Accreditor Puts American InterContinental U. on Probation

Listen up, American InterContinental U.

You must shape up - and soon - or risk suffering a much-deserved smidgenilization (and woeful stuporification).

Newbies:

It is noteworthy when the reports states that "in a report to investors, Jeffrey M. Silber, an analyst with the Harris Nesbitt investment bank, said that on the basis of a discussion he had with a SACS official, American InterContinental's problems seemed serious."

Serious and deadly!

You see, USDoE and/or CHEA-recognized accreditation works!

You may ignore legitimate accreditation only if you can ignore that forever-ticking time bomb which, by your actions, you may voluntarily stuff into your life-bag. Don't.

Thanks.

 

SACS has it up on their site now:
http://www.sacscoc.org/December%202005%20Actions%20and%20Disclosure%20Statements1.asp

 

Thanks, Khan.

A working link is here:
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/05cractdec.pdf

Credit: Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, December 5, 2005:

"The Commission placed the following institutions on Probation:

"American InterContinental University, Atlanta, Georgia

"For twelve months for failure to comply with Prologue to Principles of Accreditation: (Integrity of student academic records and accuracy in recruiting and admission practices), Core Requirement 2.7.2 (Program Content),
Core Requirement 2.8 (Faculty),
Comprehensive Standard 3.2.7 (Governance and Administration), Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8 (Governance and Administration), Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 (Institutional Effectiveness), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.4 (All Educational Programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.5 (All Educational Programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.6 (All Educational Programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.10 (All Educational Programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 (All Educational Programs), Comprehensive Standard 3.4.12 (All Educational Programs), Federal Requirement 4.3 (Information to Consumers), Federal Requirement 4.5 (Student Complaint Procedures), and Federal Requirement 4.6 (Accuracy in recruitment materials and presentations) of the Principles of Accreditation."

 

I don't know what all of that means, but it sounds pretty bad! I was very close to enrolling in AIU to complete my Bachelor's Degree about a month ago. I'm glad I decided to stay with Excelsior...

Rhonda

 

I find it truly amazing that any school could let things get this far out of whack. I know very little about AIU or its history; however, I understand they are part of the Career Education Corporation (CEC), which also includes Colorado Technical University (CTU). Is this a systemic issue or problem across CEC and its associated schools? If so, I wonder when or if NCA will drop the other shoe on CTU. I struggle to think that one entity, AIU, can operate so differently from CTU while under the same common parent company and management. This type of disregard for student interest is simply pitiful.

I know that what I’m about to say will run contrary to many who are out there hoping to promote and protect their educational investment and personal interest in the success of newer for-profit schools such as NCU; I understand. However, this for-profit, make-a-buck behavior at the cost of students and the future value and utility of their degrees is very concerning. Clearly, the ultimate for-profit objective is to maximize profits and provide maximum returns on shareholder investment – period. If making profit is congruent to the customer’s (student’s) interest then things are fine; but when they diverge, you can bet that students will get the short end of the stick. Additionally, more times than not, potential risks to students will be directly commensurate to the size of possible financial gain and opportunity available to a for-profit school and its shareholders. One can plausibly argue that the greater the potential financial opportunity and reward for a for-profit organization, the greater the risk that is assumed by the students and alumni in terms survivability of the school, degree reputation and future value of their degrees. I would also argue that the risks are even greater when the majority of stock and related interests are held by just one or several shareholders.

AIU appears to now be on the edge of major problems; and who knows about CTU as it operates under the same ownership of CEC. NCU appears to carry substantial baggage in terms of questionable relationships, mill-type overseas ventures and partnerships, marginal admission and credit transfer policies, and now an owner with what appears to be an interesting history himself. Capella also tends to falls under scrutiny for questionable faculty with credentials from degree mills. UoP is generally poorly regarded by academia and business because of its horrible marketing reputation and mass commodity approach to education. Although UoP has severely diminished the value of its student’s degrees, they have established enough critical mass to minimize overall risk to students in terms UoP’s existence and viability. With the exception of Walden, many of the for-profit schools seem to be more focused on making a buck than advancing education or building and a positive academic reputation.

Unfortunately, this type of institutional (for-profit, online) behavior, and yes greed, along with a flourishing number of flat-out degree mills, is severely diminishing the image of online education as a whole. We all suffer the affects accordingly, which is very disturbing to see.

Although it would be great to see all degree mills put out of business and the for-profits forced to clean up their acts, we are not likely to see things change anytime soon. As long as there is a buck to be made, degree mills will exist and for-profits will go out on the edge at student’s expense to maximize profits and pocket dollars. Meanwhile, students and alumni from such schools will continue to try and desperately to defend the value and credibility of their degrees, which can be somewhat like swiming in quicksand. Unfortunately, these schools will rely on and financially benefit from the same.

End of rant….

Tom

 

Hallelujah!

What he said!

p.s. To AIU: Shape up now. Please! You are hurting your students (and graduates), and maybe more importantly, in not-so-insignificant ways, DL, in general.

 

The entire SACS document is worthy of careful reading.

 

Talking about greed and\or waste:

Two "Not-for-profits" in the Chronicle 12/13/2005:

username\password required

Rush U. Will Pay $1-Million to Settle Case of Overbilling Medicare for Patients in Clinical Trials

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005121304n.htm

Emphasis mine

Auditors Question $117,400 in Football-Program Expenses at the U. of Colorado

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005121302n.htm

or

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3709427

 

So you scan a vast domain to source the worst that you can find from across the masses and pull the events from context for comparison to a very focused and small group of for-profit schools that have questionable issues and histories? One might also want to carefully examine the context and consider the prevalence of such issues among a range of institutions as well. Clearly the frequency and correlation of issues in comparison are quite different.

I’m also amazed how we see persistent arguments that take the worst situations that can be found associated with isolated or infrequent cases and use the same to qualify or benchmark current behavior or issues related to schools like AIU, NCU, SCUPS…etc. The bottom line is if proponents of such schools continuously compare, qualify and benchmark their school and its issues based on the worst of the institutions or instances then they will eventually define and establish the substance, credibility and future reputation of the schools in question. Why not compare and benchmark these same schools and issues to the vast majority of institutions and normal situations? That should be the test and where the bar is set.

Tom

 

Editorial: Bowls yes, degrees no
Big college football is flunking its students

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/13962486p-14796687c.html

Emphasis mine

 

AMEN Brother!

AIU called me incessantly in an effort to get me to aply to their MBA program after I asked to see some information on their school. I distinctly remember the woman telling me that there MBA program was over 20k. I metioned that seemed expensive for a 9 month program, and she stated with the ld line that "isn't 20k worth an investment in your future?" I ultimately decided to go to OU, but she kept calling, and sent incessant e-mails. Once I demanded that AIU stop, she sent another e-mail, which was somewhat nasty. I reported it to AIU, and then it stopped.

But yes, I agree that they are border line harrasment.

 

What's border line about it? Sounds like harrassment to me.

 

With the exception of maybe Nova, the most popular not-for-profit DL schools don't have such a great past either. Not-for-profit Touro was once regarded as a mill by Steve Levicoff when they first appeared. They raised a lot of eyebrows when they established a university in CA as a branch campus of a small college in NY. Also, their super fast three-day open admission policies for their doctoral programs further raised questions about the quality of their programs. They have improved since then.

And what about not-for-profit Union? They've been on the hot seat recently, haven't they?

-S

 

Well, to AIU's credit, they didn't go to my house and bang on my door or bother my wife at work.

In other words, I didn't need to file a restraining order.

 

Nova fell under early scrutiny primarily by people that had limited awareness and knowledge of the school and because Nova was one of the first to offer extensive online degree and distance programs. However, Nova is a very well established private, non-profit school with exceptional campus facilities, ABA law school and professionally accredited medical school. I have always known them to be well regarded in Florida and the local areas they serve.

I cannot directly speak to Mr. Levicoff's interpretation of Touro as a degree mill since I do know much about him, but obviously Touro has been around since 1970 as a private, non-profit school with well recognized and regarded B&M campuses, ABA law school and professionally accredited medical school, so they were never anything close to a degree mill. Perhaps he was not fully aware of Touro's history, and the introduction of an online program and branch campus with the first RA 100% online PhD program triggered his concern and contributed to his incorrect assumptions. For example, the following comment and assumption surrounding Touro having open admission policies for their doctoral programs is incorrect. A “Way back” search of Touro’s websites clearly shows the PhD admission standards since its inception to be as follows:

• The qualified candidates must have an earned Master's degree (with at least 30 graduate level semester credits) from an accredited institution with a minimum grade point average of 3.2 (on a 4.0 scale) on all work completed during the Master's degree.
• Candidates must have analytical and critical thinking skills as well as writing and oral communication skills.
• Candidates must possess the information technology skills and Internet skills sufficient to effectively participate in the TUI pedagogical model.
• All candidates, regardless of the subject of the Master's degree, are expected to have successfully completed at least one course in Business Statistics.

More recently, they raised the minimum grade point to 3.4 and included additional components.

Indeed, Touro received a good deal of critical review, but they have clearly demonstrated their solid substance, credibility and reputation, along with quickly gaining separate WASC accreditation for its online and branch campuses in CA. WASC has been alleged by some here on DI as being one of the most strict and difficult regional accreditors in the county, especially with regard to online programs.

Yes, Union appears to experience issues and was been put on notice recently by NCA, which is certainly not good to see. There is no favorable argument in terms of how they got there either. However, Union does seem to have produced a substantial number of quality graduates who are highly regarded and accepted by both industry and academia. They also appear very committed to correcting the problems and avoiding probation. Unfortunately, their recent issues are a negative for the school at this time.

The main point of my comment is that the prevalence of issues related to for-profit schools appears to be much greater (like by order of magnitude) than they are at non-profit schools. Accordingly, I would strongly argue with your comments that “most of the popular not-for-profit DL schools don’t have such a great past either,” at least from a legitimate since. There are literally hundreds of accredited non-profit private and public DL programs, most of them from solid brick and mortar schools. Very few of them have major issues that have any real legitimacy. However, we see a much larger number of issues surrounding the handful of accredited for-profits schools. And for the unaccredited for-profit schools the problems are even far greater. Hence, my argument and position that many of the for-profit schools seem to be more focused on making a buck than advancing education or building and a positive academic reputation.

Tom

 

Calling Touro University International "non-profit" demonstrates my point that it isn't tax-exempt status that matters, it is how a school competes in the educational marketplace. Regardless of Touro International's tax status, it functions identically to the other for-profit DL schools.

I'm not sure I would excuse NSU so quickly. Aggressive marketing, doctoral students not being able to get through, etc.

Union's "hot seat" has exactly two components. First, the doctoral program didn't have specific processes for documenting progress. The USDoE pressed them for yeras to fix this, and didn't get any action until they held up student aid payments. Union fixed this and payments soon resumed.

Second, the Ohio Board of Regents decided the interdisciplinary PhD program wasn't structured enough and that some learners were putting out poor dissertations. (A complaint that could be sustained at almost any school, certainly.) Union is addressing those concerns and the OBR recently granted them another provisional approval--a good sign.

Neither action was related to Union's other programs, keeping them from "the hot seat."

 

The disclosure statement is up (hope this link works, otherwise just click on the Commission on Colleges): http://www.sacscoc.org/December%202005%20Actions%20and%20Disclosure%20Statements1.asp

 

Not exactly...

Touro never asked me to sign a contract making me liable for the whole program cost whether I finished or not. Neither have they ever called or mailed me asking me to enroll in their programs. I had both of those experiences with AIU after I called them for info on their MBA. Does anyone know if AIU has ever stood an accreditation review on their own or did they purchase an accredited institution and acquire acreditation via said purchase?

 

Dtech,

AIU's parent is CECO http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CECO

Hope that helps

 

Tom, I am a former PhD from TUI. I was a doctoral student at their practitioner Health Sciences program. All I had to do to get in was: mail them a check for $70, mail them a copy of my W2, and have my former school, USF, mail them my BA and MA transcripts. After three days, I was automatically accepted into their PhD program, which consisted strictly of about 11 classes, an examination and two to four dissertation classes. No make up classes were required from me despite coming in with a degree from a completely different field. No interviews, letter of recommendations or goal statements were required.

My Masters GPA was high (a 3.8) but I did speak with several students at two of my classes who had been accepted with less than a 3.0 GPA despite what the requirements said. They might have been exceptions to the rule or maybe not. I also met some students with some very impressive credentials.

So don't get me wrong. I am not trying to bash Touro. I enjoyed my stay there and I have often praised their programs and their rapid growth. And I am not completely opposed to their admission policies, since I believe more in output vs. input but to defend a not-for-profit's previous admission standards (when they were practically no different than those at many for-profits) just for the sake that they are not-for-profit doens't sit well with me.


In fact, when I left Touro to purse a degree at a for-profit school, I was further asked for two letters of recommendation, a professionally written goal statement, transcripts from a RA school (mailed by USF directly to them), and schedule an entrance interview with the chair of the doctoral program. After three weeks of waiting, I was in. If this for-profit had no interest in maintaining decent academic standards, then why did they go through the hassle of asking for these additional requirements when all they could've done was take me on the spot?

Thats good for them.

Tom, I understand where you are coming from. Believe me, I am see what you say, and I'm not all the crazy with a school exclusively interested in the buck or vanity. But I was simply comparing the major for and not for profit DL schools that are most often discussed here. I was not very clear in my previous post so sorry for the confusion.

Based on my academic experience, I can only speak for RA graduate schools that focus on DL, particularly at the doctoral level. I agree with Rich and I think that many not-profits behave much more like for-profits and have many of the issues you talk about at a fairly larger scale than you think. Being for-profit is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as students are not deceived or harmed and as long as the school adheres to acceptable academic standards. This might not be the case at AIC or UoP all the time, but many RA for-profits are focusing on acquiring professional accreditations to remain competitive in the market. We have seen this with Argosy (APA accreditation) and Capella (CACREP), although Capella is also seeking APA accreditation and now only allows 15 transferable credits for their PsyD program. Walden has also shown similar interests recently and so has NCU. Keep in mind that many professional accreditors (APA, CACREP, etc.) also have a strong bias against for-profits and are usually very stringent with them. For those that are suspicious about the for-profits, I think this is a good thing so the fact that the more for-profit DL grad schools are seeking professional accreditation speaks well about their interests in providing quality education to future graduate learners.