UoP shutting down campuses and cutting jobs

This may be true, but DETC is like the mouse's share.

DETC gets a lot of coverage on degreeinfo; this is not surprising, since both the board and DETC are focused on distance learning. But I suspect that many degreeinfo readers would be surprised to realize just how small DETC schools typically are. Unfortunately, DETC doesn't make the numbers for school enrollments or degree completions readily available.

However, there are other sources of info. As an example, let's look at Aspen University, which is certainly one of the best-known DETC schools. It's big enough to rate a page on College Navigator. And we can see there that Aspen undergraduates did not take out any federal grants or loans in 2010-11, which is consistent with the quote above.

But we can also see that Aspen issued a whopping total of 19 bachelor's degrees in 2010-11.

OK, so Aspen is primarily a graduate school. But Aspen only issued 137 master's degrees and 0 doctorates in 2010-11. So the numbers are still puny. And this is one of the best-known DETC schools in existence.

 

I wonder if California Coast University issue more, less, or the same.

 

Not sure I agree. I've worked for both UOP and Ashford - and would say that those opportunities came up after I prayed for God's direction. I don't believe that either school negatively impacts my resume. I find their work to be more rigorous and their resources more accessible than say... Liberty (and I've worked for them as well).

 

Couldn't find any data on degrees issued by CCU at the school's website, or at DETC, or at the US Dept. of Education.

This kind of information vacuum is not unusual for DETC schools.

 

I supposed you are correct about that.

 

"Fail"? An enterprise this size isn't a light switch. It isn't on, then off. They don't go from being a screaming (financial) success to "failing."

They're facing serious market issues and clearly need to retrench, but how much of it is also related to the move to online programs? Nine years ago the online portion passed the campus-based portion of students. I suspect that trend continued. If so, they would have needed to curtail those campuses to some extent.

This doesn't mean they're not facing a tough market; they are. But "fail"? Hardly. Now, if the federal government would get serious about regulating these for-profits, especially as it relates to graduating students and students getting jobs. That could be revolutionary. But that hasn't happened, despite heavy efforts.

 

This is almost certainly not true. (Not the God thing, although that is certainly an unsupported assertion.) Seniority might matter to a few people at HQ, but that's not what's going on here. They're closing centers, which means everyone at those centers will be out of work unless they (a) are willing to move and (b) can find work at other centers. And that will be based upon what UoP requires, not who's senior. And if you're an instructor, you have no seniority at all, except when it comes to some slight salary differences (on a per-class basis).

UoP will cut who they need to cut based on operations.

 

No. That's not what's happening here. Sure, price is a factor, but as economists remind us, it is relatively inelastic in this market. That's because most people aren't pay-as-you-go customers, so they don't feel it. (They get tuition assistance from employers, veterans' benefits, and/or Title IV financial aid in almost all cases.)

The problem is how people feel secure, or not. It's hard to commit to all it takes--financially and otherwise--to do a degree when you're worried about keeping your job, especially when that job helps pay for school (either directly through tuition reimbursement or indirectly by letting you use your paycheck). UoP is the largest and most talked-about, but I suspect the entire industry is suffering.

 

You're calling out a comment made unconsciously. That's actually worse, of course.

 

That's certainly a factor, although UoP will continue to need B&M facilities for certain programs. More detail here:

So UoP is shifting increasingly towards online education, and away from B&M centers/campuses. Another aspect of UoP's retrenchment: they are enrolling fewer students, but they are hoping that greater selectivity, combined with improved student support, will increase their retention rates. In other words, their long-term planning accepts that they will have fewer new students -- but they hope to balance that loss with fewer drop-outs.

 

I am wishing for reduced tuitions.

 

Agreed. Let's put this in perspective.

Apollo Group, the owners of UoP, reported a net income of $ 422,680,000 for the 2012 fiscal year (which ended in August).

OK, this number is admittedly lower than other numbers from recent years. For example, in 2009, their best year, they had net income of $ 598,320,000. So profits are certainly down, and by a significant amount.

But is it really "failing" when your profit is "only" $ 422,680,000 in a year ?

True, that number may not be as large as it once was -- but it's still a pretty big number.

 

Maybe I chose word to describe UoP status. However, do you believe UoP is too big to fail? I can certainly say if the economy improves in the next few years, UoP will certainly have a harder time enrolling new students.

 

No, I believe UoP is too profitable to fail. Obviously no business is guaranteed to stay profitable forever, but UoP is certainly profitable right now. They may be less profitable than they used to be, but they are still making money -- not losing it.

That's not how it worked historically. UoP's "Golden Age" was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the economy was growing and the school did too. Apollo stock peaked in 2004 at over $95 per share -- it's fallen to just $21 as of today.

 

This is sad for some people that work there. I know few people that work full time at UoP as faculty.

UoP covers the need for a fast, "flexible" and accredited education. Most people that go to UoP just need a paper qualification as they already know the job.
When the economy is strong, people with weak credentials get work as some companies are even willing to bring foreigners to do the work as the local work is not enough. Under these conditions, the UoP degree is "good enough" and might be worth the investment.

When the economy shrinks, people are not going to look at the UoP graduates when Harvard graduates are available to do the work. Students see that there is not point to get a degree from a weak school as most likely would just serve as a decoration for a basement wall.

UoP is not going to disappear, it might shrink but will come back once the economy gets better.

I agree that Pennfoster and other similar schools are much better options. The problem is that most people do not know these schools exist and go UoP because they telemarketing, e-marketing, TV commercials, etc that create awareness of the school.

 

And UoP works hard to keep it that way. For example, UoP has invested $154,500,000 just to put their name on a football stadium. And it's not like they need a place for their (non-existent) college football team to play. No, this huge investment has no academic or operational purpose whatsoever -- except for the creation of brand awareness.

 

The older I get, the more I believe a dose of cynicism can actually be a healthy thing.

I doubt even most of the extremely faithful in Christianity believe in the "inevitability" of impending better outcomes. But I believe many feel they have experienced, or seen enough positive experiences of others, to believe that unfortunate happenings may or quite likely will lead to better (ultimate) outcomes.

 

You have no basis for these statements. How is UoP "fast"? How is it "flexible"? And how do you know that people don't advance their learning as much as they advance their credentials?

If you have facts, state them. If you have an informed opinion, what informs it?

 

Watch The Full Program Online | College, Inc. | FRONTLINE | PBS

*The more you know

 

"Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two." UoP probably meets the first two parameters, given what you're saying. I've never heard of them meeting the third.