University of Phoenix response to New York Times Article by Sam Dillon

Just received this from a friend that teaches at the University of Phoenix. The e-mail said to "Please feel free to circulate our responses broadly. We will vigorously defend these attacks on behalf of our students, staff and alumni." so here we go:

University of Phoenix response to New York Times Article by Sam Dillon

Fact versus Fiction

The following response is to an article that appeared in the New York Times, on Sunday, February 12, 2007, titled, “Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits” This article contained multiple factual errors and serious misrepresentations and are symptomatic of a prevailing bias against institutions of higher education that are not publicly operated non-profits. We invite you to share this response with those who have questions about the article.

Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “The University of Phoenix became the nation’s largest private university by delivering high profits to investors and a solid, albeit low-overhead, education.”
“Its fortunes are closely watched because it is the giant of for-profit postsecondary education; it received $1.8 billion in federal student aid in 2004-5… “Wall Street has put them under inordinate pressure to keep up the profits, and my take on it is that they succumbed to that,”

FACT: The University of Phoenix was well on its way to becoming the nation’s largest private university well before its parent company, the Apollo Group went public. Universities don’t become large because of “low overhead” or “high profits” but rather because of demand for quality academic programs. University of Phoenix is one of the very few institutions of higher learning – public or private - completely devoted to providing access to higher education for working students. It is commonly recognized, even among traditional academics, for its innovative teaching/learning model.

University of Phoenix is the largest institution of higher learning in the U.S. so it is not surprising that its students are the recipients of federal student financial aid, but to speculate that profits trump academic quality is myth, born out of elitist concepts of higher education.

Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “… its reputation is fraying as prominent educators, students and some of its own former administrators say the relentless pressure for higher profits, at a university that gets more federal student financial aid than any other, has eroded academic quality.”

“…Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.” (AACSB)

FACT: The author’s claim that the pressure for profits has eroded academic quality is out of touch with reality. University of Phoenix is easily the most examined university in American higher education. Since its regional accreditation was awarded in 1978, the University has participated in over 30 accreditation visits, 35 evaluations by state education agencies and 10 program reviews by the U.S. Department of Education. And, despite frequent bias against the for-profit education sector among many reviewers from the traditional academic sector, the University has repeatedly met or exceeded the requirements of this astonishing number and variety of reviews. It is currently in good standing academically with all of its accrediting bodies as well as among the state boards of higher education in the states where it has campus locations.

Regional accreditation, not programmatic accreditation (AACSB) remains the gold standard of accreditation. Historically speaking, the regional accrediting agencies started as leagues of traditional colleges and universities in specific regions of the country and it is recognized among colleges and universities as the critical institutional peer review benchmark in higher education. But accreditation is not the only benchmark of quality. University of Phoenix has long been noted as having one of the most comprehensive and leading-edge academic institutional assessment systems in the U.S. which enables extensive analysis into the most detailed reaches of its operation for both internal decision-making and external scrutiny. The University has won many awards for its academic programs and assessment systems. The following is a partial list of those awards and recognitions:

• American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC): Best Practices Partner in Measuring Institutional Performance Outcomes
• Arizona Pioneer Award for Quality (Phoenix Campus) This award is modeled after the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. University of Phoenix was the first four-year educational institution to receive this award.
• American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Best Practices in Technology Mediated Learning: Enhancing the Management Education Experience
• Project Good Work University of Phoenix was nominated by education scholars as an exemplary institution for excellence in undergraduate education, and was thereby honored to participate in a national study of excellence in undergraduate education. This national research study is a large-scale effort to examine how professionals in various domains pursue good work under contemporary conditions, including individuals and institutions that are engaged in carrying out or supporting cutting-edge work at a time of rapid innovation across all sectors of society. Conducted by researchers at Harvard, Stanford and Claremont Graduate University, the study includes four-year liberal arts colleges, community colleges, historically black colleges, proprietary institutions, and research universities.
• American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) project “Best Practices: Toward an Enlarged Understanding of Scholarship.” (One of eight institutions selected nation wide) The results of this study, funded by the Carnegie Foundation, were presented at the AAHE 2003 winter meeting and chronicled in a special issues publication.
• Global Achievement Award for Innovation by Economist Intelligence Unit in recognition of leadership, creativity, success and contribution to our students’ lives, despite turbulent economic times (2002).

Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “The university says that its graduation rate, using the federal standard, is 16 percent, which is among the nation’s lowest, according to Department of Education data. But the university has dozens of campuses, and at many, the rate is even lower.”

FACT: This author sought to deceive the public by reporting 16% (and lower) as the completion rate for University of Phoenix, despite the fact that he was informed via email by the University President that the 16% completion rate applied to only 7% of our total student population. The federal IPEDS database (as we so informed the author) requires that universities report only those students who had no prior college experience which, as disclosed in our consumer information notice, represented less than 7% of the University’s total student population.

University of Phoenix serves a large population of students who bring a significant level of prior college work as well as professional experience to their college courses and their graduation data is not reportable in the federal IPEDS database. The completion/graduation rate for all University of Phoenix students has been historically maintained between 50 - 60%, the very same averages found in traditional 4-year public colleges. The University expects that students entering its new Associates degree programs will have lower graduation rates than this, as is the case at all colleges and universities serving the same student population with the same student demographics - but these programs are only beginning to have graduates at University of Phoenix, as they were introduced only recently.

Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “In recent interviews, current and former students in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington who studied at University of Phoenix campuses in those states or online complained of instructional shortcuts, unqualified professors and recruiting abuses.”

“Phoenix claims that 95 percent of their students are satisfied, but the reports we get indicate otherwise,’ said James R. Hood.”


FACT: When you are serving the largest student population of any university in the nation, it is possible to find a percentage of students who are not delighted with the school. But the author’s assertion does not apply to the majority of students and alumni, as demonstrated by research conducted by both University of Phoenix and by other prominent sources. In a book published by the American Council on Education titled “Lessons from the Edge, For-Profit and Nontraditional Higher Education in America,” (2005) author Gary Berg makes a strong case for the importance of for-profit higher education and his many months of research point out the difference between specialized institutions and the public 4-year colleges. To quote:


(continued)

 

“For-profit universities lead the way in many of the critical areas where higher education needs the most work. They have led in targeting the needs of business, focusing on working adults… and in creating economical, standardized content. [They] have led in assessment methods, creating and maintaining responsive student services and innovations such as the development of customized digital textbooks at the University of Phoenix. (Now, rEsource, a web based leaning resource available to all students and faculty) They have been leaders in distance learning. In fact, collectively they are altering the domain of higher education as a whole. Rather than simply complying with accreditation guidelines…the University of Phoenix and others have engaged in a debate about the essence of the standards. For instance, rather than be held to a notion of quality based on resources and the number of full-time faculty, they have insisted on quality as derived from stating what they intend the students to learn, and then proving that they have done what they said they’d do. ..As a result, accrediting agencies are refocusing their guidelines on self-determined institutional objectives based on a “culture of evidence” rather than the older measurements of resources and the number of full-time faculty. This is indeed a major shift in higher education.” (page 6).


Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “The university brings a low-overhead approach not only to its campuses, most of which are office buildings near freeways, but also to its academic model.”
“students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls learning teams.”

What this author characterizes as a low-overhead approach is fundamentally flawed and based upon his own experience obtaining a traditional college degree from an Ivy league institution. University of Phoenix campuses are in office buildings and near freeways because our students work full time while going to school. They come to class after putting 8-10 hour days into their jobs and they want and need convenient locations, safe conditions, and nearby parking.


The argument that clock hours (the Carnegie Unit System) is a measurement of quality is outmoded and inaccurate. Instead of relying on such subjective judgments of academic effectiveness, we measure whether students are meeting the outcomes established for their courses and program. We use the data to inform our academic goals and to continuously improve the curriculum and instruction. Class size is kept very small (10-20 students per class), unlike most universities that rely on large classes and place even hundreds in lecture halls.

Since the University’s founding nearly a quarter of a century ago, Learning Teams have been an essential element of the Teaching/Learning Model because it improves the academic experience of students. Research has confirmed that collaborative learning groups serve several essential functions that are especially beneficial to working adult learners. Among the documented benefits learning teams provide, they:

• Create collaborative learning environments in which students can share the practical knowledge that comes from their life and work experience.
• Allow students to broaden and deepen the understanding of concepts explored in the classroom.
• Serve as laboratories through which students develop into more effective leaders and members of workplace teams.
• Improve the quality of group projects and assignments.
• Serve as vehicles for reflection, by which adult students make sense of and apply new knowledge.
• Provide a sense of community and support that is invaluable in helping working students cope with the challenge of balancing school with other life demands.


Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “Government auditors in 2000 ruled that this schedule fell short of the minimum time required for federal aid programs, and the university paid a $6 million settlement. But in 2002, the Department of Education relaxed its requirements, and the university’s stripped-down schedule is an attractive feature for many adults eager to obtain a university degree while working.”

The author is clearly confused. The University of Phoenix settlement with the Department of Education (which was $9 million rather than $6 million) was not about scheduling but rather involved a dispute over incentive compensation. As is often the case in business matters, the University made an economic decision to settle in order to put an end to its costly and distracting dispute with the Department. In the settlement, the University was not required to change a single policy. There were no issues raised by the department which questioned the academic quality or rigor of its programs.

Sam Dillon’s Fiction: “…In 2003, two enrollment counselors in California filed a whistle-blower lawsuit in federal court accusing the university of paying them based on how many students they enrolled, a violation of a federal rule…. But the department’s searing portrait of academic abuse aroused skepticism among many educators.”

This case is about two disgruntled former employees of University of Phoenix attempting to extract a large financial settlement and is pending before the Supreme Court. The essence of this case follows:

• In March, 2004 a qui tam lawsuit was filed by two University of Phoenix employees (Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson). Their lawsuit alleged that UOP was in violation of incentive compensation laws.
• A qui tam lawsuit allows private individuals to bring suit on behalf of the federal government and reap the rewards of any monetary damages imposed. The government then has the opportunity to join in the lawsuit or decline to be a party.
• In this case, the government (through the US Justice Department) declined to intervene in May 2003. The lawsuit was dismissed by the court with leave to amend and was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
• Plaintiffs however, are entitled to pursue litigation on their own which they did. We moved for the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, based on two decisions by the court of appeals for the 5th Circuit and they did so.
• Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the 9th circuit reversed in the decision.
• The 9th circuit did not determine whether UOP is liable or whether the plaintiffs (now called relators) will be entitled to damages. What they decided is that the relators can proceed to discovery and attempt to gather evidence.

End

 

This is my favorite line in the response.

If AACSB isn't the gold standard, then why do business schools work so hard to achieve and maintain this accreditation?

 

Gold standard

IMO - Regional Accreditation is the standard for US accreditation because it indicates that a school is not a diploma mill. My understanding of AACSB as an accreditation includes requirements that are related to the amount of research conducted at a school. As a result, a school that teaches practical knowledge exclusively is not a good candidate for AACSB. I suspect that many people insist on AACSB programs for a non-research program because they have been told it is the highest certification because it is a fad. As the number of AACSB programs increase, another fad will probably take over to make some programs more exclusive than others.
If and when I enroll in an PhD or DBA program, AACSB accreditation would be my preference because research is what that program will be about; I believe that the importance of AACSB for other business degrees is overstated.
Am I wrong? Some of you with more experience might be able to address this question and I welcome your feedback.

 

I do not know the "facts" of this case as I am not in any way connected to this school. However, my father used to say this about running a business, "A satisfied customer will tell one person. A dissatisfied customer will tell nine." The UofP receives a bad review in the NY Times and their only response is to ask some people to circulate an email message? This would seem to be a weak response, especially if we are to believe that the Times got their facts wrong.

 

Thank you Steve. I am happy to find you and Abner posting here as well. There may be others but I am enough of a newcomer to eLearners that I may not know many names.

I have never met anyone who was enrolled/graduated from U of P. However, I have heard people deride the school and it's students. This derision may not be fair or deserved but it does exist regardless. It is difficult to understand how a business can allow it's brand to become an object of ridiculeif it is truly undeserved. I would think that if the article in question was based on false "facts" then the school would demand an immediate retraction or they would take out an advertisement in that same newspaper in an effort to defend themselves. I am not a person who lives in the rarefied atmosphere where such decisions are made. As with all things, time will tell.

 

This is B.S. (as in bull$h|t, not Bachelor of Science!). Having attended U of P on-campus in Philadelphia, I can attest to the fact that the "learning team" concept is a joke. You are at the mercy of the students that you are grouped with. As part of your grade rides on the learning team projects, if the other members of your team are a bunch of slackers, then your grade will suffer as a result (or you will end up doing all of the work yourself, which defeats the entire purpose of the exercise). I HATED the learning team concept and that is the primary reason why I left the school.

I do have to give U of P cudos for implementing useful technologies in the classroom. They had an electronic whiteboard system in the classrom back in 2001!

- Tom

 

Since you were a student and not a trained observer, you might consider other interpretations of your experience and the learning team concept. Just a thought...

Dave

 

Because the AACSB accreditation requires instructors to have a research load in addition to a teaching load, one could argue that it really is non-profit or not-for-profit accreditation standard. In effect, instructors are required to perform activities that are uncoupled from the primary source of revenue (i.e., students). Of course, I'm not at all saying that activities besides teaching are unnecessary. One could dramatize the situation by stating that AACSB accreditation is the "last stand" of the not-for-profit business educators. When business educators say they are a focusing on teaching, they are saying what? Teaching pays the bills.

Dave

P.S. Note that the person who started this thread is a known detractor of University of Phoenix (UOP) and a shill for NoCentral. Just keep that in mind, as this thread was meant to provoke an anti-UOP discussion, good or bad.

 

That's one of the advantages of the online campus....a good instructor will monitor the team sections, identify the slackers, and deal with them appropriately. I've never let a slacker ride the other's coattails, and I've never punished someone trying to do the right thing in a team environment.

Having attended a classroom-based undergrad program, I would estimate about 80% of my courses had a team project. While certainly not popular, they're hardly unique to UoP.

 

Wrong again, Dave. Just ask the moderators here.

 

I would expect it was just the beginnig of their response. I am begining to see it show up in some Google searches.

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070212-103521-1551r/

Wonder what is meant by "reinventing itself"?

Maybe I should hold onto my Apollo Group stock?

 

Thanks for your post. I would suggest that AACSB accreditation requires far more than having a research focus. Indeed, the best business schools in the US (and increasingly in the world) based on any ranking list you care to look at are almost entirely AACSB accredited. Reviewing their standards points out many areas other than research focus.

Regards - Andy

 

Well, the United States didn't mount any serious offensive for quite awhile after Pearl Harbor. It takes awhile for a sleeping giant to awaken.

In all seriousness, I do hope that faculty compensation is one thing they take a hard look at during their reinvention. I know this sounds self-serving, but as Rich Douglas points out in another post, the hourly rate for UoP adjuncts comes out to about $25 per hour, which is rather ridiculous. I certainly don't teach for the money (I could make more working OT and my last UoP check is sitting uncashed on my bureau), but many do, and while UoP attracts some outstanding faculty, it does seem to have a problem retaining them.

 

Part of why the UoP system is strong is that the faculty should not be in a position that their UoP pay pays the rent. They are supposed to be established professionals in their fields, sharing knowledge.

In theory this works. Perhaps in practice, it doesn't because the talent decides the ROI isn't worth it. Except for those who genuinely love teaching and sharing knowledge-- the types who should have been at a traditional college had they not went out and become productive first.

As opposed, to, say, your average State U prof with a PhD, who hasn't done much than write a dissertation and a yearly article or two, and who makes 50-60k a year and thinks that's good money, yet spends half of his/her time whining about the administration, etc...

 

Just a brief look at ratemyprofessors.com shows many people complaining about professors at state schools in Florida. Sometimes the complaints are justified, but often people will complain and blame others for their failures.

 

Don't forget marketing. The U. of Phoenix isn't particularly competitive on either price or quality, but it markets itself like a demon. To many people, the U. of Phoenix is almost synonymous with DL.

And I think that it's true that publicly traded companies' stock prices are closely associated with the companies' anticipated growth. So there's pressure on Apollo Group to keep its stock price up and that means continuing to grow the company from an already gargantuan base.

The Department of Education does program reviews? 30 accreditation visits in 29 years isn't very many, when you remember that the U. of Phoenix operates from literally hundreds of "campuses" all over the country and abroad. I'm sure that most of Phoenix's sites have never been visited.

Regarding 35 evaluations by state agencies, current California law states that every remote site operated by out-of-state regionally accredited universities inside California requires individual BPPVE approval. Since the BPPVE's directory of approved institutions lists 55 approved U. of Phoenix locations in California, and since evaluations are supposed to be periodic and not once-for-ever, it looks to me like Phoenix is already coasting.

It's also important to note that the relevant California Education Code sections are currently up for their periodic "sunset" review, and U. of Phoenix is lobbying the state very aggressively to give out-of-state RA schools the same exemption from state approval requirements that local WASC schools currently already receive.

RA might be the "gold standard" as far as general institutional accreditation of entire universities goes, but it isn't necessarily the most demanding or important accreditation in particular specialized fields. Business is arguably one of those fields.

Phoenix has hundreds of thousands of students, hundreds of separate locations and more high-turnover faculty than most universities have students. So it's difficult for me to see how the NCA/HLC could possibly oversee it effectively in its present excessively bloated state. The U. of Phoenix has to have something to show the accreditor.

Books already provide economical standardized content. They remain the same every time you read'em. So go down to your local library and get a free education. I would hope that a university education rises above that.

That's ad-hominem and has nothing at all to do with the propriety of cutting faculty contact hours in half and papering over the difference with the claim that students are teaching each other.

I'm not so much interested in the history of the court case, turning as it appears to (I'm not an attorney) on technicalities regarding the plaintiffs' standing. We all know that Phoenix can afford the best lawyers in the country to conduct these procedural battles for them.

What I am interested in hearing is something simple and straightforward: a high-ranking spokesman of the University of Phoenix saying that U. of Phoenix enrollment counselors aren't paid/promoted according to how many students they produce. My guess is that Phoenix executives couldn't say that in a courtroom under oath without purjuring themselves.