Harcourt Learning Direct discussion

I went to the new deja-google and tried their search feature only to see this exchange (redacted for ease of reading):

------------------------------------------

Subject: Is there a QBasic book?
From: "Cactus Bob"<[email protected]>
Date: 2000/09/08
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic

I enrolled with Harcourt Learning Direct and they sent me the book QBasic by Shelly, Cashman & Gleason. So far I've learned only two things: Harcourt is obviously not a real school and the book is for classroom
instruction, not for distance learning. It states this in the book.
Is there a good book on QBasic on there somewhere? Secondly, what can be done about these crooked correspondence schools? Does some government agency control licensing?
Bob

This message was forwarded to you from Deja.com by [email protected]:
> 1) who said they were crooked?
> 2) I don't why anyone would use different
> books for distance leaarning than for
> classroom use. After all, you're supposed
> to be learning the same thing. Distance
> learning requires much more maturity and
> will power and study and thinking.

From: Cactus Bob ([email protected])
Subject: Harcourt Learning Direct
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Date: 2000-09-09 08:23:20 PST

This received to my e-mail. My comments: The book plainly states that the instructors manual has the answers to the self-test questions. So are you saying Harcourt doesn't send the entire package? I realize home study takes a lot of dedication and work. I am a graduate of several home study courses including one that enabled me to get my FCC license. There are good and bad out there. Let me guess, you work for Harcourt. Only an employee could endorse something so bad and then attack the student for expecting a quality course.
Then you hide behind Hotmail sent by Deja.com. Just what one expect. why do you not post it here in public and say who you are?
Bob

------------------------------------------

As I will tell Cactus Bob in an email, the agency that accredits the "crooked correspondence school" Harcourt, known as the Distance Education and Training Council or DETC, has the Harcourt Learning Direct president on its Board of Directors. No point in complaining about them there, even if they are "not a real school".



------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

Another student that tried Harcourt complains in a photography newsgroup:

-----------------------------------------

"Charles Dalrymple" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I sent away for a correspondence
> course in photography offered by ICS
> now Harcourt Learning Direct. The
> brochure was modern and informative
> and included discount offers if you
> paid the full amount up front. I sent
> in my $700.00 discounted rate and in
> due course I received the first part
> of the course.
>
> The first course was quite basic, types
> of camera, lenses and a bit about depth
> of field calculations. However in the
> first assignment one question was worded
> badly. I sent off a Tutor Consultation
> Request Form asking what the hell the
> question meant and waited for the reply.
> Then I waited some more, and then waited
> another week!
>
> I finally received a long winded reply
> with the answer actually in the last line.
> (they wanted to know the lense to subject
> distance.)
>
> Anyhow this bloke had a shitload of letters
> after his name and in the 2 weeks and
> several days I waited for his reply I
> checked his qualifications out. Seems all
> the letters are for Psychology diplomas,
> but he did once work as a Photojournalist
> in the USA.
>
> It pays to check them out no matter what
> the brochure looks like. You know what they
> say " Never judge a book by it's cover "

-----------------------------------------

This problem is due to the same Harcourt M.O. that caused ExitQuietly222's famous nightmare at CCHS, which is that their inadequate programs are sold before they are ready for actual use by students.

 

Just FYI - Harcourt, like all DETC schools has a refund policy that would allow Bob to get a significant portion of his tuition returned. Further, any complaints about any DETC school can and should be submitted both to the school and to the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). They can be reached at 202.234.5100.

 

Did you know that 36% of all students that withdrew from the University of Colorado between 1992 and 1998 cited dissatisfaction with the university as a reason for withdrawal? It would be interesting to find out how that compares with Harcourt.

Did you know that on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest satisfaction and 5 being the highest, the engineering faculty at the University of Missouri - Rollo scored only a 2.5 average in student satisfaction? There were certainly a few unhappy campers in that group. Where were the North Central accrediting folks to come in and straighten that mess out? If the students are able to articulate their dissatisfactions, they must be legitimate.

Did you know that you could do a Google search on almost any regionally accredited university in the US and find disgruntled and dissatisfied students. Some with legitimate complaints and some whiners. As you have found out, it is likely that what happens at regionally accredited schools regarding dissatisfied students, also happens at DETC accredited schools.

 

Good work, Paul! Now tell us how many vice presidents say their school's programs are "designed to make money, not to help people", as is the case with Harcourt. How many say their continuing education is "neither 'continuing' nor 'education'", as is the case with Harcourt? How many have academic deans that quit because the school's executive administration refused to abide by the law, as is the case with Harcourt?

I'll be looking forward to your data.

 

Wow! I knew that ICS had a pretty crappy reputation, but this is the first I've heard of the problem being continued with Harcourt.

In the interest of further research on the situation, can you offer up the citations from which the above quotes came? The statements are pretty damning, and I'd be very interested to learn more about the facts in the situation.

Thanks!

 

Chip,

ICS *is* Harcourt. CCHS is ICS. And these statements have been on the Harcourt Bites site for many months now.

Visit http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

I have seen regular posts in aed over the years disparaging ICS and now Harcourt. I have never enrolled in a course from either institution, nor do I personally know anyone that works with either. I have personally interviewed the Pennsylvania state officer in charge of oversight of private schools, such as ICS, in PA. This individual told me that they have received very few formal complaints about ICS. Remember that ICS has had hundreds of thousands of students so it is an absolute certainty with those kinds of numbers, there will be some unsatisfied and disgruntled people. It can be argued till the cows come home about how many people don't "formally" complain. It is a fact though, students from every institution, public and private, RA and DETC, "informally" complain all the time. And every one of them is certain their complaints are legitimate. It is also a fact that Harcourt was granted authority by the state of MA to grant Associate's and Bachelor's degrees. MA regulations are a far cry from South Dakota or Hawaii regulations. Piper might recall the bold prediction from Rabrou that Harcourt would, of a certainty, not be granted a license by teh state of MA.

To say "these statements have been on the Harcourt Bites site for many months now" may be very true, but is not much of a citation. Also, the quote associated with the CCHS officer never quite contains the full context. The full quote is:

"They were not designed to meet the accreditation, licensure, etc. requirements of the respective accrediting bodies, states, etc. They were designed to make money, not to help people meet the minimum job requirements for a vocation or profession."

My interpretation of this is that the courses were never intended to satisfy any licensure or professional accrediting requirements. In other words, if you want to study to be able to get your professional license in a given discipline, these courses were not designed to "help people" do that. Certainly nothing wrong with that. And, of course as a business, they were most definitely designed to make money. That should go without saying.

Paul C.

 

I've taken a few courses from Harcout Direct (formerly ICS, aka the Sally Struthers school, aka the mathbook cover school). I approached the courses not vocationally, but to learn more in some areas in which I was interested.

I took the cooking and animal assisting courses. I found the material interesting, broad, but lightweight. It was really more of a starting point for those interested in those areas than a complete vocational education equivalent to a junior college, for instance.

Would the courses have satisifed the requirements to gain full, licensed employment in these fields? No. Here in Ohio, students must obtain state licensure in conjunction with an RA two-year degree and practical experience before using the title 'veterinary assistant.'

Also, the term 'chef' (versus 'cook') implies matriculation through a cooking school. Therefore, just as the CCHS official says, theses two courses would not "help people meet the minimum job requirements for a vocation or profession."

Based upon the course material, could I have gotten hired into a vet's office or a restaurant? Yes; then, if I wanted advancement, I would trot off to the appropriate RA school. In the meantime, I would have a much better idea if I wanted to pursue a particular vocation and have a job to boot; indeed, the courses were "designed to make money," again quoting the CCHS official.

I had one instance of writing to an instructor on a disputed test question; I did receive an answer, and based on my argument the instructor indicated that they will modify the question or answers in future printings of the test material.

Harcourt Direct and their previous incarnation ICS might be guilty of some of the most tasteless advertising by any institution of higher education. However, in my experience with them, I would not characterize them as dishonest. Perhaps what is needed is a little more 'caveat emptor' on the part of the student; choosing your vocational education by picking out and affixing the appropriate brightly colored stamp should probably foreshadow the course content.

I would be happy to summarize my experiences with ICS for H. Piper's Website.

Mark Sykes

 

Take my word for it complaints to the school does not solve anything. Complaints to DETC get a rousing support for Harcourt and nothing more. It is only when you complain to the DOE that you get some type of investigation by DETC.

 

Originally posted by PaulC:
Remember that ICS has had hundreds of thousands of students so it is an absolute certainty with those kinds of numbers, there will be some unsatisfied and disgruntled people. It can be argued till the cows come home about how many people don't "formally" complain.

Remember also that Harcourt markets specifically to persons with low-income and as little educational experience as possible. Their hope is to cash a few of their checks before they drop out. That's why the two obviously educated gentleman at the top of this thread were so disappointed, because Harcourt programs are entirely inadequate for gaining knowledge for a profession. (Also, Harcourt knows that persons with lower income and less educational experience will be MUCH less likely to complain formally.)

It is also a fact that Harcourt was granted authority by the state of MA to grant Associate's and Bachelor's degrees. MA regulations are a far cry from South Dakota or Hawaii regulations.

Harcourt chose Massachussetts because Bob "The Nooch" Antonucci, who became president of Harcourt Learning Direct in February 1998, was Commissioner of Education there for years. They figured (correctly, as it turns out) his old-boy connections would pull them through that process.

The full quote is:
"They were not designed to meet the accreditation, licensure, etc. requirements of the respective accrediting bodies, states, etc. They were designed to make money, not to help people meet the minimum job requirements for a vocation or profession."

My interpretation of this is that the courses were never intended to satisfy any licensure or professional accrediting requirements. In other words, if you want to study to be able to get your professional license in a given discipline, these courses were not designed to "help people" do that.

That's one heck of an interpretation, Paul. I hope you didn't strain yourself bending over backwards to come up with it.

Maybe emphasizing a few words will help you understand. Harcourt does not help people meet even the MINIMUM JOB REQUIREMENTS for a vocation or profession. (And even if your interpretation was correct, it still would not bode well for someone considering Harcourt.)


------------------
H. Piper
http://harcourtbites.tripod.com

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by H. Piper:
Remember also that Harcourt markets specifically to persons with low-income and as little educational experience as possible. Their hope is to cash a few of their checks before they drop out. That's why the two obviously educated gentleman at the top of this thread were so disappointed, because Harcourt programs are entirely inadequate for gaining knowledge for a profession. (Also, Harcourt knows that persons with lower income and less educational experience will be MUCH less likely to complain formally.)
[/QUOTE]

I find these assertions remarkable. I assume you have data to support each of these remarks. Just how much more "obviously educated" are the gentlemen to which you refer than the average Harcourt student. What is the data that supports your contention that the less educated are less likely to complain formally? These questions are not rhetorical, I would really like to know what your source f information is that you use to support your statements above.

As to your statement that "Harcourt programs are entirely inadequate for gaining knowledge for a profession", you must have missed the post above from the individual that said they have taken ICS courses and did believe there ICS experience was adequate to get them in employed in a particular field.

You take a word or phrase or sentence out of the whole context. As I read it, the two sentences are components of the same thought. The sentences cannot be split apart. As I see it, and believe it or not I am not bending over backward as I am writing this thought, the first sentence, which is inextricably tied to the second sentence, says that if you think that a Harcourt course is designed to help you learn what is required to become licensed or certified or otherwise prepare for some miniaml professional requirement, you would be mistaken. It appears that he is saying it does not "help people" to do that. When you write that Harcourt says they aren't there to "help people" it is not only an obvious case of culling words out of context to support your assertion, it lessens the potential validity of your claim because it leaves all other assertions as suspect. Such as the various statements you make above regarding the education level of Harcourt students. And how "persons with lower income and less educational experience will be MUCH less likely to complain formally". Not just less likely, but MUCH less likely. How do we know this?

 

Originally posted by PaulC:
Just how much more "obviously educated" are the gentlemen to which you refer than the average Harcourt student.

A measurable amount. (Not to say that there aren't possibly a few Harcourt students with a superior education as well. But these guys could see through the farce of what Harcourt was offering almost immediately.)

What is the data that supports your contention that the less educated are less likely to complain formally?

This is a matter of common sense, Paul. (Sorry if I can't give you a place to learn that, by distance or traditionally.) Lower income families and individuals will have less time and fewer resources available to them to allocate towards complaining formally. (And even if they do complain about Harcourt to the DETC, they will not know that a Harcourt president sits on their Board of Directors when they receive the message "Harcourt was not at fault".)

As to your statement that "Harcourt programs are entirely inadequate for gaining knowledge for a profession", you must have missed the post above from the individual that said they have taken ICS courses and did believe there ICS experience was adequate to get them in employed in a particular field.

I probably should have said "usually" instead of "entirely".

I don't have time to read the rest of your rant right now, Paul. I'll check it later to see if there's anything worth responding to.

 

It's all worth responding too, I'm just waiting to see a response with substance.

Now that you've got the poor, uneducated all wrapped up in a easy to understand mold, maybe you could opine on another group of people. Even if it were just "common sense", it would still be enlightening.

A suggestion for if you do decide to post again, how about some information that you can actually substantiate. You know, with real data. Not the "everybody knows this" kind of avoidance reply. To the question of "how much", an answer like "a measurable amount" doesn't really hit the mark or add much credibility.

A recommendation, Harcourt offers the following courses you might want to consider:

*Understanding Ourselves, Understanding Others

*Communicating with Words

They probably won't help you prepare for any psych certifications, but they might be good for personal development.

Just a thought.

 

Yeah, right Paul. Your posts are oozing with enlightening substance, and mine are meaningless.

Whatever, little man. I have better things to do with my time than to get into an endless nitpicking session with another mill shill. Have fun on your own.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by H. Piper:
Remember also that Harcourt markets specifically to persons with low-income and as little educational experience as possible.
(snip)

(Also, Harcourt knows that persons with lower income and less educational experience will be MUCH less likely to complain formally.)

(Paul C. responds)
I find these assertions remarkable. I assume you have data to support each of these remarks.

[/QUOTE]

Chip responds:

Actually, it should be obvious to just about anyone that ICS/harcourt clearly targets low-income, poorly educated individuals. Look at how and where they advertise, and the nature of their programs. This claim doesn't really need a citation, IMHO.

And it is common knowledge among consumer advocates that low-income, poorly educated consumers tend to complain less effectively and less persistently than their better-educated cohorts. I don't have any cites offhand, but when I was reading a lot of Tom Peters and other folks in his field, this was a common, well documented theme.

While it would be difficult to prove the statement about assuming that students will drop and simply getting as much cash as possible before that happens, it is also a logical extension from the marketing strategy.


Paul adds:
As to your statement that "Harcourt programs are entirely inadequate for gaining knowledge for a profession", (snip) ...[the individual said] they have taken ICS courses and did believe there ICS experience was adequate to get them in employed in a particular field.


Chip responds:

I don't think the two statements are incompatible. Employment at the entry level and employment as a professional are very different... and I have to agree that Harcourt implies (but doesn't state) that they are preparing you for a career as a skilled tradesperson when, in fact, they are apparently offering only introductory training for entry-level positions. Fraudulent? Probably not. Sleazy and preying on the ignorance of the uneducated? Almost certainly.


Paul continues:
You take a word or phrase or sentence out of the whole context. As I read it, the two sentences are components of the same thought. The sentences cannot be split apart.(snip) ... if you think that a Harcourt course is designed to help you learn what is required to become licensed or certified or otherwise prepare for some miniaml professional requirement, you would be mistaken.


Again, while I don't (at this point) accept that Harcourt is 100% evil, I have to agree that the statement, *in context* causes me to infer that Harcourt's goal is money, and the quality of their materials and training is irrelevent. Of course all for-profits are in business to make money. But the better ones clearly state that quality and customer satisfaction come first, and profits come from satisfied customers. When a company appears to put money first, or money is *all* that matters, there is no way that quality is going to be equivalent.
Interestingly, this is the MIGS problem. Sheila seems to care only about *MONEY.* Hence, no attention to quality, student satisfaction, professional marketing. A very short-sighted approach, but the only one she can understand. Armando, on the other hand, clearly gets it. But, against Sheila, he'll never succeed.

I suspect that the ICS/Harcourt mindset is very similar to Sheila's. And that's a pity.

 

Anecdotally, the only two people I personally know that have taken courses from ICS and PDCI (a school with almost identical course offerings, marketing, and student count)are my wife and my ex-father in law, both of whom have Bachelor's derees from RA institutions and neither of which are poor.

Enough with the anecdotal, here are some facts for DETC accredited schools, of which ICS has a huge percentage of the overall student body:

"In February 1998 the Distance Education and Training Council surveyed its 61 accredited members to determine current aspects of the distance study educational practice. The following is a summary of the data received (http://www.detc.org/):"

The average age of students is 31;
90%* are employed at the time of enrollment;
31%* have their tuition paid by their employers;
82%* of students have a college degree;

Now, this may or may not have been a scientific study, but whatever it was, it is far more than what you or Piper have come up with. These are not the demographics of the poor and uneducated. 90% are employed and 82% have a college degree.

You may not like my citation, you may not agree with the data, but you have to do more than take the cavalier attitude that something is simply "common knowledge" as a way to avoid substantiating your conjecture. Refute my specific citation with one of more quality. Then you'll have a leg to stand on.

This is a challenge Chip, I am big enough to live with whatever your data supports. I just am not mindless enough to accept what you would like to think is apparent. Clearly, it is not.

Show me that the majority of the ICS student body is the great sea of the poor and uneducated. My citation refutes that assertion. Really, this is not a rhetorical rant, this is a challenge to you and Piper to substantiate your assertions.

 

This thread has taken some strange turns. We went from a couple anecdotes of alleged dissatisfied students, to lack of filed complaints just means Harcourt's clients are ineffective consumers, to Harcourt is the Evil Empire, with some name-calling and strawman arguments along the way. Maybe the other posters can help me better understand the points of contention:

1. Harcourt purposely targets the uneducated - Well, duh. Companies target advertising to markets in which they anticipate business. You will find Depends adult diapers targeted to the elderly in magazines such as Saturday Evening Post; you'll see lip gloss peddled to teenage girls in Seventeen magazine. In this case, here is a school advertising to... the unschooled.

2. You won't meet minimum job standards for a profession or vocation - True in many cases. Many Bachelor degrees will not help you meet the minimum job standards for a profession such as lawyering or doctoring, nor a vocation such as nursing or law enforcement - without additional schooling, licensure, academy or residency. Until you continue with further training, you're performing internship. Get a bookkeeping diploma from Harcourt, and you'll be clerking until you continue with further training; in the meantime, learning and earning money. These are introductory, vocational courses, equivalent to '000' or remedial level college courses; who is not understanding that?

3. Harcourt implies that you'll be skilled tradesman upon completion of a six-month diploma - I'm just not seeing that. Here are the tag lines from Harcout's Website:

"Like all our programs, it allows you to train for a new career in ...[insert career here]"
"Learn skills that can mean money and opportunity for you, without attending class or changing your schedule."
"Harcourt Learning Direct will start you on the road to more money and job satisfaction."

All of these don't just imply that you'll start at the bottom, they say it explicitly. The course descriptions are available upon request, and show how much (or how little) training you're in for. The implication was made that the less-educated, lower-income segment of the population don't have the cognitive skills to understand that a six-month diploma isn't as much training as a two-year trade school certificate or a four-year college degree. I have no college degree and I expect to just clear $10,000 this year; so, matching the demographic I will speak from it: Yes, I understand the difference.

So, appealing again for help, the point of the thread is that:
a) No school should offer anything less than a program leading to a terminal qualification in a field of study;
b) The trailer-court types would simply be better off if they were a little more like us;
c) Ho ho, hey hey, it's trash if it's not RA?

Frankly, this thread seems to suffer from not keeping things within the realm of personal experience. I took two courses from ICS out of sheer enjoyment of learning something new, and found them interesting, informative, broad, but lightweight. I'd like to take the electronics course later to enhance my amateur radio hobby. I am not prepared to speak for groups of people who may or may not be taking the courses; I can't speak for the motivations of Harcourt and whether or not they want to cash your checks and run; I don't know a Cactus Bob or a Banana Sam or any other dissatisfied student but I'm sure ICS, like many schools, have victims of crass, unjustful treatment. But I think the group will gain better data if the posters stick to their unique, personal experiences with Harcourt. Anything else is heresay.

Mark A. Sykes
who is not compensated by Harcourt but doesn't understand why they're such a pariah.

 

Mark, all due respect, I have to two comments. In your (1.) comment, you are accepting that Harcourt markets to the uneducated (and poor is what I believe was the original contention). I have provided a citation that refutes that notion. I don't know you, but you sound pretty educated. If that is so, how is it that you were successfully roped by their marketing?

Neither actual citable evidence nor anecdotal evidence has yet come even marginally close to supporting what was offered as common sense fact. I, for one, would still like to see the supporting evidence that the poor and uneducated are the target market for Harcourt.

 

Interesting observation! Mark A. Sykes, sir.
Well analyze, inform, and illustrate. In fact, it is your best comment I have ever read from you.

You have to understand that not every RA-school are equal in quality. Usually, the higher the tuition cost would indicate the school has a higher quality in education. It is not always true. Do you have a suggestion that can improve this particular school in general?

My regards,
Erma