix too - some people have clearly gotten lucky.

Money corrupts. I'll believe these assertions about quality when I start seeing the for-profits kicking out paying-but-non-performing student/customers.

 

I haven't seen a lot of defense for UoP in this forum or elsewhere.

Yes, which is why I don't believe there is such a thing as a not-for-profit.

I've heard of several students at Argosy who were not admitted to their APA clinical programs. Since Capella made their preparations for APA, I've seen them become more stringent with the quality of their students. There have also been many who failed to pass the COMPS and were given the boot.

Just curious, but which institution are you working for?

 

Daniel,
I understand that you believe money corrupts. I think the difference between you and I is that you believe it corrupts in all cases (when it comes to academia). I believe that it can but I also believe that that is not always the case. I think, however, that you fail to admit how the NFP's behave when it comes to money. They sell their naming rights, they want their athletic teams to be on primetime, they sell patents and the outcomes of their research labs. They tend to extort money from the alumni with lavish alumni gatherings, box seats, etc......... Other things that I think are just as corrupting are pretige, influence, power, etc.... I mean Daniel....why do you think a US Senator spends millions of dollars for a job that pays what $200K? It is the power and prestige that comes with the job.

Now...I don't ignore the examples we have heard of here on DI. There are always bad apples. Back to my alma mater - I can give you a bushel of bad apples at that institiution and it was named the #1 research university (by US News) in 2004. Should I broadly say all large universities are bad - nope. Again, the difference between you and I is that you are willing to broadly label all FP's as inferior and driven by greed. I on the other hand am not.

As far as greed undermining academic standards (my athletic example), I would suggest that you should be more concerned with the ethical standards of those who "give" grades to athletes than what they may or may not receive. Remember, just because something is offered doesn't mean it has to be accepted.

As far as Bob Knight....what does this have to do with our conversation? Knight was fired for being a bully and insubordinate. A very high % of his players honestly graduated. Had the university been more interested in his behavior rather than winning basketball games they would have fired him 10 years earlier. In this case pretige rather than money caused the university to trash their own moral compass.

Finally, the level of corruption in FP v NFP's? I will tell you that over of the years I have worked for both FP's and NFP's. Both are equally corrupt. You asked if I personally knew of student who were dismissed from either Capella or UOP for lack of performance - actually, yes I do. Oh......were you going to give me other examples of FP schools that give A's for tuition or for not attending class?

 

I already addressed this point - money is corrupting the non-profits. But it is naieve to think that it doesn't corrupt the for-profits to a higher degree. Non-performers advance.

Skepticism about *any* credential is healthy for a hiriing manager, but one must view for-profit credentials with a higher level of skepticism.

Now then...

Athletics and grades:

1. Alumni and boosters have a quid pro quo, but *getting better grades for their sons and daughters isn't among the terms*. An example: Paige Laurie (Wal-Mart fortune heiress) returns her fraudulently-gained diploma. USC challenged one of the richest women in the world. This would NOT happen at Phoenix or Capella, where non-performers advance.

2. I know of no examples where an instructor gave a passing grade to an athlete for work that was *known* to be fraudulent. In cases of which I'm aware the student-athlete submitted the work of others as his own. The NCAA is flawed, but it attempts to police this sort of thing with more vigor than the regional accreditation bodies.

3. The faculty I've known are *universally* quite resentful of the level of money and attention poured into athletics. That my alma mater's head football coach is paid over $1M/yr - with the two coordinators paid $300k - is a major irritant to the faculty. These folks are NOT disposed to favoring athletes. Example: Corey Dillon - one of the most successful running backs in Washington history - left the UW with a 1.8 GPA, sans degree (albeit for the NFL). This would not happen at a for-profit, where non-performers advance. If Phoenix had a football team Corey would have been on the Dean's List. ;-)

Attrition:
Someone has been bounced from a for-profit for failing? Glad to hear it - let's hope for more. I look forward to the day when student attrition rates approximate non-profit levels. Until then, we will see non-performers advance.

Corruption:
For-profit education corruption levels = non-profit education corruption levels? I would like to hear examples of non-profit corruption *inflating student grades*. Be specific.

 

Daniel,
You continue to avoid my question. Other examples of FP's giving A's for only for tuition and/or for not attending class?

 

One isn't enough for you? It should be. It illustrates a fundamental flaw of the FP model:

Profit motive distorts the student-school relationship, turns into a customer-merchant relationship. In the former the school holds the student accountable. In the latter the customer holds the merchant accountable.

 

Sorry Daniel, the skeptical researcher that I am suggests that one abberation does not make it so. I suppose those of us who have conducted academic research would agree. Sounds to me like you may not be able to back up your previous claims. At this point, I suppose this group is tiring for of our debate. We may want to make this a private exchange.

 

I don't see large numbers of students from for-profit institutions in my graduate classes. But when I do, it is obvious that I am challenging them in ways in which they have not previously experienced in the classroom.

The retention rate and GPAs of the grad students in our graduate business programs possessing undergraduate degrees from for-profit institutions are very different from those of students from non-profit institutions.

When we rank our business grad student's performance and retention by undergraduate institution, eliminating schools represented with 2 or fewer students, the for-profit schools cluster at the bottom of list. By the way, all of these for-profit institutions are RA.

My institution requires a GMAT for admission. We do not weight an admission candidate's GPA by the perceived quality of their undergraduate institution. We treat any RA school's 3.3 GPA no differently than we would treat the same GPA from our institution.

I would expect these school's least-qualified students that wish to pursue a graduate degree to self-select programs that do not require the GMAT. Presumably, the sample we are seeing is from the top of their classes rather than the bottom.

My experience with undergraduate transfer students from for-profit institutions is less consistent. Overall, the students that transfer in from for-profit institutions have the same performance issues as the graduates of such schools. However, the traditional college-age sophmores that transfer from such programs seem to perform as well as their counterparts from non-profit schools.

I am not making an argument against DL in favor of B&M. In fact, most of the for-profit schools represented in our grad programs are B&M.

I realize that my institution's experience is a sample of one. But my experience in the classroom and my institution's experience with for-profit prepared students seems to be consistent with many of the postings on this and other forums.