Educating Sgt. Pantzke

I think that we are going off topic with some of the posts. We all know that name brand in almost all cases is prefered over non name brands. With our current times yes it is very hard to find well jobs in the field. The fact still is no matter what degree a person has, if there is no exp. backing that degree up it is next to nothing. There is a reason why medical programs have medical residency programs. Its for students to gain exp. in what they are going to be doing in the field. You can have a top degree from a medical school but if there is no exp behind you its worthless. Now to the name brand topic. You can gain the same education at a online degree that you might get from a B&M school. Having a big name in the educational realm does not make that school better than a less known school. People will still consider schools that they know over schools they don't, thus bringing in name brand. I ask one thing how many of those vets would have a better chance at getting a job if they were to do a internship with a firm to get exp. I think that unemployment rate would drop. The whole clip just focuses on how the vets were screwed over by these schools and how they still have these huge debts. No matter how much a school might say that they can "GET" someone a good job, we all know that no matter if your degree is from Yale or from UofP a job is not going to be a guarantee.

We can take poles of state or private not-for-profits and I can tell you they will have a similar unemployment rate for grads. We need to get this straight:

1. A student coming out of school is going to be limited in jobs than a student with work exp. in the field.
2. We can't keep trying to assume that all state or not-for-profits have better education than for-profits just because of their business styles.


We need to compare apples to apples like said in one of the previous posts and not apples to oranges. Like I said before it is a very good informational clip but 75% of it can be put towards the educational world in general. Frontline just aims towards putting all the negativity on the the for-profits.

A thought we can think about is, what if a well know for-profit such as UofP becomes not-for-profit or state sponsored (such as WGU). I think they will still have an image of being an online school that might not be worth getting a degree from. Another point is what if people went to state university say Ohio State University (just for this example). The person does the degree totally online but the transcripts and diploma both say the words "ONLINE" on it, these programs would be in the same hole as far as employment and other "PROBLEMS" that frontline throws at for-profits. HR mangers would make the majority of the same judgements because it says "online" on the damn diploma.

Everyone in this world need to get information before jumping into anything. Frontline says that the for-profits are targetting the vets and "painting pictures" for them. Everyone has a brain, if they are not smart enough to know what they are getting into then they should blame themselves...The United States government has alot of resources for vets to use to gain information about their future. If the vets are choosing not to use that information it is not the fault of the for-profits. I know many things I said might not go well with the conservative folks on this web society. Frontline is using this to target a single "problem" linked to for-profits and not telling the viewers that this "problem" is a universal problem with all of the educational system. If we want to just go with the clip and assume that they are right that is their opinion, but there is always two sides to a story......

 

I think that just happened with Keiser or Kaplan (one of those "K" schools). I agree with most of what you said. We are all adults making adult decisions. At some point the person is accountable.

 

Just to clarify: my comment about reconsidering Ashworth in favor of a name-brand state-run non-profit school has to do with the perception of those who will be looking at my credentials, not the merits or shortcomings of the school itself. I actually happen to like the curriculum for the MS in Marketing at Ashworth, and I know Ashworth alumni who were happy with their studies. However, if the name of a school on my degree is going to hold me back from an opportunity, that pretty much settles the argument for me.

 

Well, you can debate all you want. But I still agree with the PBS program on College Inc and Educating Sgt Pantzke documentary. This is another reason why I left Capella University's Ph.D in Information Technology. I was automatically enrolled 3 courses in the systems for the following quarter without my consent. In fact, I just started my current term within 2 weeks.

 

Perspective

I think its important to state within this discussion that the quality of education provided by these schools (online or traditional) is not the core of the argument; nor is the high failure rates within online schools.

The core of the argument is the public perception of these schools and the differences in how graduates of online vs. traditional are perceived by hiring folks.

This said, I know many hiring folks. I would be wholly surprised if the majority of their opinion regarding online schools isn't influenced in large part by the media's presentation of the schools, in a context that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the education given to those who have successfully gone through the online programs and graduated.

So I will agree with the following:

1. There are a lot more people going to school online than traditionally within non-traditional student demographic groups.

2. Many of these people never went to college and have no idea what college is all about prior to attending.

3. Many of these people have employer tuition reimbursement, GI Bill or need financial aid to pay their tuition bill.

4. Many of the people mentioned in point two who are also represented by point three, fail out after incurring debt.

5. The media loves a story, and the majority of HR reps who are not necessarily professional research candidates or high on the critical thinker's skill matrix love the media.

So you get what you get. Go to a traditional school with an online program and you'll be able to manipulate the HR reps just like the media is. But to say the problem lies with the online schools (except in situations where admissions reps are being wholly unethical) is a cop out.

The only thing online schools are guilty of (apart from the outlying unethical actions alluded to above) is going through the same open admissions nightmare that traditional schools went through a couple hundred years ago without the scrupulous eye of media to watch them or the variety of funding options to exploit. (Harvard anyone?)

IT

 

I completely and vehemently disagree with you here. At the undergraduate level especially, the fact that (many of) these schools churn out underprepared graduates who have overpaid for their degrees (usually through government-guaranteed loans) is absolutely the core of the argument.

So it's the evil media's fault that the last person I interviewed with a degree in computer science from a large for-profit school couldn't construct a SQL SELECT statement using a JOIN? I think a lot of the negative perception is created by graduates who simply can't do the jobs the schools claim they are prepared for.

I think the distinction being made by the documentary, and most posters in this thread, is not between online and traditional schools, but between for-profit and non-profit schools. Even so, I resent the implication that people who earn degrees online from established schools do so to pull the wool over HR's eyes. I earned my BSBA through an online program at a traditional school. My employer is not only aware of the fact my degree was earned online, he thought enough of me after I finished it to pay for me to continue on the graduate school. His decision was based on the fact that I was (and hopefully still am!) delivering real value to his business and his customers, not on the delivery method of my degree. I've had a few friends take a swipe at me for the fact I earned my degree online from a university I've never seen in a state I've never been to, but those same friends have also come to me later to ask me for more info about going to school online. In all good conscience, I can't send them to for-profit schools when better, cheaper alternatives exist at non-profit private schools and public schools.

For-profit schools are doing exactly what they should be doing. They are maximizing revenues while minimizing costs, just like any well-run business should. For the most part, they play by the rules of the game, and are simply exploiting an arbitrage opportunity that exists because of massive government subsidies to higher education and an information asymmetry on the part of prospective students. To them, open admissions isn't a nightmare, it's a marketing policy.

Harvard (and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure they ever had an open-admissions policy at Harvard College) can be selective because they have grown over the centuries from a school that served the Boston area into an academic powerhouse that recruits its students from all over the world. For the most part, the for-profit schools are already much larger in scope that Harvard. This is not "growing pains" - these schools are enormous. This is a systematic problem with for-profit education that its proponents refuse to acknowledge, and the eventual backlash (which has already started) is going to cause the house of cards to come crashing down. The proprietors of these schools are going to get away with their millions (billions?), and the people who will be hurt are those who invested time and money earning their degrees, plus the taxplayer who is on the hook for student loans that go into default.

To characterize this as a tempest in a teapot created by the media is to willfully ignore structural problems with for-profit education, namely the direct conflict between maximizing profit and educating students. Especially with the ease with which regional accreditation can be gained through what is more or less a shell game, we are currently in a "Wild West" period for would-be non-traditional students. There are some bad actors out there making things much worse for everyone, but the model itself has some serious flaws that can't be glossed over.

 

It's your decision, but I have to ask. . . have you spent any time on LinkedIn looking up graduates of Ashworth in your area? You may or may not find they're doing well, but I think it's worth checking. Yes, many graduates will be tenured people in their fields simply padding their resumes or pandering for advancement, but you can still observe and maybe ask them if the school has helped their career at all.

 

If the students can not get into other schools, then they have not overpaid for their degrees. It's a cost of becoming educated due to lost time and opportunity. If the students can get into other schools and did not do the due diligence to find those schools, who's responsible for over paying?

Not all graduates from for profit schools are completely unprepared for the fields they've trained in and I have just as many stories of Harvard grads that couldn't integrate into a workforce setting because of a lack of social skills or being able to operate on the fly.

I think I'm guilty of over simplifying the argument presented for the sake of brevity in my post. Apologies there.

They did at the time they were founded and through their early history. At that time more than 50% washed out and the faculty would simply avoid students whenever possible until they had reached year 3. This outcome was a part of the core reasoning behind a selective admissions process in the United States.

I agree with you that open admissions to for-profit schools is a marketing decision, but I don't necessarily feel that most schools for-profit or otherwise are selective enough. (opinion). Therefore, profit aside as for profits are obviously for profit is the education and self responsibility argument I've chosen to highlight.

The problem exists. HR reps and hiring managers (self-included) are human and influenced heavily by the media. So yes, the media is part of the problem, as much as they are part of the solution. To accurately report on the matter, give the pros and cons and show the good students as well as the bad would require far too much screen time or print (such is the domain of academic research) so what the media presents is what will make them the most money..

aka.. the train wreck.

Best,
ITJD

 

Let's not overestimate the influence of "media denigration". Media critics universally trashed "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", and it went on to earn over $800,000,000 in box office worldwide.

If an individual school really is outstanding, then its individual reputation will transcend that of its group. In California, for example, everyone knows that the University of California system is the "first tier" and the California State University system is the "second tier". Except for the top CSU school, Cal Poly. Students who are admitted to Cal Poly often go there over UC schools. Similarly, baseball fans know that Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher, even though the Seattle Mariners suck.

The reason that for-profit schools don't have a reputation for quality is simple: the for-profit education model does not encourage it.

-- The non-profit ideal is to enroll everyone who is talented, regardless of their ability to pay. This ideal may or may not be achieved in practice, but it does exist. The most prestigious non-profits are willing to sacrifice quantity in order to get quality. That's why they have low enrollments and high admissions standards.

-- The for-profit ideal is to enroll everyone who has the ability to pay, regardless of their talent. That's the way to make the most money. The typical for-profit is willing to sacrifice quality in order to get quantity. That's why they have high enrollments and low admissions standards.

If a school wants to promote quantity at the expense of quality -- as is the norm for for-profits -- that's fine. But don't be surprised if everyone -- including the media, HR staff, and grad school admissions offices -- recognizes that strategy for what it is.

 

Bad example. These days a bad movie review is almost a guarantee that the movie being destroyed is a fun, mindless romp. My wife and I saw that movie four times in the theatre because we're SFX and CGI geeks. We didn't go for plot.

I'd argue that example supports the media influence opinion

 

The Mariners are just on a very, very long dowturn. I am sure things will get better in 2050 or so when we have some talent.

As for the main topic, I am one of those military folks using my benefits to go to a for profit school. I have been very happy with my education, but that's also partly because this degree is in Sociology, which is something I have an intereset in. I do not plan on using this degree as the basis for getting a job since I will be moving on to a higher level degree, but I do see the point this clip is making. Military members are targeted by people who are trying to make a buck because of the financial standard we are held to. What really needs to happen is military leaders need to educate themselves and their troops to prevent schools of any type from running a fast one by us. That starts with leadership though, not some biased clip that does not explain all the facts.

 

SFX and CGI?

 

Ashford University has a football team......

 

Nope. It's true that Ashford has a lovely new football stadium ... but strangely enough, there's no Ashford football team to play in it.

Some observers are a bit cynical about this situation:

In other Ashford athletic news, the school has been voted out of the Midwest Collegiate Conference, apparently due to "philosophical differences". Possibly the other colleges in the MWC, which are all small B&M schools in the Midwest, don't feel that a huge San Diego-based online school is a good fit.

 

The screwed up thing is PBS hosts TONS of college courses online for several corporations and colleges, they have been doing it for years. Here is one link, look at the left of the screen via the link and see who the PBS ONLINE COURSES PROVIDER NAMES ( I cut and pasted the bold words directly from the website) are tahdah PBS, PBS, PBS lol.

Glass houses...

I still love PBS though, go Sesame Street!!

 

PBS's Frontline ran an update to the Educating Sgt. Pantzke story; mainly just actions that the Dept. of Veterans Affairs and Congress are taking to make sure veterans are better informed about their education choices. I still like the Ashworth MS in Marketing and I haven't totally crossed it off my list, but I'm also not ruling out just doing part-time graduate study at one of the local state universities, either. On a side note, my oldest son has enrolled in Ashworth's AS in Business program. He plans to transfer to UW-Madison to finish his BA (they do accept credits from nationally-accredited schools).

 

LOL. Some things never change. The "school" (and I use that term loosely) seems to be the same ass-backward mess it was when I attended. The "no Ashford Football" article you posted talks about the 84 percent drop out rate for the Associate program, no surprise considering how poorly the program was being run when I was with them. I'm proudly one in that statistic. Once the "Professor" began changing my grades and it was confirmed by the Bridgepoint staff (a 3rd party), and a complaint to the "Dean" with the undeniable proof yielded no result, I dumped that joke like the trash it was and went on to get my Bachelor's from a much, much better school. But Ashford's troubles don't in any way indicate a widespread quality problem among online schools or for-profit schools in general.

I have nothing against PBS, but there are some in media who have an agenda against online programs, so a story like the one they did is kind of meaningless to me. The assumption that many HR departments even investigate much beyond a criminal and/or credit background check is giving them far too much credit. There are some that are hawks about every detail, but it's not nearly as common as people's fears here would lead one to believe... not enough that you're likely to be affected by it, in my opinion. Certainly, if you ask a hiring manager what they would prefer they are going to articulate likes and dislikes, but in practice is where the rubber meets the road, not in surveys.

Every hiring manager is going to take more positive notice when a candidate has a degree from a well-known and respected school like, say, Harvard. And they'll take an equally negative notice to a school with a bad rep like University of Phoenix. But unless you're looking to get a job as a high-level manager, director, or high-level executive in a large corporation which most people never will, HR departments are not going to scrutinize the education section of your resume to the very point of "Is this for-profit? Non-profit? Online?". The number of people that are still getting jobs with no degrees at all, and fake degrees, should push down some of the fear.

I'd gotten two Senior-level jobs that paid very well with two large corporations during the time I was attending online programs and the hiring managers knew both times it was online because I said so during the interviews. One company even paid for my schooling which at the time was with a Nationally-accredited online school.

Don't let stories like this one from PBS freak you out.