UOP's Perception!

http://encarta.msn.com/elearning/120.asp

 

Confused...

I don't understand your post... What is the point you are trying to make with the Encarta link ???

Dick

University of Phoenix Adjunct

 

Dick,

I think Manjuath only wants us to infer that UOP is well regarded because it is mentioned in the article:

"A recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics identified fields with the most job openings for applicants holding bachelor's or associate's degrees. Online degree programs from schools such as University of Phoenix Online can get you started".

However, this article may be some sort of paid advertisement.

 

Yes, that was my thought when I saw it. I figured that UoP paid to have their name mentioned in the article. It's certainly not uncommon. According to a friend of mine who works at AOL, they do that sort of thing all the time. I figured that this was just MSN doing the same thing.

I'm afraid that all this article says is that UoP has a big marketing budget, which we already knew from their other advertisements.

 

ASide from my other concerns about UoP, all I know is that I question the quality of a school that feels the need to advertise through SPAM and pop-up ads.

 

I meant that UOP is trying all means to lure/attract students to their "expensive" online degree programs with the "hot career" statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics thro this article/advertisement. Sorry for the incomplete post.

 

I fail to see what quality has to do with marketing strategy. If UoP stops this type of marketing, will the quality of their programs magically improve? If Harvard starts this type of marketing, will their programs magically worsen? The thing is, their for profit status brings with it a different business model. One that includes an agressive marketing campaign. Where I live, I see and hear commercials for the local colleges all the time. Because UoP's tarket market spans across the globe, it only seems prudent that they would choose a marketing tool that also does. That is what they have done.

While I'll admit that the quality of their programs seem lacking for the the cost of the education, I also believe that they meet the needs of many who are looking for an education. My company paid for the entire degree, so it was a tremendous and convenient value. It seems, judging by the size of their enrollment, that many Americans agree.

 

The modern equivalent of matchbooks.

One that includes an agressive marketing campaign.

Consequently, you pay for a Lexus-education but get a Yugo because the majority of the tuition dollars goes to advertising, sales commissions, and collections.

 

Assumptions (?)

So what are you infering??? The quality of the instructors who faciltate the education process is crap becase U o P spends the majority (your claim not mine) of their revenue on the items you alledge and not on faculty pay???

Dick

 

Re: Assumptions (?)

Of course. 99% of the time, who will be the better professor and have more time for the students: an adjunct, with minimal (or no) administrative support, who works for nothing or next-to-nothing, and has a "day job" that is his primary concern. Or a full-time faculty member backed by a research university who is paid well to deliver the educational experience.

UoP is like a nice shiny car with a crap engine in it.

 

Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

Well thank you for your elitist opinion. Unfortunately not all universities are "research universities" and the ones that come to mind such as Stanford, MIT, Georgia Tech and so do not have their top notch stars teaching undergraduates. Even while I was a student at Ohio State, we undergrads were priveleged to have the Graduate Teaching Assistants running our classes and not the full-time facutly members who were well paid to deliver the educational experience. Can't say for certain if any of my Grad Teaching Assistants had any experience to bring to the classes.

Dick.

The 1% victim who does spend a lot of time working with his students despite his full time day job and is not paid well to deliver the Yugo experience.

 

That's true where "se94583" lives as well. BART commuter trains carry poster ads for schools such as USF, St. Mary's and SF State. I noticed that there are SJSU open university brochures in the local newspaper racks here in the "silicon valley" area. There's quite a bit of marketing going on.

Makes sense to me.

 

Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

I don't believe that your statement has any merit. When I was at Purdue they even used adjuncts for many of their traditional residential programs. My experience, as well as my wife's, was that the adjuncts without exception delivered high quality instruction, while it was very hit and miss when it came to the full-time faculty (some were outstanding, while some were very poor teachers, and some relied far too much upon graduate students with little experience). Research universities often seem to put more emphasis on research than on teaching, and I really don't see that serving the best interest of the undergraduate student.

The courses that I took from the University of Alaska all had high quality instruction, from both the adjuncts and the full-time faculty. I believe this was due to U of A being a smaller school with more emphasis on teaching than on research. My experience with adjuncts at Capitol College has also been positive overall. I feel that I've received quality instruction from 6 of my 7 instructors so far, though one of those seemed to have taken on too much (was teaching multiple classes in addition to his full-tim job), and didn't provide much in the way of feedback. The key point is that these instructors are judged entirely upon their teaching, rather than primarily upon their ability to publish research, so teaching is their focus. Most of them seem to be doing it because they enjoy it, and this comes through in the quality of instruction.

Many (though obviously not all) professors at large research institutions are only teaching courses because it is required of them, but they don't put much into it since they would much rather just be working on their research instead. They are generally teaching courses in addition to the research duties that are the primary focus of their jobs, so in general I don't see them as being more focussed on teaching than an adjunct.

Anyway, that's just my opinion based upon my own experiences and speculation.

 

Reality Check

I think it notable for disclosure purposes that Dick, in his profile, purports to be an adjunct for the Philadelphia "campus" of U. Phoenix. What is more notable, however, is that Dick's Ph.D. is from the unaccredited Kennedy-Western, which perhaps says something else about UoP..

Nonetheless, when it comes to the issue of advertising, I find it plausible that in the 1950's, people spoke of schools that advertised on matchbook covers. In the 2000's, matchbook coevrs have been replaced by pop-up ads. Suffice to say that, if we were still in the 1950's, UoP would easily have the same reputation as any other school that then advertised on matchbook covers.

As for Dick's undergraduate experience, there are many colleges that place an emphasis on teaching faculty as opposed to teaching by graduate assistants. If Dick chose to attend an undergrad program that featured the latter instead of the former, that was his decision. Many others here were not so . . . deprived.

Final observation: Not too far from where Dick and I are located is the Wider University School of Law, with campuses in Wilmington, DE, and Harrisburg, PA. Widener has long had the reputation of being a "cookie-cutter" institution that mass-produces law school graduates. In Widener's case, however, they provide exactly what they purport to provide: they qualify persons, through their ABA approval, to sit for the bar exam. It may not be a Harvard degree, but it does the trick for someone who wants to practice law. In other words, a school need not be "prestigious" to work for its graduates.

The situation with U. Phoenix is not so cut and dried, especially since there is no standard such as qualifying to sit for a state's bar exam, psych boards, or other type of professional licensure. Moreover, as any corporate executive knows, favoritism is often shown to graduates of the MBA programs from which the hiring manager graduated - that's why you often find an abundance of one or two particular schools represented in corporations. Those hiring managers may not perceive the same sense of validity in UoP because of its "matchbook marketing" and adjunct structure. I submit that their bias is not against non-traditional education in general, because they would be unlikely to have the same bias against traditional schools that have long had nontraditional MBA programs (e.g., Auburn, Colorado State, Regis, Syracuse). In their minds, as in mine, is one more proof that a school may be regionally accredited, yet still be a joke.

Sorry, folks, just my "elitist opinion."

 

Re: Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

The operative word is Purdue. Adjuncts at real universities often want to associate themselves with the university for prestidge and career enhancement. When I was at Tulane, many of the law school adjuncts worked for free, because it was Tulane , for resume value and possibly ascending to "professorhood." I doubt "McUniversity" would get the same line-up.


If that's "elitist" so be it. I think everyone should strive to get the best possible education for their time and money, and not just jump into a program because its well-marketed or acceptance is contingent on whether your check clears.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

Excellent observation. I would take it a step, further, however. Some people want their ego jollies so bad that they will affiliate with degree mills, let alone "real universities." Whether they are paid or unpaid is irrelevant.

In this thread alone, for example, we have heard the pontification of an adjunct at UoP. Prestigious? Hardly. But since said adjunct received his own correspondence doctorate from the unaccredited Kennedy-Western, the argument is relative.

Gary Rients makes a sound observation in this thread: There are many outstanding adjuncts out there. But, as a general rule, they have credible credentials.

Someone with a Kennedy-Western doctorate hired by UoP???

Wait a second . . . I think I'm about to have an attack . . .
Omigod, I can't resist . . .

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

But doesn't this contradict your earlier assertion? You wrote:

Of course. 99% of the time, who will be the better professor and have more time for the students: an adjunct, with minimal (or no) administrative support, who works for nothing or next-to-nothing, and has a "day job" that is his primary concern. Or a full-time faculty member backed by a research university who is paid well to deliver the educational experience.

It's hard to decide whether you are being elitist or not until you flesh out your argument with specifics. You seem to have implicitly dropped your point about adjuncts, and if you really do live in San Ramon, you know full well that schools like USF advertise in BART cars and in the 'Chronicle', so the advertising issue evaporates as well.

It's still not clear what point you are trying to make, apart from expressing general disdain at the University of Phoenix. If you personally don't like it, fine. I'll happily acknowledge that.

But if you want to insist that none of the rest of us should approve of it either, then you need to put some effort into convincing us.

 

You people got some problem with fine Balkan craftsmanship??? You try painting racing stripes on the side of a goat and training it to make engine noises.

 

The movies sell product placement: Coke pays big bucks for their drink to be sitting on the kitchen counter in a scene, etc. Wonder if this is done, or will be, with degrees. Scene in an executive's office, with a paid placement Kennedy-Western MBA diploma hanging on the wall. Etc.

--------------------------------------
Steve Levicoff: "Final observation: Not too far from where Dick and I are located is the Wider University School of Law..."
--------------------------------------
Didn't they play Narrower University in the Dimension Bowl last week?

PS: He meant "Widener."

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Assumptions (?)

Not at all. The original asertion questioned the perceived quality of a degree from an institution that spends all its money on annoying pop-up ads, SPAM, commissioned salespeople, and other aggressive marketing, and hires minimally-paid part-time faculty (otherwise known as adjuncts) without any of the other trappings of a "real" institution of higher learning, as the term has commonly been used in the US for the past 200 years or so. The point I was making was: would you rather spend your tuition dollars on education or marketing? Now some folks are just happy to buy an accredited degree, for whatever reason, and that's OK if you really don't mind. But if you do have one from an institution that markets itself via the same methods porno sites use, you will spend the rest of your career encountering gatekeepers who view your degree (regardless of whatever amount of blood, sweat, and tears you actually expended earning it) through those lenses.

To answer your other point, comparing a UoP adjunct and a Tulane, Purdue, or USF adjunct is really mixing apples and oranges. The later three institutions do have all the trappings of a real university, including full-time faculty and can attract quality adjuncts for all the reasons expressed in my earlier post. What is the UoP guy working for? $2500 a course?