U. Of Phoenix Loses In U.s. Court

No, that is a well-documented issue in academia. If you don't know this...or can't quickly verify this...why are you even participating in this exchange?

 

Unfounded? Back up that canard, please. Are you aware that our high school students typically rank 38th or 39th out of 40 major industrialized nations in math and science skills? For a cost creeping towards $10,000/yr per pupil--a national disgrace, I might add--our public system is turning out kids who consistently underperform vis-a-vis kids in private schools, even when factoring out family income and other sociological factors.

Our K-12 system sucks. Sucks out loud.

 

Isn't it the point of a forum, to exchange ideas and comments? I find difficult to understand the reason behind your participation in one if you can't even deal with different opinions. I feel your last remark is rude, and disrespectful to my views, that I expressed in polite and friendly terms.

You arrogate the privilege to speak in the name of academia, and I speak only in my name. Perhaps that is how you scholars perceive quality in education, but I, as a user, don't. I hope you can accept it, and I hope you let me express it freely.

 

Enough that my neighbors - the mom a principle at a K-12, the pop a college professor, send their children to a private k-12 school.

 

I'm sorry you feel "disrespected", hurt, and damaged.

Opinions are fine when they aren't confused with facts. I really don't think I m worthy of any further exchanges with you.

May I suggest blackbird instead?

 

You inclination to fall back on ad hominen argument is so explicit. You exude academic professionalism.

Yes, you are right. You aren't worthy. Perhaps a candle at Lourdes may make it for you.

 

Coach Turner, no, the State doesn't run those schools. It just provides some financing for them, but stays out of its management. It is not really responsible for either its success or its failure. UoP has a number of stakeholders to satisfy, to divide profits with, while non for profit institutions don't. That permits these universities, in the average, to make decisions based purely on academic criteria, not on economic ones like a “for profit” would normally do. I agree with you that by their very nature “for profits” are probably much better run from a financial point of view, but that just strengthens my point, as education aspects take just a secondary role. That is all I find difficult to accept from for profit educational institutions. As a side note, all organizations are out there to survive, even non for profit organizations need to collect equal or more funds its spends. We agree on this. I suspect the profit is used differently. While ones may have to divide with owners, the other ones my invest in facilities or better human resources (teachers, etc) or in other profitable ventures (what would be wrong with that? I have heard that the Catholic Church owns stock from some condom manufacturers... )

As you suggested, the market decides who survives, but it doesn’t clarify quality aspects. In other words, UoP’s surviving doesn’t mean it offers a good product. In fact, this product, education, is clearly not homogeneous. UoP does not constitute a substitute for Harvard or MIT, for instance, the highest exponents of quality in education. I think it is what economists call an inferior good. Most people would try to acquire the highest quality product, and would only resort to this type of goods if that’s all they can have access to.

Here in Europe it is generally the state which controls university education. They don’t do a bad job at all although many like better the American system. In fact, they manage to offer excellent educational opportunities on par (and often better) than those at the United States. All universities are supposed to be equal, but we all know how to distinguish which university to pick. We all know how to assess quality. We know there is a Nobel prize here in this institute or a department from that other university that has distinguished itself for its contribution to science or to humanities or someone who is an specialist in this new generation of engineering materials and so on. Some universities are from 1,400’s, and others from 1970s which is another aspect many people take into consideration while judging quality. And there are also for profit universities, which are generally very expensive, and then again, people tend to avoid them if they have a higher quality choice. But, yeah, they have a place in the market usually at the corporate level where they can do “magic” with fiscal engineering and employers disbursements. Abracadabra and ..... kaboom, the company and the state pays the tuition of yet another student at UoP..... Fine as long as we understand the heterogeneity of the product itself. BTW, here we have UoP as well. Regards.

 

expediency

Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

 

I can't help noticing that condescending people at these discussion boards often have one or more state approved or NA degrees, so pay no attention to them.

 

UoP isn't being sued over whether it provides a quality education - the issue is whether they broke the rules regarding financial aid. In fact, the US Govt declined to get involved in this particular lawsuit (maybe because they know it's a lost cause).

We can argue all day long whether the UoP programs are of equal quality as Harvard and MIT (I don't believe they are) but the fact is, this lawsuit has absolutely no bearing on that issue.

This is about some lawyers and former employees thinking they found a way to make a few bucks. I'm betting that when UoP got fined some years ago that the US DoE checked out their compensation package and approved it. That being the case, this is another potentially frivolous lawsuit.

Now, if someone wants to sue them for not providing an education equal to Harvard, MIT, Oxford -- I have to ask "what kind of idiot thinks UoP is equal to Harvard? Or even East Podunk State?"

==========

The state does in fact run many schools in this country. The administration and faculty are state employees under ultimate supervision of the Governor and the campus is property owned by the state. The state is absolutely and ultimately responsible for the results her institutions deliver. Some are good schools, some are not. But they are indeed state run and controlled.

The for-profit model and the non-profit private model differs from that of the state school. All three must be run with an eye on the bottom line and some consideration of both student desires and student outcomes or they will eventually fail. This is what the UoP and for-profit model tries to maximize.

While the NP and State school may have the freedom to insist that enrollment be severely limited and the curriculum be at the complete whim of the administration, the profit motive school exists to serve the desires of the consumer. It is their feduciary responsibility to maximize profits to the shareholder.

If one has a problem with the profit motive then he should not attend one of these schools. If one has a problem with state supervised education then he should not attend a state school. If one has a problem with Church run schools then he should not attend a religious school. I could go on and on... It's simply that here in America we let consumers have choices.

There is a market for the likes of UoP and they will therefor continue to supply that market until it is no longer profitable.

 

No one is arguing that as a nation we need to raise our level of educational achievement relative to the other, successful PUBLIC school systems in the world. Like many, however, your are misplacing the blame for our failures.

I would argue that we have a culture that values credentials over actual educational achievement. It has always been that way, with our Calvinist streak and our national belief in Horatio Alger mythology, but the trend has accelerated with the rise of certain HR screening techniques borrowed from corporate culture: no credential, no interview. Places like Phoenix have arisen by capitalizing on both those factors.

Most public teachers and administrators struggle valiantly to reach apathetic or marginally engaged students, as well as their detached, distracted, or plain overworked parents. This is at cost to these educators in both personal time and money (not to mention general well-being). In what other American profession do you see practitioners digging into their own pockets to meet the needs of other people's children? In US schools this happens every day. Where educational battles are lost I would not lay blame at the feet of the warriors.

Why do private school students succeed relative to public? Because they come from households that value educational achievement over most everything else. These students succeed because they chose the right parents. In placing their kids in a private setting, such parents choose to quarantine their kids from a peer-driven, MySpaced, American Idol'd culture of apathy.

Transplant a certain critical mass of students from average households into a private school and watch it fail, resources be damned.

Now, what does all this have to do with places like Phoenix and Capella? In cultures that value educational achievement - France, Germany, Scandinavia, Singapore, Japan, Korea - shareholder-owned, for-profit schools like that don't exist (or exist on the far margins).

If we want our kids to rise to the highest levels we will have to create a culture of expectation and accountability that will eventually drive the Phoenix and Capella tribes out of business. In such a culture, a mere check-the-blocks credential will simply not be good enough.

 

The issue is not whether or not the school is run for profit. It is really a question of what the overrriding objective is. Stanford and Harvard are not for profit schools (I know this is debatable so don't start) but they are some of the best schools in the world.

 

K-12 is mostly a local issue isn't it?

 

Exactly. It's no coincidence that our worst schools are located in communities where parent and peer culture does not prioritize high academic performance.

Teachers and administrators simply cannot apply the same level of expectation on/support to students that peers and parents can.

 

Personally I think the general rep of Harvard is based largely upon how hard it is to get in to.

As for fascinating debates with world renowned scientists ..... maybe.

The only first hand knowledge I have is from a faculty peer who got her doctorate from Harvard (psychology) she reports that her instructors were generally awful.

They were researchers who had no interest in teaching, weren't evaluated on their teaching ability and generally put no effort into it.

I'm sure it's not universal, but I suspect not rare.

In contrast, at my particular school (a masters degree in psychology) the instructors are evaluated almost exclusively on how well they convey class information.

Regards,
GME

 

No real reason to post other than perspective. The arguments on the struggles of the American Public School systems are well founded and, indeed, they need help.

As someone who has traveled the globe over, been or lived in almost every "stan", spent far too much time in over half of the African Continent and served as dinner for 90% of Asia's insect population, the American Public School system has a lot to be proud of. Don't lose sight of that. Debate and change but don't be too fooled into the "world" comparisons and the resulting myopia.

SMAS

Currently in a formerly genocidal protectorate whose public schools are non-existent. Oh, and this time I get to wade through packs of wild dogs.

 

Yes, Harvard has IIRC a 15% admittance rate (or whatever you call it). But there are other school that have a similar or even lower rate and they don't have that prestige. Berea College comes to mind, but there are others. Even price tag affects potential students who (ignorantly) see a relationship between tuition and quality (cheaper = worse).

I think the reputation they enjoy is due to a number of issues, and only one of them is that low admittance rate. Another, its longetivity. Harvard has always been there, before the US existed. Other, its faculty (famous, well known, etc). Another, its rigurousity. Harvard may be a diffcult place to get in, but it is even harder to get out (with your diploma, that is). And many other sensations that only when you walk on campus perceive (in my case just a visitor). So as you see in my opinion, there are several factors but it is the quality and prestige of its teachers what makes it such a fascinating place to study. Regards.

 

Good. I hope UoP gets the book thrown at them.

 

This model is that same used in most successful businesses - sales is paid far better than operations. Any why shouldn't they be? Sales produces revenue, and operations is an expense.

And yes, I am a UoP alum...

 

What some of you folks seem to be missing is the fact that Harvard, MIT, etc. have to continually improve and put out a better product in order to continue to attract the best students. The entire higher education system is capitalism at its best...which I'm sure would make many of those in academia wretch in their collective stomachs.

If Penn State's educational product is better than Univ. of Michigan's, then PSU will achieve higher enrollment numbers - unless of course there is an X factor like tuition discounts and such.

If K-12 education had the same ability, improvement would have to come...or the under-performing schools would cease to exist because nobody would send their kids there. We've allowed education at the local level to rest on their laurels.