College Completion

But not to the IRS....

 

I think, overall, the general public actually doesn't give a crap either way. The righteous indignation over for-profit schools is often undercut by the complete ignorance of the people who hold that view. Many people who hate for-profit schools hate only the schools that the media tells them are worthy of their hate. And most people can't formulate why, exactly, for-profit education is bad. It's usually a misunderstood belief that schools like Phoenix are actually unaccredited.

I've seen HR people at SHRM talking about how terrible the Corinthian issue was, hoping for a swift demise for all for-profit schools, only to then observe that they had degrees from Capella or Walden.

If the general perceptive was really so negative then there would be little market for for-profit schools. But the fact is, many students are won overby marketing alone. That's really the only reason I can imagine anyone signs up for Full Sail University. If SNHU'smarketing machine is going to reach you, it is going to reach you with or without the non-profit message. Incidentally, a good number of people I've met think SNHU IS for-profit.

For-profit, as a concept, has become this catch-all term that media and uninformed persons use to describe any university that doesn't "look" or "act" as auniversity should according to their understanding of a university. Those people will write-off SNHU because it has an obnoxious, for-profit feeling marketing program. They will also have a more moderate view of AMU because it flies under the radar and doesn't immediately trigger one's "for-profit radar." But the people who are either for, or against, for-profits are most likely a very small representation of the public opinion overall. The vast majority are most likely indifferent. They might have a visceral response to the term "for-profit" because of media surrounding the issue. You might ask them if they think a for-profit school is good or bad and they say bad because, well, that's what the man on TV said he should think. But then that same person will go and sign up for a program at a for-profit trucking school, or plumbing school or to finish off that degree using the "interwebs" at CTU or AIU or any of the others.

If public perception was really that bad then degree holders wouldn't be finding work and the schools wouldn't be enrolling millions of students annually.

I just think that we shouldn't mistake being loud for being plentiful.

 

Even in the rarified atmosphere of degreeinfo we have repeatedly seen people not knowing/caring about these differences.

 

Let's not forget that some for-profit schools subsist largely on corporate tuition programs. A former employer of mine drove employers toward DeVry (primarily Keller). Mine routinely guides people to Capella (but only for graduate study). When you consider how many employers lean on schools that also have innocuous names that don't immediately trigger the for-profit gag reflex (like the New England College of Business), I think it's difficult to say that there is a general sentiment against for-profit education. There's a general sentiment against "for-profits!" the scandal that the media has whipped up around Corinthian and Phoenix. But much like "Benghazi!" the scandal bears little resemblance to the thing it is based on.

 

Again, it doesn't matter what you think, any of your colleagues think, or what you think the public thinks. Non-traditional schools, such as SNHU, advertise that they are non-profit because it works. It has little to do with what the school thinks its best attributes are. SNHU's marketing is successful. They aren't going to spend tons of money on something that doesn't work or doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure they have marketing professionals working for them.

 

It might be useful to point out that there is no necessary contradiction or conflict between what sanantone is saying and what Neuhaus is saying.

 

SNHU's marketing program is a ripoff of Phoenix's marketing program and was successful well before they began emphasizing that they were non-profit. SNHU isn't marketing itself as non-profit because "non-profit sells" they are doing it because many people thought they were for-profit.

And yet, even when people think they are for-profit, they still enroll lots and lots of students. They aren't spending "tons of money" marketing the fact that they are non-profit. They are spending tons of money marketing and an incredibly small portion of that marketing scheme is the fact that they are non-profit.

But you can't reverse engineer one school's marketing program to determine that the bulk of the public actually cares about for-profit vs. not-for-profit.

Ignore my anecdotes if you like, but the reality is that there are many many companies forming corporate partnerships with for-profit schools. And while SNHU is doing well its enrollment is dwarfed by the University of Phoenix.

The "we're non-profit" thing appeals to a certain niche market. But it is not indicative of the overall trend in the U.S. I'm sure SNHU is paying marketing professionals. And marketing professionals typically focus on market segments. Segments are exactly that, portions of the overall market.

The majority of people don't give it much thought either way. But that's fine, because SNHU doesn't want to reach the majority of people. They want to reach the people who 1) want to continue their education 2) want to do so via distance learning 3) value the fact that the school is non-profit 4) will listen to the sales pitch about how they are cheaper than for-profit schools 5) won't fact check item 4 to realize that it is incorrect.

There are certainly a lot of those people. But there are many more who are willing to sign over their first born to Phoenix or utilize company tuition assistance at Capella. After all, those companies wouldn't be spending so much on marketing if it wasn't working, would they?

 

Yes, such is DegreeInfo, indeed.

 

My company employs 20,000 people in New York alone. My colleagues at SHRM, collectively, oversee HR operations than encompass somewhere around 125,000 employees in Upstate New York. So, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Also, I think if a global staffing agency with a presence in virtually every country on the planet pushes its tens of thousands of global employees to earn degrees from Keller that's kind of a significant thing. See, if we're talking about companies and how they spend their money, I would say that the companies forming partnerships with for-profits are sinking significantly more into those relationships than SNHU is into advertising the single fact that they are non-profit.

But, you know, if it's that important to you to believe that the entire nation is about to crucify CTU then that's fine too.

 

Because of where I live I see a fair amount of advertising by SNHU, especially on TV. There is no question that they mention their non-profit status in their ads. However, there are other elements that get more attention. Based on my memory of watching these ads (not going back and reviewing them) I think their primary advertising points are 1) the number of programs they offer, 2) their friendliness toward working students, 3) convenience, 4) quality. Somewhere in the process of making these points they mention that they're non-profit. The way it comes across is that they're saying that they're trustworthy, on the students side, etc. (that's my own interpretation anyway). I don't think they talk much about cost except to say that students are eligible for financial aid. So, is "non-profit" a part of their ads? Yes, but not a major point of focus. Do they use it to their advantage? I'd say yes to that as well. Does it work? My guess is, as sanantone suggested, that it's in there deliberately and probably as a result of some marketing firm's focus group research.

 

I agree. My point is that, even if non-profit was a significant portion of their marketing (not just a component that supports their "we're trustworthy and friendly" brand) they are still only marketing themselves toward a particular segment. I think it a bit optimistic to say that our nation has basically rallied around one position in the for-profit vs. non-profit fight when we can't get that sort of unity on virtually any other issue. SNHU is marketing toward a particular demographic. So is Phoenix. Both programs seem to be working well. But in neither case can we say that the fact that these marketing initiatives exist points to a broad consensus among the American people.

 

Most of the people that I know are smart enough, experienced enough, cynical enough, etc. to know that advertising is lying with a pretty bow on it. The truth is stretched and twisted, everything is spin, smoke and mirrors. If they see an ad on TV for SNHU (or anything else) and then someone they know tells them something different they will disregard the ad in it's entirety. If they know someone who says, for example, that "Phoenix is great, I loved it! They were so nice and I learned a lot and my degree got me that new job, etc." then the listener will not care much about their for-profit status (although they might still care about their high price tag).

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Marketing that you're non-profit because people think you're for-profit doesn't change the argument. They wouldn't care if people thought they were for-profit if they didn't believe people saw it as a negative. University of Phoenix's marketing was successful until it developed a reputation for being predatory. UoP might have more students than most schools now, but its enrollment numbers have seen a steep decline. I haven't checked on this, but I believe SNHU is growing.

Back to your earlier post about it being sad if the best thing you can advertise is that you're non-profit. I'm not sure if there is any school that only advertises that it's non-profit. It's seen as one positive attribute among many and is sometimes put out front, not because it's the best thing about the school, but because they do not want to be lumped in with the for-profit education sector due to the stigma it carries.

For an education major, this would be a good study. What is the general opinion of for-profit colleges? I would bet money that there would be a statistically significant finding that people hold a lower opinion of them.

 

I think there is a middle ground here. You are right they don't want to be lumped in with UoP, but the fact they advertise as much or more than UoP is what gives people the impression that they may be for-profit. There are for profit schools like CTU, Grand Canyon and APUS that I don't much recall seeing their advertisements. I am not saying they don't advertise but no where near the blitz SNHU.
Furthermore, the stigma of for-profit is there and may be small, but I think we can all agree this has become a much bigger issue in 2016 than it ever was in 2006.
All that said, a school does not have to be for-profit to be predatory.

 

That's the key part the media continues to leave out.

 

I see the ads out here in Vegas.

 

I fell for the blitz. Guilty as charged. Their marketing worked on me. I didn't really see alot of their commercials. Perhaps they played it in the Chicago-area but I never really noticed it. I called them after seeing an ad on the train while commuting. Something about the way their marketing dept used those bright blue colors must have caught my eye.

 

This is a mis-use of the term "statistically significant." You mean "significant."

For a difference to be significant, observers would have to (a) see a difference demonstrated and (b) think it matters (significance). If the difference doesn't matter, it is a distinction without a difference.

Statistical significance is something else entirely. It is a calculation of probability that the difference found between samples reflects a difference between populations (of some magnitude, not necessarily the one reflected in the samples). When the difference is large enough in the samples to infer there is a difference in the population sampled, it is said they are different populations and, thus, the difference is statistically significant.

You can have differences that are statistically significant but are not significant. For example, I could measure the heights of a sample 8th-graders at one school and compare it to the heights of a sample of 8th graders from another school. Take the means, sample sizes, and standard deviations and Boom!, I have a z score. A big enough difference between the two samples and I can safely say the populations are different. Statistical significance! Then someone comes along, notices a tiny (yet statistically significant) difference between the samples and says "who cares?" Whoops! A distinction (varying heights) without a difference ("who cares").

In short, a statistically significant difference found between samples points to a difference between populations. But just because something is statistically different doesn't mean the difference matters.

You're talking about a difference that would be demonstrated by inferential statistics (sampling and measuring for statistical significance).

 

I believe I had in mind the technical college that Levicoff reported seeing a billboard for which proclaimed "The only non-profit technical school in the state" or something to that effect.

Quite possibly. But it's also a question that, if you ask it in a vacuum, may have a response which differs from the individual's reaction in a real world scenario.

If I walk up to a random person on the street and I say "What are your feelings about for-profit schools?" and give them a scale by which to measure their feelings toward them that would be interesting. But that same person might not think of the truck driving school where her friend graduated or the certificate of accounting from Strayer she earned last year or the culinary school that her significant other attended as being "for-profit" schools.

I would imagine it is also possible to have a negative reaction toward for-profit schools but not having a negative response to people with degrees from them. I don't particularly care for the business activities of many for-profit schools. But would I hold the for-profit status of, say, Walden against a graduate applying for a job? Certainly not.

That's an important distinction because it's one thing to have a "feeling" toward something. It's another thing to have that "feeling" apply in an actionable way. If you disdain for-profits then does that mean you will never attend one? Never hire a graduate from one? Complain about them on an internet forum and take no further action? Dedicate your life to lobbying to shut them all down?

As Kizmet said, SNHU's marketing program centers around their trustworthiness, friendliness and cost. Their non-profit status ties into the overall message but it isn't the overall message. The for-profits typically focus on learning from "leaders in their field," cutting edge technology and the like. Both approaches work. But both are typically geared toward a slightly different demographic.

 

It is not a misuse. I've taken stats and linear regression, so your lecture is pointless. You misinterpreted how I intended to use it. I specifically used statistically significant rather than significant for a reason. A significant difference may not be statistically significant, which means that the findings may not be reliable.