The little college with 70k+ students

But they are not legitimately the same school that HLC accredited in 2004. Not even close.

HLC granted regional accreditation to a residential school in Iowa with an enrollment of 300. Bridgepoint took that accreditation and used it to cover an online school in San Diego with an enrollment of 76,000. This is in no way credible; on the contrary, it makes the accreditation process look like a joke.

If Bridgepoint (or anyone else) wants to start a new for-profit (or non-profit) online (or B&M) university, that's fine. But they need go through the eligibility and candidacy process for regional accreditation -- just like anyone else.

Ashford is now issuing thousands of accredited online degrees per year, yet in reality their huge online programs have never been subject to any real accreditation evaluation. This is admittedly brilliant from a business standpoint, but it's bogus in terms of academic standards.

 

Since you haven't attended classes yet, you should be able to quit with a full refund. Of course you will loose any application and other similar fees, but you should be able to get the bulk of your tuition returned to you. If they will not do it, they are even worse than we know. I would be surprised if they don't give you back your money; almost every school will refund you before you start classes.

 

Another case

Rochester College was nearly acquired by K-12 but HLC weighed in and the deal is off.

Traditional wisdom said an accredited college was worth $5-10 million to a corporate buyer but not anymore.

Regards - Andy

 

I haven't really read through this whole thread but here's a story from the NY Times that seems to go along with the major point of this discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/education/11college.html?adxnnl=1&ref=education&adxnnlx=1299820467-/nNM0LIL72TOxZoPve4xrw

 

Guys, I tried really hard to accurately represent this information on Ashford's wikipedia page: Ashford University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you see something on that page that is too favorable/harsh towards Ashford, please change it. (If you don't like editing Wikipedia let me know any improvement ideas you have, and I or others can do them).

What neither the NYTimes or HuffingtonPost articles said (great sources, btw) is how abysmally Ashford did in a recent US Dept of Ed audit. When a student enrolls, obtains a loan/pell grant, but then withdraws, that money must be returned to the government if the student withdraws by a certain deadline (or simply never attends). That is one of the many illegal things Ashford was found to have done, stealing $1 million in the 2006 school year. They also did not return money back to students who withdrew (and were eligible to get a refund), and also took loans out for students without the proper authorization.

All signs point to the idea that Ashford does whatever it takes to make a profit, I tried to make that clear on the Wikipedia article. Not all of these attempts are legal, and I tried to make this business model somewhat clear (while still having a neutral tone). If you see a nice way to incorporate these new sources to that article, I think it would be a useful addition.

 

Classes have not started yet so you should not loose any tuition money. The first thing you should do is to remove them from your choice of intended schools on FAFSA website (so that they can't access your account and possibly charge it). The second thing you should do is to get a hold of their catalog or any legally binding school document, and then go through the steps that is outline should a student intend to withdraw. Most withdrawal steps include a formal letter of intent to withdraw. Whether required or not, write one anyway; make sure you explicitly state that you "intend to withdraw immediately effective march 10, 2011" (for example). Finally make sure the intended recipient of the withdrawal letter receives it by calling to confirm (make sure you document everything). All these step can be completed in a few hours. Goodluck....

 

Would anyone in their right mind decide to attend a school because of a soccer field and outdoor track? No matter why some people with degrees can't get a job. Also, no wonder why many Asian countries including China and India are surpassing the U.S. in almost everything now, especially, when it comes to science and math education. Their economies are rapidly expanding while ours is shrinking with massive unemployment and foreclosures.

To those that have fallen for this: How's the degree from a school with a "soccer field and outdoor track" working out for ya?

 

Of course not. But it's not really a "soccer field and outdoor track." Just look at the picture: it's obviously a football field, and a very nice one at that -- even though Ashford has no football team, and no timeline for establishing one.

And apparently a football stadium confers a sense of respectability and legitimacy to a university, which in turn makes students more likely to enroll. If that seems hard to believe, note that the University of Phoenix -- which knows quite a bit about marketing -- has invested $ 154,500,000 to keep its name on a football stadium (though they don't have a football team either).

We can safely assume that UoP expects a payoff that is at least equivalent to its $150 million dollar investment.

 

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would compare building a small college football stadium next to buying the naming rights of an NFL stadium. Seriously now...

This is such a minor detail of this overall debate but I'll spend a little time on it anyway.

When I attended the graduation ceremony back, jeez, a couple of years ago? Anyhow I remember someone on staff mentioning that they wanted to get a football team for the school started to compete with the surrounding schools that they were already playing basketball and baseball with. Additionally the school needed a stadium because their graduation ceremonies were so jam packed with people in their new basketball gym that they had to occasionally turn people away at the door. With the soccer/football stadium they don't.

Will the school have a football team tomorrow? Likely not. Will they have one in the next few years? Probably so especially since they have made such a huge investment in it. As for being a super nice football stadium, I hate to say it, but we have nicer high school stadiums in Texas.

As for the grander issue, this is not about academic quality it is about money. I have not read the reports of the audit against Bridgeport Education other than to say I heard that it was going to happen, so if anyone has a link, I’m all ears.

I did however read the (one of the many iterations) of the proposed policies issued by the U.S. Department of Education to regulate for profit school activities and my thoughts are that it is not so much the profit status that the Dept. of Education has against the schools but the fact that they are open enrollment and use Title IV funding. They also feel that this causes to great of a student loan default risk due to high tuition combined with high graduate unemployment. Never mind the fact that many non-profits do the same.

One of the many problems is that the U.S. Department of Ed. assumes that if a loan is not current at the time of the 36th month after graduation, it is a lifetime default that taxpayers will have to pay. This just isn’t true and is a poor research model.

Secondly the open enrollment policies of the school can lead to exploitation. Well, we can talk about whether open enrollment is a good thing or not. The real question is, should higher education be available to anyone and everyone who wants to take a shot at it or should there be artificial barriers with greater predictive success factors that limit who can and should attend school?

Third is the issue of buying accreditation. When I spoke to Dr. Clugston personally a couple of years ago he mentioned that one of the goals of Bridgeport was to make Ashford as big as the University of Phoenix but with a more traditional campus model. I think they are doing exactly that. Bridgeport did not sneak up on the HLC and catch them by surprise and the HLC has the right to reevaluate a school anytime they see that they may be breaching terms of accreditation. If the HLC were to review Ashford University today I’d be willing to bet they would pass.

Fourth, according to the NY Times article, one of Senator Harkin’s concerns is the amount of money that Ashford has spent per student has gone from above $5,000 per to about $700 per. Now I know the good Senator is an older fella’ who probably hasn’t been around business and technology in quite some time but this is simple economics of scale at work combined with greater efficiencies of technology. Any first year IT idiot can tell you that a server with the host capacity of let’s say 3000 websites will have the same fixed costs and lifecycle whether they are at capacity or only hosting 2 websites. The only difference is the cost associated assuming that each website pays. What should be happening is non-profit, tax funded schools should be taking note to see how they can use a similar model to reduce their spending as well.

What I have seen is that this has become yet another political football with the Democrats demonizing for profits on one side and Republicans defending them on the other. The one consolation I can take (being that I am pro for profit schools) is that the Republicans are gaining ground politically pretty much nationwide so I’m not sure how much traction he is going to be able to get if there is a change in administration. That said I can pretty much say that after researching Mr. Harkin’s politics I pretty much oppose him on just about everything with the exception of his pro Israeli stance, which is no surprise since I am a mean, nasty, Bible Belt dwelling, red state capitalist.

Now will all of this hurt future enrollments? Very likely so and by design. If these committee talks (which pop up about once every 9 months it seems) continue, the stock prices will immediately drop proportionate to the press coverage they get and guys like Steve Eisner get just a little richer.

Anyhow as for the Wikipedia page, I believe you quoted Harkin out of context in that he was not calling the school or the education they provide a “scam” but was instead referring to the amount of money Bridgeport’s management received in compensation while spending so little per student. I removed your comment, maybe if you put it in the context in which it was made, not in the introductory portion but perhaps the 2003 to present section or start a new subsection called “controversy” or something like that it would make more sense. Instead you slanted the article to make it appear that Ashford University itself was a scam ala a diploma mill or the like. (you asked)

 

I'll take your bet.

Ashford would be guaranteed to flunk instantly, because it does not meet HLC's new requirement for a "substantial presence" in the Midwest. And Bridgepoint has effectively acknowledged this, because last year they applied for accreditation with WASC instead:

More on Ashford's strategy, from the same news story:

Ashford's huge online programs are accredited, but only because Bridgepoint pulled a fast one on their regional accreditation agency. Somehow I doubt that many degreeinfo readers -- other than Ashford employees or alumni -- will defend this approach.

 

So by virtue of hosting servers out of San Diego instead of on campus, the physical location of the computers used in providing the higher education is a factor in accreditation? Wow...I wonder how they will handle cloud computing then?

Anyhow, I stand somewhat corrected in that at the time Bridgeport purhcased the Fransican... and started Ashford they met HLC standards. I guess I haven't stayed as much in the loop as before on the HCL's policies. I just read the HLC's new policy as linked to the Higher Ed article for substantial presence. It looks to me like if Bridgeport moves their operations and incorporates in one of the 19 states under the jurisdiction by the deadline, they are in the clear. Should they not do so however they could have their accreditation pulled even before their next scheduled re-evaluation.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Will they transfer accreditation or call the the HLC on their new policy and move operations? Either way I do not see Ashford or the U of the Rockies going unaccredited, I believe the parent company will pull the plug before they did that and just cash out and close their doors (which I don't see happening).

 

The more relevant factor is that the HQ is in San Diego. If the administrative HQ were in Iowa with the servers in San Diego, I don't think it would be an issue.

 

But it's not just the servers. For some reason, Ashford's administrators seem to prefer southern California to Clinton, Iowa. Like the President, for example:

Accreditors have to evaluate and review a school's administrative and operational procedures. In Ashford's case, these issues are handled in California -- which is not in HLC's jurisdiction.

Doubtless there are a few administrators in Clinton to handle the few hundred on-campus students. But the headquarters are in San Diego, and that's where all the important decisions are made.

 

One interesting thing about for-profit universities that issue stock is that you can review their public filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, for example, Bridgepoint Education Inc. acknowledged the following "Risk Factor":

For some reason, this information does not seem to appear in Ashford's promotional material.

 

The risk has to be accounted for no matter how remote, it's part of the full transparency to investor and honestly just good business. If you were investor funded would you put risk factors in your promotional material? I hope not.

Anyhow let's say there is a lapse in accreditation, old Steve Eisman whose hedge fund is not required by law to publish financials, risk factors or even who their investors are, will laugh all the way to the bank.

If you have a 401K or other managed investment portfolio the chances are you own some for profit school stock. In any event it's possible that your fund manager/company would have lent Mr. Eisman's group the stock to be sold high, then returned low. So it's not just the for profits and Bridgeport that would lose, but you and I as well...sadly.

You've got to ask to what end is all of this happening? When has there ever been a positive correlation between what is spent on a student and their grades or education respectively? Why is it that someone who learns how to do it faster, better and more efficiently is the bad guy? If Ashford closes its doors who wins? The teachers out of jobs? The town who loses a significant economic force? The students put out on the street? The alumni? The investors? The managers?

The problem is that these guys are exploiting yet another flaw in the private-public partnerships our government so infamously mismanages, claiming to solve a problem yet not. So sad...and so many people can't see that.

Either way, I still don't see Ashford losing accreditation, there's just too much money in play and where there's a profit, there's a way.

 

If I were in Ashford's shoes, I'd pursue DETC accreditation as well as a backup in case the WASC process snags.

 

People who care about the integrity of the regional accreditation process ?

This class would include most or all college graduates with RA degrees (perhaps not all Ashford alumni), in which case it would greatly outnumber the other groups listed above.

 

CalDog, come off it man. Seriously...you think Ashford bypassed accreditation by purchasing a school, fair enough, I disagree but that's debatable. The bigger issue is why accreditation exists in the first place; the point of accreditation has always been about the ensuring the quality of the education a provider offers, not about gate keeping for a market segment. If you care about the regional accreditation process then perhaps you'd be in favor of allowing national accrediting agencies to be Title IV eligible? Or how about simply removing the money factor from accreditation as a whole by opening federal funding to be disbursed directly to students and not schools making every school eligible for those dollars?

Anyhow, DETC would be a useless accreditation for Ashford since DETC is not Title IV eligible.

I did find an interesting article relating these hearings on Bridgepoint in the Senate to the budget cuts. Basically there's not enough money in the pot for all the different schools and since Bridgepoint has come up so hard so fast it would be better for everyone, for profits and non-profits if they were suddenly ineligible for their share of the pie.
Like I said, this isn’t about a higher moral cause, it’s about money. Check out FT.com / Markets - Education budget squeeze needs someone to take fall

 

That's actually not true anymore.

http://www.detc.org/theaccrediting.html#ben

DETC degree-awarding “distance education” (as defined under Federal law) institutions are eligible to apply the U.S. Department of Education to participate in the Title IV federal student aid programs.

 

So are you saying that any DETC school can now participate in Title IV funding? Last time I filled out a FAFSA I do not recall any non-regionally accredited schools listed but I'll admit that was a few years ago.

Even still going from regional accreditation to DETC would be a major step down, especially since the issue isn't the schools academic programs, rigor, financial stability, etc. but more of where the computers are housed. I would think it would be easier to incorporate in Iowa and move the IT infrastructure or contract it locally near the school than to bite the bullet and take a 400+ million dollar company with 2 schools to the DETC.

The problem is that Ashford has grown so fast that it literally scares the crap out of people. Again I do not see Ashford losing their regional accreditation, that would be a massive blow to the industry and the political winds are changing. I think they'll ride it out.

I did read that OIG report on Ashford mentioned earlier in the thread and also just read that the OIG redacted several of their recommendations, which is good news though I wonder why they were on the original report in the first place.

Now it appears that the Attorney General's Office in Iowa has issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Ashford to look into their business practices since 2008. Ashford and Bridgepoint are stating that the documents requested are too broad to really understand what the focus of the investigation is supposed to be about.

So let's see... you have an Iowa senator going after an Iowa school, now the Attorney General from Iowa is going to conduct an investigation on the school for an undisclosed reason. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The good news today though is that last time I checked the BPI (Bridgepoint) stock was up a little over 6% for the day on the day of the senate hearings. Investors must feel pretty confident. I only wish I had bought some of their shares when they were $10 each.