General feelings about for-profits...

The latest was a meta analysis of studies compiled by the U.S. Dept. of Education showing tha students in fully online environments had higher learning outcomes than students in face-to-face environments and that students in hybrid environments do even better. However, they (correctly) point out that it is not the distance delivery or the technology that causes learning to occur (something that we have known for a long time), but that the DL nature of the instruction caused students to spend more time engaged in their learning.

 

Our leadership does quite a few things that do not make sense from a pure profit perspective but that do make sense from an educational perspective. Our Chancellor recently spoke to our incoming cadre of doctoral students and bragged that we are the slowest growing of the for-profit universities--by design.

 

Could we have a link to that?

 

I would hope for the self-regulation as well, but I have been in higher ed (non-profit and for-profit) too long to not realize that outside forces (accrediting bodies in particular) provide the major impetus for us to do many things. The major problem with the U.S. DOE and the Senate is that they see some bad things happening and they want to correct them, but they have so little knowledge of both distance learning and the idea of industry, corporations and profit, that they do not realize that their poorly researched and executed policies will have detrimental effects of which they are not aware. Other than a year or two in public practice, Tom Harkin's entire career has been in taxpayer-funded public service. There is nothing wrong with this, except that he has no experience, knowledge or expertise in the sector that he is trying to regulate (or, perhaps eliminate).

 

I would, for one, not challenge the correctness of your observation that there is a smear campaign against for-profit private sector education. Yes, for many, it is a current stigma and the campaign has definitely impacted Apollo/Phoenix and Kaplan, among others. Of course, published media report and opinion polls say nothing about the quality of education and career skills that a student receives, but this argument is about money, not quality. Those who sling terms like "worthless degrees" have no data to back it up.

Your credentials are definitely impressive, as you have attended some wonderful institutions. In your "all other things being equal" scenario, you would definitely have advantages, so your investment in your education was a wise one. As someone who routinely receives resumes and curriculum vitae, I have rarely encountered two candidates where all other things were equal. In my experience, academic preparation, teaching experience, scholarship, involvement in the broader profession, service, etc. tend to distinguish candidates from each other. A Harvard PhD speaks volumes, but, for faculty, a Harvard PhD with no publications nor a record of teaching does not beat out a Walden PhD with multiple peer-reviewed publications and a strong record of teaching and scholarship.

 

Amazingly clever...I love equal opportunity satire! I am going to send this to my former colleges at the two state universities and the community college where I used to work. They will have a great laugh--Sanctimonious U, funny stuff. I would love to see a routine For-Profit U and Sanctimonious U face each other and we get to laugh at each sector's stereotypes.

 

Well, time to get back to work. See y'all soon!

 

I'm glad you guys liked it. Honestly the OP had me inspired and I was feeling sarcastic while working on something else in PowerPoint and before you know it...there it was. Feel free to use it however you see fit.