Not all "for profits" operate alike CYBER: “...the main reason why online PhDs (that only require paying of high tuition) will never be ranked alongside traditional PhD programs at B & M Schools. To compete, online PhDs must require publications, conference presentations (as is the the case with majority of UNISA's PhDs, for example); but we know doing this will be antithetical to the very existence of "for-profits" (enrollment will reduce, so would the money)… Otherwise, except grads of online PhDs engage in publishing, and in presenting at conferences, on their own after earning the degree (stuff that should be part of their doctoral training), then they are being sold a bad product (worse for those who are just now getting those online PhDs” RFValve: “This is the bottom line of the problem. Traditional PhDs are really demanding so you see only few people taking such programs and not many working full time do them. I have seen academics doing distance PhDs but they have the summer offs, conference money, etc that make them good students for this type of programs. If for profit schools start asking demanding requirements, they will have no students so they keep the minimum requirements to remain accredited but not enough to make their graduates competitive enough.” To My Esteemed Colleagues: As someone who worked in non-profit (public and private) sector of higher education for 21 years (and private sector/”for-profit” for the past three), I have had direct experience with the “business” end of both sectors. I am always amused (and disappointed) when I read that only one sector (for-profit) cares about enrollment and income, when I know that the V.P.s at non-profits are every bit as concerned about the bottom line and that non-profit schools routinely put into place the same strategies used by the for-profits. I am also disappointed when sweeping statements that lump all private sector colleges and universities into a single unsavory bag--such as those above--are used by people who I have come to appreciate as thoughtful, intelligent folks who should know better. Case in point: I am currently working on a large scale research project with three of our Ph.D. students (interestingly, comparing the Ph.D. & DBA at over 600 universities). We have just submitted to present our research at a national conference and will be authoring at least two articles for peer-reviewed journals. The Ph.D. students will be full authors of the presentations and journal articles. Other Ph.D. students and faculty are working on different research which will result in similar outcomes. We do not have the intention of having 400 Ph.D. students in our program (we have less than a tenth of that). As one of the members of the Ph.D. admissions committee, I have had to participate in the rejection of numerous applications of students who either did not meet the academic qualifications or the experiential qualifications for admission. Sure, admitting them all may have made sense if short-term profits were the only motivating factor (as some appear to think). However, admitting students who would not be able to succeed in a research and theory-based Ph.D. program is not how one builds an institution that has been around for 50 years and wants to be around another 50. Our recent site visit from SACS to examine our Ph.D. came back with no “finds” or “recommendations,” which is the cleanest bill of health awarded by our accrediting agency. As was (correctly) pointed out earlier, our degree is not for people who aspire for their first job as full-time tenure-track faculty members; our students all come from industry and want to be able to generate new knowledge, research and ideas for their organizations. Some intend to teach as adjuncts, while most plan to stay with their organizations and/or serve as consultants. Not all “for-profits” operate alike.