For Profit Colleges, Time to Change

With tougher government regulations, negative opinions and a poor economy major for – profit colleges are taking a hit. Amongst the hardest hit are the University of Phoenix and Kaplan, which have done so somewhat voluntarily. Both of these institutions have made it easier to drop their classes if they are unprepared for the program, without taking on the associated debt. This also works the other way. Students who are not preforming up to the standards can be asked to leave.

Kaplan has launched a 5-week free trial period called Kaplan Commitment. During this time students are enrolled in credit classes as usual. At the end of the trial period the student decides whether or not the program is right for them. If they choose to end their studies they are not financially obligated to the institution.

The University of Phoenix has taken on a similar initiative. Their program entails a 3-week free orientation for new students. This began as a pilot and now serves a large number of students. Both of these institutions hope to raise their retention rates and have become more selective in the admissions process.

For profit colleges in general seem to be tweaking their target population. Historically these colleges have been seeking lesser prepared students. Through this process they have learned that this population is more risky and the payoff does not maximize potential. Some for profit colleges, including Kaplan and University of Phoenix are now looking to enroll longer-term students. This new approach hopes to change the significant drop in enrollment seen over the past few years. The government has played an active role in deterring institutions from targeting underprepared students. There are now stricter rules for compensating student recruiters.

With the economic recession students are less inclined to pay the big bucks to attend for profit colleges. These students are also more likely to drop out due to financial reasons. As a result, lower cost for profit colleges are reaping the benefits.

For profit colleges have been criticized in the media recently. The efforts to change people’s perceptions does not come without cost. The Kaplan Commitment initiative has been part of the reason student drop out. During the trial period 25% of student decide to no longer take classes. In many cases this is advised by Kaplan. Kaplan lost 27 million dollars as a result of their trial period. For the University of Phoenix enrollment is down by 19%.

I applaud the efforts of these two institutions for recognizing the fact that their practices were not always in the best interest of the students. They have taken a big hit financially. Hopefully their dedication to change will alter the negative perceptions associated with for profit colleges and encourage others to follow suit.

For Profit: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

For-Profit schools: The good, the bad, and the ugly
I have learned a tremendous amount about higher education through this class this semester…more to tell in my portfolio…in the fields of financial aid, international students, veteran affairs, etc. But I have become very interested in what the for-profit schools are doing to the public university’s and the students educational system within the community college ranks as well. I find myself torn between whether for-profit schools are beneficial for everyone or if they cause more harm than good. The New York Times reported about for-profit schools and pointed out some very interesting facts about them. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/why-we-need-for-profit-colleges.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The Good: I understand the need for schools like Kaplan and the University of Phoenix because of the high demand for online learning and colleges that meet the need for full time working individuals that are still looking at obtaining higher education. However, I think that because of this need, there is a huge growth in the community college ranks to try and offer classes to fill the needs of working individuals as well (as noted in my last blog about midnight classes). I think it is great that numbers for for-profit institutions since 1998 have risen 236%! The job market is almost demanding a college education and to get a business job, it is nearly impossible to get one (and a decent paying one) without a college degree.

The Bad: The for-profit institutions high prices and huge student loans are a huge concern for everyone. What I don’t agree with is how for-profit institutions make their money. I understand the high demand for higher education, but to recruit people from lower socio economic status to get them to go to school when they can’t afford it so the institutions can receive more federal money is hard to sallow. In addition, there is a huge amount of student loans taken out each year from all sorts of institutions, but the numbers are in the billions as pointed out in the following article. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/student_loans/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

The Ugly: The percentage is low for actual enrollment of college students (only 12%), but that small percentage accounts for nearly a quarter of the federal government’s student-aid budget. Less than half graduate a 4-year for-profit institution, and nearly half default their student loan payment from 2009 to 2010. The need is to get students a college degree so they can earn more money and eventually pay off their student loans, but when the numbers are this high, that is a very alarming number to skim over. However, because community colleges are becoming increasing over crowded and public university’s are increasing their tuition and not catering to the full time working individual, there is not much other option than to go to the for-profit institutions.

There are people trying to figure out the best possible solution to hold for-profit institutions more accountable for their default student loans and non-graduation rate. I find this part to be extremely important as well. If community colleges and public university’s are held accountable for graduation rates, then so should for-profits. The accessibility is wonderful in for-profits, and maybe community colleges and public university’s will eventually catch on and keep with the for-profits. Most have by offering online classes and degrees, and cohort classes to help with the full-time employees, all are great baby steps to accomplish a larger goal.

For-Profit calls for Profs to write their own texts

The American Public University System (APUS) is trying to recruit its professors to write and edit digital course materials to use instead of buying text materials from wealthy publishers. This effort comes as a cost-saving measure to the institution and to students. Professors are skeptical because they are not sure that they will be fairly compensated as well as who will own the intellectual copyrights, themselves or the institution? The APUS responds that professors will be fairly compensated and copyright material will be thoroughly examined so that recognition goes to the right people.

This measure is also an uphill battle with publishers who the APUS has been working with for some time and has paid a lot of money to. The APUS feels it’s time to give these major publishers some competition. Fred Stielow, the dean of libraries of the APUS, feels that the APUS gets bullied by the publishers and now is the time to be more creative about how the APUS uses electronic course materials. An interesting fact about the APUS is that it does not require undergrads to go out and buy textbooks rather; the price for textbooks is included in tuition. Critics praise the APUS albeit they are a for-profit institution because they have maintained a steady tuition rate, which is $750 for a three-credit course and that, has not changed in ten years. Their success shows in their growth. Last year their enrollment was 97,000 students this year it jumped to 105,000 students a 36% increase. The APUS sees a great opportunity to save money by reproducing e-textbooks internally. With the savings, it can pass on benefits to the students. The APUS also indicated that currently there is a textbook cost inflation and the creation of an APUS ePress can help diminish it. For students who prefer to use hard copy type texts, there is the capability to utilize “print-on demand technology.” The new ePress will also be available for other on-line institutions because of APUS’s movement of open-access materials.

Critics of the measure say that they worry about the ethics of having professors teach using their own texts because education is about teaching and learning from a variety of perspectives. On the other hand, some feel that it gives professors a greater sense of credibility from their students being able to study first hand using their professor’s texts. It seems some professors are constantly critiquing or are in disagreement of other texts anyway. Another argument is that for professors who do not participate in contributing to the ePress would be forced to use materials provided for them written by a professor who may or may not have the level of expertise as the instructor. Still, Fred Stielow believes that the APUS ePress is a move in the right direction. By enlisting faculty as writers and help from the librarians it will be a “team effort” to assist in sustaining the APUS as a cutting edge on-line education. It will combine the best of traditional academic press with new digital avenues that will allow higher education to reinvent itself during the rapid information age.   http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/07/american public-university-enlists-faculty-write-e-textbooks#ixzz1eJupZnAP

    

Tax Time-- Indian Ideas & US Awareness

India has greater demand for higher education than their country can currently support. As described in a Chronicle article this week, a recent gathering brought together Indian and foreign educators, policy makers and analysts to strategize about how to expand higher education in India. As cited in the article, 50% of the population is under the age of 25, yet less than 15% of 18-24 year olds attend college. In addition to a discussion about increasing the number of private institutions in India to provide more opportunities for Indian students to attend College in their own country, a discussion of the for-profit sector was also on the table at the meeting. India does not currently allow private colleges and universities to directly make a profit (though it does sound as though there may be ways that private institutions work around this restriction…). However, some members of the discussion want this to change. Specifically, they want to allow for proprietary higher education, because of potential benefits realized through the tax revenue that for-profits would generate, revenue that could then be turned around and applied to Indian public education. This struck me.

First, I was surprised to learn that India currently does not allow for-profit higher education. I wondered about the restriction, the history there, and how this may be influenced by Indian culture and values. This article, from Forbes India Business magazine, offers some additional information as it chronicles the pursuits of a for-profit Indian entrepreneur who is at the ready to make a profit off education in India. In short, he (and others too) have found legal ways to profit off education in India by creating non-profit trusts and for-profit companies that manage the land and business side of the operations. In this dual model, they are then able to attract investors to the business, which then profits off leasing the space and other commodities to the trust. Now, I’m no business guru, but doesn’t this model exist in the US too?

I was also intrigued by the reasons cited by those in support of allowing for-profits to enter the Indian higher education market—namely the tax revenue that could be turned around and applied to support public education. This was a new consideration for me, and naturally made me wonder about tax revenue from for-profits in the US. Even though I have worked at a for-profit this was not on my radar. Surely US for-profit colleges and universities are generating hefty tax revenue; but how much, and how are these dollars being used? The only resource I could find to help me answer this question comes from a 2007 report put out by the Imagine America Foundation, essentially a foundation established to raise money for ‘career colleges’, ‘private sector colleges’- or whatever you want to call them--- they are the for-profits. This report estimates that for-profits pay 82 million dollars a year in federal and state taxes (a Chronicle article from July of 2007 highlights information from the report—to view the report in full you must register with the Imagine America Foundation, but the Chronicle article captures the relevant points). So our states and the federal government are taking in a sizable sum in tax dollars each year from this sector, but I was not able to find any information about how that money is being used. Given that this was not available, I assume that it is not being earmarked for specific educational purposes, as is being suggested in India.

In looking for additional information on the topic of tax money from the for-profit sector in the US, I came across another interesting article from this October entitled The Case for Making Harvard Pay Taxes. The title of the article was enough to entice me to read it. In short, it is asking if Harvard (or other private non-profits with huge endowments) should be able to continue to be exempt from paying most state and federal taxes. An economics professor from Smith College is quoted in the article as predicting that the federal government, and specifically the super-committee charged with the budget issues, is going to start thinking seriously about if the tax-exempt non-profit college model should continue to exist as it does currently. The article also highlights an interesting case from Princeton, NJ where the local residents are taking issue with the University’s tax-free status. Princeton University does not pay property tax, yet their use of community resources funded by property taxes are significant. The residents cite specific concern about the buildings owned and operated by the University but which are not used for direct educational purposes. Although I’m not knowledgeable enough about tax codes and such to comment on if these issues are indicative of larger things to come on the non-profit tax front, I think that they are important considerations, particularly as current issues in higher education are revolving around our downed economy.

So, what started as a blog about higher education expansion in India has turned into a discussion of tax revenues from our domestic institutions—both for-profits and yes, the non-profits too. When I started this blog I realized quickly this was a big topic to tackle, and one that I did not expect to comprehensively cover in a post. However, I hope that I have raised some awareness about the taxes that colleges and universities pay (or don’t pay…), as this is certainly an important current issue of which we should all be aware in the coming years. As we watch what plays out in India, and as we see changes in our country with federal and state budget discussions, I do think that we will see some changes in this area. If anything, I think that we should seek out more information about how the revenue collected from US for-profits is being used. At least on the surface, I like the idea being explored in India to use those funds to benefit public education and students seeking higher education.

For Profit? For Free! Higher Education Alternatives

I never thought I would enjoy the for profit blog as much as I have! I am again taking some liberties with this blog in an effort consider the exact opposite - higher education FOR FREE.

With recent criticism of higher education as over priced and not producing "workers" some alternative thinking has cropped up around FREE higher education. And, I'm sort of intrigued. GOOD published an article in April 2011 titled: Skipping School: A Look at Free Higher Education Alternatives. In the spirit of full disclosure I discovered that GOODs' education articles are sponsored by the University of Phoenix - this could be a whole blog topic unto itself! So, it's worth keeping in mind who sponosored the article but I'm still intrigued. The article suggests several ways in which students might find alternatives to a pricey higher education.

(1) KNEXT - "At KNEXT, we’re about leveraging your past to shape your future. If you have existing college credits, we’ll help you harness them for tomorrow. If you have work experience, we’ll help you turn it into college credit. KNEXT could help you save time and money." Advisors help students, through, a portfolio process gain credit for prior learning. The idea, if you listen to the opening video, is that students should get credit for work experience and other life experience that can be applied to their college degrees - perhaps saving them money because they won't be paying for a full degree. Again, it is worth disclosing that the major sponsors of this are themselves for-profit institutions.

(2) iTunesU - iTunesU boasts more than 350,000 lectures, videos and films from institutions all over the world. SIDE NOTE - I'm currently listening to a FREE lecture by MIT Psychology instructor Jeremy Wolf! In fact, one could skip iTunesU and go straight to MITs FREE OpenCourseWare site.


(3) P2PU (Peer 2 Peer University) - P2PUs Mission:
The Peer 2 Peer University is a grassroots open education project that organizes learning outside of institutional walls and gives learners recognition for their achievements. P2PU creates a model for lifelong learning alongside traditional formal higher education. Leveraging the internet and educational materials openly available online, P2PU enables high-quality low-cost education opportunities. P2PU - learning for everyone, by everyone about almost anything.
Unlike KNEXT which seems to be fueled by for-profits P2PU seems to have a great deal of support from non-profits such as University of California Irvine, the Hewlett Foundation and the Shuttleworth Foundation along with countless volunteers.

P2PU is working on "badges" that people can take to employers that essentially say this person participated in a certain number of learning opportunities and is therefore "qualified" for employment.

(4) TED (Technology, Engineering and Design) - TED is a non-profit committed to it's tagline "Ideas Worth Spreading". The annual TED conference takes place every year in Long Beach, California and brings together some of the most creative, influential and innovative minds - for a price. TED takes the best of these and puts them online for FREE! The talks are generally 10 - 18 minutes long.

An article written in September 2010 titled: How TED Connects the Idea Hungry Elite essentially argues that TED could be the next Harvard - for FREE!

As I mentioned, I am intrigued. I have spent many evenings listening to TED talks and will now probably start checking out what MITs OpenCourseWare and iTunesU have to offer. All of this does beg the question about learning - where does it/should it happen? what kind of delivery mode best promotes learning? should people be given credit for prior life and work experience in pursuit of an education?

The argument I've read about concepts such as TED becoming the next Harvard are the lack of interaction between learner and teacher/peers and that no work is required of the person listening to TED or iTunesU.

Still, I am intrigued. At this point I see many of these as jumping of points or catalysts for greater classroom discussion. I see these as opportunities for people to truly engage in life long learning. The concept of putting a price on knowledge seems in my mind to put it out of the reach of many - programs like iTunesU, P2PU and TED seem to bring education and knowledge into the realm of reality for so many who are otherwise unable to afford it.

Farming and Higher Education: What's Corn Got to Do With It?

I'm going to take some liberties with the idea of "for profit" in this blog post. I came across an interesting press release about the Monsanto Fund president, Deborah Patterson, being presented with the Distinguished Business and Industry Award by St. Louis Community College. Congratulations Ms. Patterson and the Monsanto Fund!

I'd like to seque a bit into some history about Monsanto. Monsanto is a company who in their words, "works alongside farmers...We do this by selling seeds, traits developed by biotechnology and crop protection chemicals." To give you a sense of their size and influence Monsanto is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. They employ 21,035 people world wide in 404 facilities. In the United States they employ an additional 10, 317 employees in 146 facilities. Monsantos' products include agricultural and vegetable seeds, plant biotechnology traits and crop protection chemicals. In a word Monsanto DOMINATES the farming and agricultural industry. Scrolling through the Monsanto website it becomes apparent that they have a very carefully crafted message about partnership, sustainability, and philanthropy. I'm sure this is occuring to some extent. Yet, Monsanto is also an incredibly aggressive company who has a history of suing farmers over product use or non-use (think about that for a minute) - and they have little to no competition.

A few years ago though I became interested in Monsanto after watching the documentary, Food, Inc. Check out the movie trailer if you haven't seen this film already!

If you farm it is likely that you use Monsanto products whether you want to or not. In 2011 Natural News readers voted Monsanto the worlds most "evil" company - ouch! I'm not an expert in this area so I'll try and provide some context for being voted the worlds most "evil" company. “Monsanto’s genes are in about 95 percent of commercial soybeans and 80 percent of commercial corn, and people like the attorney generals of Iowa and Texas are concerned that Monsanto’s business practices violate federal antitrust laws that protect free competition.”

Or, check out this from Daily Finance: "Founded by Missouri pharmacist John Francis Queeny in 1901, Monsanto is literally everywhere. Just about every non-organic food product available to consumers has some sort of connection with Monsanto. Anyone who can read a label knows that corn, soy and cotton can be found in just about every American food product. Upwards of 90% of all corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from genetically engineered seeds, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These genetically enhanced products appear in around 70% of all American processed food products. And Monsanto controls 90% of all genetically engineered seeds. In other words, Monsanto controls -- and owns patents on -- most of the American food supply."

So, how does all this relate to higher education and profit. Monsanto has a philanthropic arm that gives away millions of dollars a year - including to higher education! Related to St. Louis Community College, who just recognized Monsanto as a Business and Industry leader, they have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to:

1.) Create new associates degrees - in 2001 with money from Monsanto SLCC created the first 2-year degree in biotechnology. Very convenient for a company whose products rely on biotechnology.

2.) Create a district-wide partnership - in 2006 Monsanto gave money to SLCC to create the Center for Plant and Life Sciences. "A center director coordinates the ongoing development and expansion of these programs within the context of this emerging high-demand industry in St. Louis. Promoting educational opportunities within the regional corridor of businesses and industries engaged in plant and life sciences initiatives, the center focuses on building relationships with industry partners and on providing leadership in the development of high-demand programs."

Some great classroom conversations have focused on neo-liberalism and higher education and I think here is an excellent example of that happening. I actually have no problem with business and higher education partnering - I think great things can happen through these partnerships. Yet, in this case, I am concerned that this is not a mutually beneficial partnership. I want to make the argument that while developing business partnerships is a viable way for institutions of higher education to find funding and help provide students opportunities to engage in internships and other training partnering with such controversial, aggressive and self-interested  companies is not "good for business". As we wade into this water I would hope that institutions are not jaded by the stream of money that companies like Monsanto can provide - eventually they will want something more for their monetary contributions and then what's an institution to do?

For-Profit institution is going to where!

The future of for-profit universities education is still debated, especially in light of the continued policy of individual decision-making and strategies that related to education, while increasing warnings from turning into academic structures which providing degrees and produce a little bit of the quality of aimed learning.

The Obama administration issued a series of highly anticipated regulations aimed at cracking down on for-profit colleges and other career training programs that leave students saddled with unmanageable debts and contribute to an unequal share of federal student loan defaults.

We hope that these regulations do what they should to do!

During the 2008-2009 academic year, there were nearly 1.8 million students enrolled at more than 2,800 for-profit institutions of higher learning in the United States. Students in for-profit colleges and universities accounted for over 9% of all students enrolled in postsecondary education.[1] The numbers have continued to grow, and today (2010) the number is rapidly approaching two million, about 10 percent of total student enrollments.[2] The industry has also grown significantly in recent decades. Enrollment in for-profits has increased nearly six-fold since 1986, a time when the sector only enrolled about 2% of all students.[3] Once an insignificant part of the higher education landscape in the United States, for-profit institutions now command a substantial portion of the market and have established themselves as legitimate and viable participants in the postsecondary education arena.

One reason of increased numbers who attend private universities is those universities which provide students with effective training programs that increase their practical experience after graduation and draw to the marketplace. Also, private universities differ from those of government in more than one aspect; the most important differences were highlighted by the report (command, control, management, and mission).The non-profit - or governmental universities where usually carries out a mission to serve the public interest. In contrast, the private universities work to provide a unique service and value to students; because it is based on the profitability of frame works, and it will seek to achieve that through provision of what is distinctive of the services and education to its students.

Nevertheless, many college graduates do not find profitability promises that they were promised by for- profit universities, despite that students pay very high fees to ensure a good future and career after their graduation.

I'm not against for-profit universities, but should be under some conditions. First, students should explore the accuracy about for-profit university of its reputation, programs, faculty, and its outcomes in the marketplace.
The second condition: That for-profit university should be subjected to quality standards of Ministry of Higher Education, and in case of non-achievement of quality standards this institution should beclosed.