Touro or Capella

It was such tactics that turned me away from Capella.

I had endured the high pressure sales tactics for a month, and then...

I was running in the Seattle Half Marathon. Capella was a sponsor. On the hilliest portion of the route they had painted Capella logos on the ground - a public street. Hmmm.They also placed a series of Burma-shave style signs along the route - inspirational slogans with marketing words like "goals", "success", "journey", etc.

The thing that took the cake, however, was the young man at the summit tethered to a giant Capella balloon. Oh, to get a job as the Capella anchor; this weather balloon thing was attached to him with a seat harness and carabiners.

It's mile 10, I'm in pain, but that bizarre moment stayed in my head till I crossed the finish line three miles later.

 

In my opinion this level of "advertising" does not increase the validity or marketability of a degree program but instead makes this school appear to be profit driven, no more, no less. There is nothing wrong with doing so for the school's benefit but as a "learner" (another cutesy politically correct title that I have trouble with; it denotes something less than being a "student") I would not be particularly happy with these kinds of marketing stategies being reflective of the school I attended

 

Actually, that kind of inspires me.

That is an interesting marketing strategy because:
1. Runners tend to be affluent ie. they can afford the Capella tuition.
2. Runners are obsessively tenacious and some might be tenacious enough to finish a Masters or a PhD...

With the above two points in mind and from a business perspective, it seems like a good marketing strategy to get more people to enroll.

 

With all do respect if the above is the case why did you enroll at NCU at a discount of 50% tuition!

 

Are you asking why I enrolled at NCU at 50% off their tuition, instead of paying the full price at Capella??? If that is your question, then the answer seems self-evident, but just in case it isn't self-evident....

Because when I first looked at Capella, NCU was not a regionally accredited school and Capella was beyond my price range. I reflected back on making one (1) graduate level tuition payment at UoP and it broke my piggy bank and was simply beyond my financial ability.

Later, NCU achieved regional accreditation, which makes it viable, but it was still beyond my price range, even though it was less expensive than Capella. However, still later, NCU offered a scholarship to full-time cops, which would be foolhardy to refuse. And it's actually about 40% off the tuition and not 50%.

Will I finish the program to complete a DBA??? Who knows?!?!???!!! I would like to say yes, but to be realistic, I honestly don't know, so I have to take it one day at a time and one class at a time -- and let the future unfold, whatever it might be. The concept of a dissertation, with the required validated research, seems quite daunting, if not impossible. If the Lord wants me to finish, then it will be done. If not, then it will be passé.

 

I think RFValve said it best. Entering academia is highly competitive but there are plenty of doctorates from Capella at decent colleges and nicely ranked bachelors and even master level universities. Now if you plan to work as a tenured instructor at a research I university, then a brick and mortar doctorate from a traditional well-regarded institution is a must. Lets put it this way; all things being equal, traditional institutions prefer traditional doctorates over non-traditional ones.

 

PFM - My take on the "for profit" question and the academic world is this - DL institutions have one strike against them in the minds of many. For-profits have a second strike.

Why? Examine the financial statements of a for-profit school. You'll discover that some 50% of their revenue stream goes for profit, administrative expenses and taxes. Less than 50% goes for programs. Even agressive non-profits (such as Nova) spend closer to 85% on programs. Throw in the lack of professional accreditation (at least in fields like business) and general "open admission" policies (at least no GMAT/GRE and minimal GPA requirements) and you don't have a strong case for the for-profits. The general lack of funded research and publication out of these schools doesn't help their reputation either.

For some jobs - where you got your degree (as long as it is RA) won't matter much. For the truly high brow schools DL will never be accepted - regardless of where you go. In the middle, are academic employers which may have a variety of views.

My Nova Southeastern degree has worked fine for me - but I know there are a lot of places I can't go. And every so often I hear grumbles about DL doctoral programs. Finding full-time academic employment is tough enough - I encourage students to go to the best program they can reasonably afford and gain admission to. Once you are done - publish and build a record as a good teacher. Maybe then you'll be able to land a full-time academic job. I don't recomend for-profits at all and usually qualify my recomendation of DL non-profits.

Regards - Andy

 

I am amused by all the discussion of the issue of "for profit or not." Even though traditionally the boys in "not for profit" schools have been in control, I have found the many of these schools really "don't give a damn" about their students. Why is that? For one thing, there is such great pressure on publishing, research, and grant money coming in. The "not for profit" is there primarily in order to "keep" all the money and give none to the government, in my opinion. I just had breakfast with a close buddy of mine who is a director of a graduate college at a local state university. He tells me that:

1. Every professor is rated with more points given towards publication, doing research, and pulling in grant money than for teaching. Teaching receives very little points.

2. Professors who have dared to criticize this political set-up end up ostracised and with their hands slapped.

3. Professors with tenure, end up not caring, or showing up much for classes. When they do, they only tend to do the minimum, as in giving only one test per term for the whole course grade.

4. Good teachers are not rewarded for that. They are ignored.

What I like about "for profit" schools is that they are not "elephants" in terms of bringing about changes to their curriculum to quickly stay abreast with the market forces, they have better delivery systems to the student, they tend to care more about the student (or he will leave), and they tend to respond to his needs better and faster.

I remember even talking with folks at Saybrook (which is a great school). They were trying to recruit me at a hotel presentation. I said to them that if they were truly interested in getting me as their student, they would "match" the number of transfer credits that Capella was offering to accept. They looked at me like I was a martian and offended that I even thought of asking this. I thought to myself that they will probably stay small and not progress quickly with market changes. I believe they are one of the smaller DL players around (Fielding also has numbers in the 100's last time I checked).

So, even though I may not be hired by the State school, (unless I publish through my gazoot), there are a host of other institutions that would, not to mention that there are traditional institutions with Capella grads at the helm, who know the quality first hand.

As far as professionally speaking, once I get my Ph.D. (hopefully soon), I get to belong to the club of doctors, as I am told by my buddy, the Neuropsychologist, who has played the doctoral game for over 20 years. At that point, I become one of the boys, and the general population would not give a hoot where I got my doctorate from.

Just my two cents.

 

Interesting conversation with one caveat....don't you find it interesting how we are all too happy to........................

1) put our money in for-profit banks.
2) buy our drugs from for-profit drug companies.
3) buy our life insurance from for-profit insurance companies.
4) trust our safety in vehicles built by for-profit automobile manufactuers.
5) put our mothers/fathers in for-profit nursing homes.
6) receive our health care from for-profit hospitals.
7) purchase the guns, tanks, planes, ships (for war) from for-profit weapons manufacturers.
8) seek for-profit companies as investments for our 401K/403B retirement portfolios.
9) watch TV programs generated by for profit networks.
10) eat food that is either produced, processed, transported or sold by for-profit companies.
11) etc, etc, etc..............................

Yet when it comes to education somehow being for-profit is evil, cheap, sinister, or at best - second rate. Do you think it is possible, just possible, my friends that maybe these for-profits know something the not-for profits don't know? Just something to think about.

 

glimeber has asked a good question. I'd like to pile on a bit and raise what is, perhaps, a more fundemental issue. The original question asked about an entity described as "academia." I'd like to point out that there is no such entity. There are thousands of different hiring committees that are comprised of tens of thousands of persons, each with his own experiences and preferences. To ask a question such as, "What would be preferred by academia?" is tantamount to asking the question, "What is a good thing to eat at lunchtime?" You can NOT please "academia." You might, however, please yourself.

 

Blackbird,

The tension between a large state University's research and teaching missions is nothing new - I was advised of this back around 1980 as I prepared for college. Fortunately, there's plenty of middle ground between Big State Research U and For-Profit University Inc. Touro, National U, Webster U, Saint Joseph's College of Maine come to mind.

You used the word "market" twice in this response. Markets are useful for the distribution of some goods, not so good for the promotion of others.

Research is an example of where market forces can have a corrupting influence. Money influences what gets researched, which results are published, and which results are suppressed.

I admit to letting it affect me. At our private, non-profit school all theses and capstones are published as PDFs and available online at the school library website. Knowing my thesis will be accessible by a quick Google search targeted at my school's library website has dampened my enthusiasm for topics that might raise eyebrows with a hiring committee.

Similarly, the corrupting influence of money on the biggest for-profits is well-anecdoted. Where there's smoke there's fire - some students make progress as long as the tuition checks cash.

I am happy Capella is working out for you, but the guy with balloon and the spray paint did nothing to advance the credibility of your hard work.

 

Yes. They know how to rig the game with lawyers and lobbyists, and hustle the ignorant with salesmen.

In every example you provided I can provide an example of a not-for-profit that performs more efficiently, at lower cost, and with greater customer satisfaction.

 

BACKBIRD: I am amused by all the discussion of the issue of "for profit or not." Even though traditionally the boys in "not for profit" schools have been in control, I have found that many of these schools really "don't give a damn" about their students.

SIMON: And you think it is any different at a for-profit university? Well Blackbird I don't agree. The fact is that for-profit distance learning schools primary objective is generating revenue. If you wish to believe otherwise that is fine but to infer that they give a damn while many traditional schools don't is absolutely ludicrous!

BLACKBIRD: What I like about "for profit" schools is that they are not "elephants" in terms of bringing about changes to their curriculum to quickly stay abreast with the market forces, they have better delivery systems to the student, they tend to care more about the student (or he will leave), and they tend to respond to his needs better and faster.

SIMON: I disagree once again. The primary mindset and goal of many of distance learning schools is to generate BIG money. Online courses are cash cow generating operations whereby one professor can oversee a large cohort of students paying up to four thousand dollars each a term to respond to asynchronous posts and to submit assignments. Yes, learning goes on in these online classrooms but the give and take spontaneity of a traditional classroom just does not exist. However, these online classrooms provide an appearance of equivalence with traditional classroom interactions, although they really are not, thereby providing an air of legitmacy to a distance online degree program.

This perception of "caring more for students" or responding to students needs better and faster is not necessarily so either. I have heard of many glitches and beauracratic foulups such as hiring and assigning students to unaccredited faculty; incorrect recordings of courses on transcripts; failure of mentors to get back to students in a timely manner; major tuition billing errors,; hostile advisors, and so forth, in for-profit distance online schools.

In addition, because a student does not have ready access to visit and speak in-person with a distance learning advisor or faculty there is the possiblity for all sorts of misunderstandings that can not readily be addressed as they can in a traditional educational setting. Many online schools are just as insulated from students' justified complaints and issues as are traditional schools. In fact, a distance learning student can easily be at the mercy of a system that may not be as open as he/she would like resulting in all sorts of problems for the unlucky student.

BLACKBIRD: I remember even talking with folks at Saybrook (which is a great school). They were trying to recruit me at a hotel presentation. I said to them that if they were truly interested in getting me as their student, they would "match" the number of transfer credits that Capella was offering to accept. They looked at me like I was a martian and offended that I even thought of asking this. I thought to myself that they will probably stay small and not progress quickly with market changes. I believe they are one of the smaller DL players around (Fielding also has numbers in the 100's last time I checked).

SIMON: So what is your point? Is it that Saybrook has higher standards and tighter admission criteria? In fact, this is the very reason certain online schools have the reputation they do of lax admission criteria, granting of many transfer credits and allowing some very academically questionable students to progress when they should have not been admitted in the first place or if admitted, expeditiously counseled out of the program if not demonstrating sufficient academic potential.

BLACKBIRD: As far as professionally speaking, once I get my Ph.D. (hopefully soon), I get to belong to the club of doctors, as I am told by my buddy, the Neuropsychologist, who has played the doctoral game for over 20 years. At that point, I become one of the boys, and the general population would not give a hoot where I got my doctorate from.

SIMON: Well not exactly. It is based on the context in which you seek employment. If you wish to enter academia you will probably have your difficulties. On the other hand if you plan to engage in private practice, which I believe is your objective, you and your Psychologist friend are correct. SIMON



[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]

 

Interesting comments - here are some replies...

The amount of care a school gives for students isn't a function of profit/non-profit status. There are a wide range of non-profits - some do a better job than others in being student centered.

This may be true at the school in question - but at other schools the reverse is true. I teach at a school where teaching is weighted at least as highly as research. As for research - if you're looking for a PhD which is a "research degree", don't you want to go to a school where research is going on? If so, you won't go to a for-profit.

Schools vary greatly - many school have strong systems of faculty governance where this isn't the case. For profits don't follow faculty governance at all - they are corporations that satisfy profit motives. The lack of academic freedom certainly isn't a selling point for for-profits.

For every case of a lazy tenured prof I can show many more dedicated profs that love their disciplines and teaching. Tenure systems with high standards can lead to outstanding work by tenure track faculty that can carry on for a lifetime of work. For profits don't have problems with lazy tenured profs - they typically work with lowly paid adjuncts that aren't as connected to the institution or student as full-time faculty. Why do for-profits use adjuncts? Because they can make more money that way!

At some schools this is true - but the opposite is true at many other schools. Teaching is highly praised and rewarded at the best schools I know. Further, it is, IMHO, virtually impossible to separate good teaching from research among faculty in graduate programs. Faculty have to be active in research to remain intellectually strong and current in their field.

There are non-profits that are "elephants" - but there progressive non-profits as well.

And the for-profits consume half of their revenue streams in slick marketing, profit and tax. Non-profits devote far more of their revenue streams to teaching and research. As for innovation - there are many non-profits that are changing - in order to better serve their stakeholders (including the general public) and not just their stockholders.

Perhaps Saybrook has higher academic standards than xxx and believes that students need to learn a subject more thoroughly before a piece of paper is handed out? The constant game of "who can give out a degree with the least amount of work" is reflective of generally declining academic standards. Education isn't magic - I've never figured out how you can learn more (or even the same) with less time engaged in study. The idea of earning a PhD part-time in 3 years - when full-time programs take 4 or more years is a puzzle to me. I have to believe that 3 years of part-time study leads to less learning than 5 years of full-time work.

And who has the stronger reputation - Saybrook, Fielding or xxx for-profit? Does size determine quality? Who is APA accredited at this point?

Show me a for-profit school in any of the top ranking lists - such as USNews. Why aren't they there? Is it because they lack reputation? There are academically strong non-profits. There are academically weak non-profits. But I've never seen an academically strong for-profit. Not one. Many for-profits are profitable, however.

Perhaps so with the general public - but what is your goal, any way? If you want the label "doctor", fine. But if you have any desire to be in the the academic world, folks will care about your scholarly record including publications. Are you encouraged/required to publish as a student? Are your faculty members involved in publishing? Is there a culture of research that encourages publication and the creation of knowledge? Does your school pursue external funding of research?

The best non-profits do all of these things.

 

The unfortunate thing is that predictably, I think we all know where this thread is going. I thought that this thread concentrated particularly on two good ambitious DL schools in. Suddenly, its quickly becoming another endless war between for-profits and not-profit supporters. I suggest someone volunteer to post the link to the past threads regarding for and not profits and spare us needless heated debates.

-S

 

Possibly by being a genius with a photographic memory who has mastered the art of learning by osmosis? (Jist yankin' yer chain, Andy!)

 

Which is the case at almost ALL schools. Yes, where there is smoke there is fire, and where there are big bucks (which happens to be at almost ALL large private and public schools), then there is no such a thing IMO as a "not-for-profit" whether the school claims to be one or not.

Based in my own experience at a public "not-for-profit" for eight years, you do not advance until the tuition is paid, period. If you have a scholarship that can pay for it, then great; the university does not care as long as the tuition is paid. And good luck if you happen to be a student paying out-of-state tuition.

Neither does any of the guys in the cookie-monster suits at the college football games cheering for their school.
Seriously seeking professional accreditation does, which Capella is doing unlike some not-profit schools, so lets start to look at the bright side too.

-S

 

Frankly, I've never figured out why so many people think that for-profit is evil. If our society would just teach its own economic system to its young, it would be self-evident to all that there are four factors of production (labor, land, capital, and entrepreneurial skills) and four methods of compensation (wages, rents, interest, and profits) and that accordingly, laborers get paid wages, landholders get paid rents, holders of capital get paid interest, and entrepreneurs get paid profits. I cannot imagine anyone here refusing to collect a paycheck for teaching college. Nor could I imagine anyone here, if they were to someday become wealthy landlords and financiers, refusing to collect rents from the universities that are their tenants or collect interest payments from universities that they've loaned money to. Therefore, it astonishes me that people would begrudge the owner(s) of (a) for-profit university(ies) actually collecting profits. Besides, being a non-profit only means that that which normally would have been called a profit (had they enough honesty about themselves to admit that they're at least trying to make a profit) is instead turned into bonuses payable to the executive director and a select handful of his/her buddies. On top of that, being a non-profit is merely a cynical ploy to legally avoid paying taxes. Profit is not an evil thing; it is simply one way of getting paid for providing others with a product/service that they need.

 

I completely agree with everything that you said, Ted.

 

Harvard University
I know, I know, they are listed as "not for profit" but they are certainly one of the richest if not the richest university in the world. Can anyone remember their 25 billion endowment in 2004? Great outstanding school btw. This is not bashing the incredible quality of a Harvard education. Just making a point that for profit (even if posing as a "not for profit" for tax evasion) isn't always a bad thing and money & power can also lead to the top of academic excellence. Cheers