Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by humbug101, Jul 1, 2010.
Why not...they just have a completely different exprience
Actually, the schools in question (University of Phoenix and Drake University)stopped that practice, due to the negative publicity. Not to worry, I understand that a brand new entity, Timothy Leary University, will be offering a doctorate in applied narcotics.
Do they offer Ph.Ds by research? If I visited my family for even just 10 minutes, I would see narcotics being applied in every which way imaginable.
I'm not certain, but anyone who can provide a ticket and t-shirt from a Grateful Dead or Pink Floyd concert will receive credit for life experience
Cato Institute Response
The conservative Cato Institute has argued this very point. The presence of Federal financial aid has fueled price increases.
True? I'm not totally sure but I've seen something like it in programs where many students receive tuition reimbursement by employers.
I think this is a fair point. Some for-profits are privately-held schools, with a strong and long-established local presence. The owners of such schools (often families) are more likely to take the long term view, and to care about their local reputation and standing in the community.
The large publicly traded schools, on the other hand, primarily care about short-term stock performance. They are driven to maximize revenue, profit, and growth; as long as they are meeting profitability goals, nothing else matters. This approach does work successfully for some things, but it has never produced highly regarded universities.
You are spot on. I work currently for an institution that is precisely what you describe in your first paragraph (after 21 years at non-profit colleges & universities). I have been recruited by various "headhunters" for the types of institutions described in your second paragraph, but the promise of more money does not compensate for the fact that I am having a blast.
Read the rest of my post, I think you missed the point. You are comparing an open enrollment policy with one that is not. The point I'm trying to make is: Should open enrollment policies be part of the debate.
I tried to edit the above but timed out after 10 minutes. (that's annoying btw).
What I tried to add is that TCU and SMU are not adult learner friendly when compared to schools like UofP. They seem to be oriented towards recent high school grads and for grad degrees, locals who have evenings and/or weekends free. They are not highly accessible, which should be part of the debate. And should target demographic be part of the debate? I think so.
The Cato Institute is libertarian, not conservative. And in this case they're exactly right. When all you need to borrow seventy grand is a pulse and a signature, that's a flood of money that will inevitably get sopped up by higher prices.
I agree. There is a case that public financial assistance for some unselective, open-admission programs (a common for-profit model) may not be worthwhile.
For example, Intel Corp. made headlines a few years ago when it halted tuition reimbursement for students studying business at the University of Phoenix and similar schools. Intel felt that the educations that these schools provided "were not of the highest value to the company."
Intel now offers tuition reimbursement only for AACSB-accredited business programs, which basically rules out all for-profits (and also less selective non-profits).
If the private sector doesn't feel that certain programs are worth subsidizing, then it does bring into question the need to do so via the public sector.
Intel (or any other company) can choose to fund (or not fund) whichever kind of institution that it wishes. I knew a company whose owner refused to reimburse tution for employees who attended any church-affiliated college or university. I worked for Intel and it has always had a very tight educational relaitonship with Arizona State University (which I also attended at the time). ASU was one of the most vocal oppenents to U. of Phoenix receiving regional accreditation, so there may be some other reasons for Intel's decision regarding Phoenix. Now, I am no apologist for Phoenix, but for every Intel, there are dozens of companies that will reimburse their employees who attend Phoenix.
I also worked for a California community college for seven years, so, in the name of consistency, would you say that that there is also "a case that public financial assistance for some unselective, open-admission programs" such as community colleges, which tend to be open enrollment and which, on average receive a much higher amount of public financial assistance via local and state tax funds, in addition to Pell Grant and federal student loans, also "may not be worthwhile"?
It depends on the type of degree program. No one would deny that there is value to some of the open-admissions programs at community colleges and other unselective schools. In fact, such programs may well offer the best possible educational preparation for certain fields.
Realistically, however, an open-admissions school may not be the best place to get, say, an MBA or a JD or an engineering degree.
To play devil's advocate when it comes to selectivity vs. open enrollment-- should we only allow those who can compete at the highly selective level to have access to education?
Everyone should have access to education. That's not the issue.
The issue is whether every person should have equal access to every form of education. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, the answer would be "yes".
But sadly, we do not live in a perfect world with unlimited resources. We live in an imperfect world of budget deficits and student loan defaults. Financial assistance for education is currently limited, and is likely to become even more limited in the future.
Given these constraints, there may have to be some hard decisions regarding financial assistance for education. No one should be surprised, for example, if future student loan policies favor degree programs whose graduates are more likely to repay.
In other words, it will be easier to get loans for degree programs that are valued in the job market. Realistically, the job market is more impressed by some degrees than by others, depending on the field (e.g. engineering vs. theater) and/or the school (e.g. SMU vs. UoP).
The only reason that lenders don't take these factors into account already is because student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy under current law. If the lenders faced a real risk of default, a student's ability to get credit would depend on their perceived ability to repay -- just like any other loan. And their school and field of study would be critical factors in this determination.
Separate names with a comma.