U.S. Open University to close!

There is no reason to think that accreditation had anything to do with either their low enrollment or their lack of success overall. USOU was DETC-accredited and a candidate for RA, with all indications that full RA was obtainable. We don't know why the 660 did enroll, nor why thousands of others did not. We do know that there was almost no "buzz" about USOU; advertising dollars seemed scarce. It seems more plausible that they failed to market the program, weren't making enough money at it, then decided to close shop and strand their customers. Not very charitable for such a huge university.

I agree with others that OU should have marketed British degrees to Americans, rather than attempt to create an American school. But is any non-U.S. school doing this very well? H-W sells books/courseware, so that effort seems straight-forward--and successful. Leicester's CLMS is still advertising for American students. They seem to be reaching out to this market. But that's about it. UNISA and other SA schools are impenatrable. (This, despite having agents in both the U.S. and Canada.) And the British and Australian schools are almost case-by-case; there isn't a concerted effort to extend their programs' reach to North America. Canadian schools have but a few offerings. (The IMC/CSM offering still seems dubious, BTW.)

I'd love to see a USQ or Sturt, or OU or UNISA really go after this market. As it currently stands, each American attempting to pursue a degree from these schools is his/her own trailblazer, as if it's never been done before. This is particularly evident with doctoral programs.

Rich Douglas

 

Some comments and (slightly cynical) speculations on this very dissapointing news:

I don't think that accreditation was an issue. The Open University knew what was required before they even began the project, and OUUS was making progress with Middle States as rapidly as any new school ever has.

I don't think that the OUUS' enrollment was disappointing, either. The OUUS has only completed one full academic year in operation, is still not accredited and is still rolling out programs and working out bugs. In those conditions, 660 students is good. There are many American liberal arts colleges with enrollments that small. The OUUS say that enrollment growth has been strong.

I think that this is an example of bad management. It has the rancid 'get rich quick' smell of a failed dot.com about it.

The least expensive North American option for the OU would have been to simply market their British programs here. They could use most of their existing materials, and costs would be held to opening a few study centers in selected markets where demand is strong.

Apparently they decided that they would be limiting their future growth potential by doing that. They may have felt that Americans would only be comfortable with American schools and American degrees.

So the OU decided to create an entire new clone university in North America. Was that realistic? Probably yes, if their intention was creating another small non-profit American college. They are already well on their way to accomplishing that. But it probably wasn't realistic if their goal was to duplicate the entire British Open University over here. Even less so if they thought that they could do that while simultaneously generating positive cash flow for Milton Keynes.

Despite their technically being "not for profit" institutions, I don't think that anyone believes that British universities stampede to places like Singapore because they have this selfless and altruistic desire to provide higher education to Singaporeans. If that were the case, then why aren't they rushing to Uganda? It's done because it is a way of generating funds for the school back home. The same thing is true here in America. If profitability doesn't seem likely, the plug may be pulled.

 

On Tuesday April 16, Richard Jarvis (USOU Chancellor) is scheduled to speak at the DETC Annual Conference in Denver on the topic "Lessons Learned in Transplanting the British Open University to the U.S.A." I hope he gives the talk... would be very interesting!

 

The title Gert reports was changed in a notice I got yesterday. Now: "Lessons Learned in Launching the U.S. Open University."

However...suggested new title: How, Despite Backing of the World's Largest Distance University, the Expenditure of 20 Million U.S. Dollars, and Accreditation from the Mighty DETC, We Managed to Fail.

 

Good point. If a lack of accreditation really led to a lack of overall sucess, there'd be no degree mills - because there'd be no customers for them.

(Not saying the OU of US was a degree mill, of course.)

 

Hi John,
I have completed HW MBA, and my 9 courses were bought through your office in 95 !
I am trying to start now a Msc in dev management with OU UK, but compared to HW, they look complicated only for registration....

Yeah, you are right about marketing added value of HW, not in terms of advertising, but the complete philosophy of HW versus others :

- you pay what you got . A full course, with rights to real exam and one certificate. No extra lessons, no schedule, no contacts needed.

-credits are limited to 2 core courses, and looks to be hard to get them.

- it is simple to order courses and register exams. A contractor ( you before, FT now ) is in charge to deliver courses.

After reading the other comments, I am now worried about OU being Royal Chartered .
Could you answer to me , or to indicate me links to find it out ?
Thank you very much

Stan Fellay

 

British OU

The British Open University received the Royal Charter in 1969. Go to the OU's own UK web site to find out about the history of the OU! Don't start 'hybrid' panics!

 

Quote from Walter Rogers ( same subject , on 5.02)
There are many reasons which, taken together, spelled the end of OUUS.

1) No identity and no accreditation. British... yet no royal charter... American... yet no RA.

2) Not-for-profit... I wonder (look at those tuition fees, OUUK is less by any measure).

3) British standards, yet a degree from an American virtual U... why bother?

4) There were evidently discussions regarding cutting standards for the US market (see other thread) but I doubt they would whore themselves enough to compete with the likes of TESC and UoP in the "quick and easy" market.

The fact is, other UK schools are doing quite fine in the US... HW is most notable but Leceister, UoL and others are definetly not failures.

However these schools maintained the formula of British standards, British degrees at a reasonable cost.
Unquote

Hi Telfax,
Thank you for your reply. I was wondering, as I read this quote above.
Stan

 

Welcome to Ken/Walter watch. You should be careful when relying on info provided by certain posters. Some posters actually base their statements on conjecture alone but they want you to believe that those statements are indeed factual. That's why they are being asked to provide proofs by other posters.