New book on for-profit universities: "Lower Ed"

Perhaps it is because I saw (and thoroughly enjoyed) the "Hidden Figures" film yesterday that it crosses my mind to wonder if the response (not here, of course, but in general) has anything to do with the fact that Cottom is an African-American female?

But I gotta say that this thread did bring to mind the great 1993 slogan for Guinness Stout: "I've never tried it because I don't like it."

 

I certainly don't want to speak for anyone else. But I will admit that my first thought, upon seeing that she is a sociologist, was "Ah, of course. What else?"

I think that sociology, as a social science, is very interesting. But I've also found that sociology tends to be a dumping ground of people who desperately want to sound "edgy." I was recently reading a book by a then Sociology PhD candidate about Hasidic Jews who lead secret lives (i.e. they sneak out of insular communities to eat pork, listen to unacceptable music and watch porn). To me, that's the sort of thing sociologists should do. That, to me, sounds like the textbook study of "the development, structure, and functioning of human society."

That's a very vague umbrella, though. And so, perhaps, those who become sociologists and seem to spend their time protesting rather than publishing have an equal claim to the field as well. Not being a hard science the edges are, naturally, going to be a bit fuzzier.

I will also admit that my own bias causes me to find some sick humor in the fact that sociology degrees, outside of academia, are among the most useless to the commercial world. Communications degree holders can often find themselves in actual communications roles (such as PR) or in allied fields (such as marketing).

Sociology is one of those perfect degrees for meeting the requirement of having a degree in anything. Thus, I suppose, it amuses me a bit more than it should when a sociologist is going to aim to study whether for-profit degrees are "worth it." A B.S. in Accounting, especially if coupled with a CPA, is going to be significantly more fruitful, financially speaking, than a B.A. in Sociology even if from a highly respectable school.

I won't read the book, not because it is biased, but because I already know the conclusion from the book title; for-profit education is terrible, awful and all around very bad. Better instead that you spend four years full time, and an equal sum of money, studying the noble liberal arts. Not the real liberal arts, mind you. Not the seven disciplines which might actually challenge you. No, the "liberal arts education" which allows you to study "stuff" at your leisure and convenience likely without ever having to take more than 3 credits in an actual liberal art field.

If a rich person wrote a book called "Higher" Ed: How Liberal Arts Schools Are Screwing You I can only imagine how quickly these same individuals would attack it feverishly even if the research numbers supported the premise.

It isn't the bias I object to. It's the clickbait title that they hope I'll impulsively add to my Amazon cart and the latching onto a self-serving position and presenting it as fact because you have letters after your name that I object to.

 

Here's a confession: In my time, I have worked at three different for-profit schools: American National University (formerly National College of Business & Technology and then National College and still so-named in Tennessee), Kaplan University, and Colorado Technical University. In my time, I have seen the great, the good, the bad, the terrible, and the wish-I-could-forget. I don't know that I could write a complete book on the subject, but I feel I could provide at least a few chapters worth of insight for someone else's book.

I honestly don't even know how much I could, should, or would share publicly on any of my experiences, but hey... if anyone is ever in the Chicago area and wants to talk it up over coffee or beer, I'm your guy.

 

I may take you up on the offer! In the meantime, why not put together a "good, bad, and ugly" book, format it for Kindle, and throw it up on Amazon? Could be a good followup text to "Lower Ed" and you could always publish it under "Fabe G."

 

I used to teach for a for-profit RA (Phoenix) and a for-profit NA (Corinthian - ACICS). I can't speak as to their marketing practices or tuition schedules, but they were both academically solid. The courses were pre-packaged, meaning I couldn't change anything in regards to assignments, etc., but the readings and work expected were on-par with the RA non-profits where I teach now. In the case of Phoenix, the faculty screening and training were also top-notch, the best I've ever had or even seen, actually.

In the case of Corinthian, the biggest issue with them is that they didn't screen their students nearly as well as their faculty. I had several students who were incapable of even high school level work, and one two occasions, students I failed were accepted for remedial courses, sent back to the course again, where I had to fail them a second time. In one case, I had a student who was clearly mentally ill, probably Bipolar, who would vanish for a week at a time, then reappear with long, rambling posts to class discussion topics that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. For a final paper on Intro to Criminal Justice, she submitted a 10,000 word copy & paste document on the history of Buffalo, NY.

I may take you up on that some day!

 

If I were to write a book about my experiences attending and teaching at for-profit schools, it would be mostly bad. I also hated my students at the non-profit school I taught at, but the way the higher ups handled situations was entirely different.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

Can you please clarify?

 

I don't want to speak for sanantone, but I have a feeling of where this is going based on my experience.

Although I certainly would not use the word "hate", working with students can be very challenging. I had many discussions with students concerned about the grade they received on a particular assignment and/or class. It was common to hear things like "But I worked so hard!" or "I spent hours on that paper and he gives me a C?!" and that kind of thing.

I would do my best to talk students away from filing a formal grade dispute. Frankly speaking, I personally feel as though I had to deal with this WAY too often. What I would usually do is go over the assignment with the student, review the professors comments, as well as pointing out concerns I had of my own.

Look, I have no doubts that many times students did work very hard on an assignment or in a class. I believe that oftentimes their very best effort was indeed worth a C grade and that's not to fault them. They just weren't adequately prepared (another discussion in itself, one I'll save for my coffee/beer chats) and put forth the best of they knew... sometimes it just wasn't worth the grade they received.

Couple other related thoughts/side-notes:

• It was rare for me to ever outright agree with a grade dispute. I'm not trying to sound like a pompous ass because, who am I?, but my point is that the overwhelming majority of grade disputes had no merit. To be clear, this isn't about the nuances of grammar, punctuation, APA styling, that kind of thing. This is about instances where there was no clear logic, no coherence, very obviously poor sentence structure, etc.

• Grade inflation is rampant. Why? Because it's much easier to toss out some inflated grades than to deal with the ensuing fallout and frustration. And this is not isolated to for-profits. In my studies at both Corban and Illinois, there were several instances where I KNOW my grade was too generous.

• There is a severe lack of preparation at the secondary level which is compounded by grade inflation. This is something that affects both for-profit and non-profit schools. I know it because of the students I've worked with at for-profits and the peers I've had in non-profits. I realize this is very anecdotal, but in one class at Illinois we had a group project. One team member submitted something so poorly written it was barely usable and it's something that's unique to me. A colleague of mine who works at public university in Illinois is often asked to review writing samples of incoming graduate students. She says the very same thing. Most recently she said "I have no idea how some of these kids ever made it through college writing like this?".

In conclusion, I say: at:

 

Oh my! My first ever, and (in hindsight) truly deserved, Kanye comparison. Lord help me.

 

I've seen time and again that the hiring practices by the for-profits are rigorous and lead to well-qualified candidates- the issue is probably more with the quality of students. Still, I've taught with good and bad teachers - for pay, for free, for credit, for personal enrichment, all grades, lots of adult learners, lots of smart students, lots who needed formal accommodations- all types of situations, but one thing is ALWAYS true. The only good teachers are the ones that care about their student's success. In my own little empirical study, I'd peg that somewhere around 50% of teachers. The other 50%, I think, are there for a job. If you are there to trick and trap them into their own failures, if you're there to demonstrate that you're the expert, if you're there for the paycheck or hours - you might as well record your lectures and upload them online. The students know it and will form exactly -zero- attachments to you. Their eyes will glaze over, they'll doodle, miss class, not raise their hand for questions, not come to office hours. The attachment is the key to the successful relationship which in turn creates engagement, which is the key to the student's success.
LOTS of teachers just show up and complain. The fact is- they're in the wrong job.

 

Most non-traditional adult-learners are paying customers who are there to get a formal RA degree to enhance job prospects or for promotional opportunities in well established careers. Most of them jump through the academic hoops that are placed before them, whether it's at a for-profit or a non-profit institution. Some of the classes are a waste of time (for them), except that those classes eventually lead to a degree. Will the knowledge learned in all those various degree programs actually help students? Maybe yes and maybe no (there are too many variables to consider). However, they are all jumping through the hoops because they all want that coveted dream-laden degree.

 

Alright, so since we're going with the "paying customer" label let's look at this way.

You just bought a new car. You keep it clean, use top tier gas, get regular oil changes, etc. But... the way you drive is a bit aggressive. You tend to tail gate, brake hard, and do other things you really shouldn't do with a car, but hey... that's how you drive so what's the big deal?

Well, about 6 months have passed and, unfortunately, your aggressive driving causes the engine to blow up. The manufacturer says you voided the warranty and won't cover the cost of the repair. You're pissed. "But that's the way I drive! I did the maintenance and all that other stuff!" you say, but they won't budge. So you file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau's Auto Line because you disagree and don't feel like you've done anything wrong (even though technically you did).

It's exactly the same way with most of these grade disputes. The intent, the basic effort (read maintenance), is there but you didn't quite do everything you were supposed to. Perhaps your logic was fuzzy or incoherent on a few assignments. Maybe you decided that APA guidelines were arbitrary and you didn't really follow them (much like the owner's manual for that new car) or whatever. The bottom line is that you did some things, perhaps even most things, "right", but you were still wrong to such a degree that you didn't like the outcome.

Look, I'm not dogging these students. Really... I'm not. I am frustrated. I am frustrated by the persistent lack of adequate preparation. Frustrated that we've damn near made the terms "student" and "customer" synonymous without any clarity or distinction between the two. Frustrated by rampant grade inflation because it's the easy way out. Frustrated that there are students who expect A's for C or D quality.

At this point, I may starting disputing my own inflated grades because, fact is, I've gamed the system as much as anyone for no other reason than because I could.

:banghead:

 

Excellent observation and I'm so glad you've brought it up. Thanks to my studies at Illinois, I've become extremely interested in adult learner engagement. I read a story about how Malcolm Knowles, the godfather of andragogy (methods/practices of adult learning), learned to make the transition from "teacher" to a facilitator of learning. In short, it's not about telling students something and making sure they do what they are told. Instead, it's about developing student inquiry so that you, as the facilitator, can help them learn the things that matter to them.

I will say that, to the credit of the faculty members I've had at Illinois, they generally do a good job at this. There's still arguably more "teaching" than I would prefer, but they do allow us to apply what we've learned in our own settings which has helped to ensure that we "get it".

 

Let's just say that my students liked me much more than I liked them. At the for-profit, my student evaluations were well above average. The Director of Education came to me and told me that my students seem to really love me. My students often told me that I was the only instructor in the criminal justice program that cared to teach them anything. So, most of the stuff that annoyed me about the students wasn't directly aimed at me. Some of them told outright lies about my coworkers in an attempt to get them fired.

I was the target of of some retaliation when I reported a student for cheating. I found out that he cheated his way through the whole program, and he wasn't caught until he got to me. I taught the last few courses in the certificate program. Instead of expelling the student, I was required to modify assignments so that he could pass. I failed him multiple times, and they kept giving him chances to complete the assignment again. He could barely read at the third grade level and didn't belong in college courses at all.

Then, there was the student with an undiagnosed learning disability. In high school, he failed the state, standardized test required to graduate four times. There was an end-of-program exam for a worthless certification that the school wanted all the criminal justice students to pass before graduating. He failed it three times. After failing two times, students weren't supposed to be allowed to graduate. I had to cut my lecture time to tutor this student during class. Some of the other instructors would give up and just give the answers to the certification test to the students, but I refused to do this.

A common complaint among almost all the teachers at that for-profit was that it was nearly impossible to teach these students when they couldn't even read and write at the middle school level. Medical assisting, IT, accounting, and criminal justice instructors should not have been responsible for teaching remedial English. Thankfully, this school shut down last year after it was found out that a few employees were mishandling financial aid. The lawsuits over charging students for courses they didn't take are coming.

At the public university, the students were more prepared for college, but you can't really expect much from criminal justice students. There's a reason why their LSAT and GRE scores are among the lowest. My main problem was that the students had a sense of entitlement. They thought they deserved As for B and C work. My evaluations were average, which was good since I was told that I had to teach the course at the last minute and had very little time to design a course from scratch. However, there was this one student who saw that she was headed for getting a B in the course and threw a fit because she believed she was a straight A student. She wasn't even in the top five most capable students in my class. But, she was a model. Her good looks and flattery might have worked on male professors, but they weren't going to work on me.

She convinced a group of students to go to the dean and complain about their grades. The dean determined that the allegations were bogus. She expected grades to mostly follow the Bell Curve. My students were performing a little better than would be expected by the Bell Curve. Out of the almost 30 students I had, only two failed the course and that was because they hardly turned in any work. More students got Bs than got Ds when the number should be roughly equal. So, that model ended up getting her much deserved low B. Maybe if she had spent more time studying than complaining, she wouldn't have ruined her chance of getting the president award.

I had the complete opposite experience at the for-profit and public university I taught at. The students who were in their late 20s and older were, hands down, my best students. They tended to participate the most in class, turn in their work on time, not cheat, have the highest test scores, and turned in the highest quality work. They took their education much more seriously than most of the younger students. Although, I never taught general education courses.

If I go back to teaching, I will likely only do it at a school with mostly older students or one with higher caliber students. For-profit does not automatically equal older. I had a lot of students under 24 at the for-profit I taught at even though the average age of the students at the school was 28. The older students were mostly in other programs.

I kind of wish I would have gotten a doctorate in a field that attracts more intelligent students. I probably should have gone for international relations like I had originally planned. IR majors aren't up there with philosophy and physics majors, but they are better than CJ students. I was even annoyed by how dumb my CJ classmates were, except for in my doctoral program. My doctoral program has competitive admissions, and most lower-performing CJ students wouldn't attempt a doctoral program anyway.

 

I know of several for-profits, including the one I taught at, that hired people with bachelor's degrees and little to no experience in the field. Our school had to have lied about the qualifications of some of the people they hired because the accreditor required experience in the field if the instructor didn't have a graduate degree. As a matter of fact, a lot of the instructors at the school I taught at worked at other for-profits such as Devry, Kaplan, Sanford Brown, and Brown Mackie. If they sucked at my school, then they likely sucked at the other schools.

The school I taught at hired a woman in her mid-twenties who had a bachelor's in CJ and hadn't worked a day in the CJ field. She would joke with us that she wasn't qualified to teach college courses and she wasn't. Another instructor there had a law degree, but he was only teaching because he couldn't pass the Bar. The person who was the program chair when I was first hired had no experience in the CJ field. I think he had a masters in CJ or a related field, but that didn't stop him from teaching incorrect forensic science and investigations procedures. The person who became chair after the previous chair went back to working full-time for the military was an investigator in the military and was appalled at what he was teaching the students. Yet another criminal justice instructor we had was clearly an alcoholic. At least they fired him.

 

That's pretty messed up. Unfortunately I've also seen this sort of thing happen at the CC where I teach and at the university where my wife worked as an adjunct (in addition to her day job). She was, in my opinion, overly accommodating to students. She was rewarded by some of the worst evaluations she had ever received by some students who very clearly intended to have their statements get her fired. It almost worked. It was as if they took her kindness as weakness and pounced.

That was the first semester she experimented with more graded projects and fewer objective exams. It backfired massively. Part of the problem was that she was teaching 100 and 200 level classes. So she was teaching topics to kids fresh out of high school who had no prior experience in the topic being taught. The result was graded projects that were filled with lots of unqualified opinions. When she graded accordingly, the students came back begging, crying and, sometimes, threatening their way to a higher grade. She cut them slack because she felt that projects were a bad idea and that was on her. Were I a student I'd take my grade and move on in life. For them, apparently, it just chummed the waters.

 

One student wrote the following about me again in an end-of-course evaluation:

"Dr. Smith is absolutely the worst professor ever. She didn't reply to my emails and graded papers late and is totally incompetent."

Two things stood out:
1. me again is not Dr. Smith.
2. me again is not a female.

 

Interesting.

All of my teachers were qualified to teach their subjects. However, I did have a professor in the undergrad who was clearly a heavy drinker; only once we saw him relatively sober (and it happened outside of class!). He was NOT fired, because in the past he was a big shot researcher reaching the rank of Full Member of the Academy of Sciences (of Soviet Union; he became the Member of NANU on strength of his ANUSSR membership). Having a full Academician on faculty greatly enhanced the Department's prestige. I sometimes wonder whether the Optimization Theory could come useful if taught by someone sober.