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.

For-Profits Starting to Consider Student Outcomes and Providing a Niche for Military Education

Although I've never personally considered enrolling and trying to complete a degree online, I've always had a negative (maybe stereotypical) opinion of online education. I know people who are studying in these for-profit programs, and despite a seemingly non-existent application process, they appear to be earning a high quality, challenging, and applicable education. However, I still seem to cringe when I think of "faceless" students across the globe who earn not only undergraduate degrees, but graduate degrees, in fields such as counseling, education, and other helping professions. In my limited viewpoint, I assumed these universities flew under the "We'll take anyone who can pay us," mentality to enrollment, despite any indepth personal contact with potential students to assess capabilities, appropriateness, or career goals.

While much, little, or somewhat of my assumption may have been true, it may be time to reconsider this opinion. In a recent article in InsideHigherEd.com, we see many for-profit institutions such as Kaplan and University of Phoenix reconsidering their enrollment strategies to become more selective and accountable to student outcomes. For-profits globally have taken a considerable hit in recent years with enrollment--Kaplan alone experienced a 42% decline in applicants this past year. However, authors of the article/blog claim that Kaplan and U of P may be doing this "voluntarily." These institutions are beginning to become more selective in their admissions, and releasing "unprepared" students without stapling debt to their efforts. The article discusses an attempt to lessen the emphasis on the original "business model" to education, and to start better serving student consumers, despite the net monetary profit this will risk. Reading these words on paper (or on screen) was one of those "maybe there is still some good in this world" moments for me for sure!


Pairing my previously narrow opinion of these for-profits, and the little I know about the daily tasks of our U.S. military overseas, I came across yet another humbling article in the Chronicle recently. The piece titled, "For U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan, Online Courses Fill a Valued Niche," authors explain how the U.S. military is meeting the increased need for personnel overseas with an offer to pay for online education. Within ten years of this ongoing ten-year war, military members in Iraq and Afghanistan taking online courses rose from 15% to over 60%. As a result, our military members are now beginning to surpass non-service citizens in educational success. Fewer high school dropouts and more college graduates are within our military than ever before, and approximately 92.5% have high school diplomas compared to 82.8% back in the states.

Reviewing both of these articles has given me a broader and less "simple" perspective on online education and for-profit institutions. Increased accountability on behalf of enrollment hungry universities will undoubtedly lead to more student success, higher graduation rates, and fewer gate-keeping ethical issues. As a country, I am overjoyed that our government has offered to provide a full-expense paid education via distance learning for those who are serving our country for months and years at a time.

Kylie

Donor Dance

In the efforts of institutions to raise money I came across this article in the chronicle referencing donors. This is an area of higher education that I honestly spend little time thinking about. However, this article gave rise to the idea that I should be. I often do not wonder what it takes to get donations and naively think donors are folks that are alumni and we just spend money wining and dining them for dollars or real estate or whatever it may be. To some extent I risk looking uninformed here but I will own that.

The article discusses how a wealthy alumna contacted an institution wanting to endow a faculty position. Which turns out it meant a gift of about $2million dollars but only if the faculty member hired was devoted to teaching and doing research on psychoanalysis. The university ultimately turned it down stating it felt it was to specialized of an offer. I applaud the ability of the institution to turn down such an offer. Then I thought, how many of these offers are made to institutions and how often are they turned down? If they are not turned down, how are they affecting our institutions as a whole? The article goes on to state that not all colleges would reject such a gift for a variety of reasons. Which leads me to a research topic - what are the underlying effects on education due to donors and the way they wish their money to be used?

The fund raising article goes on to explain the two camps...first, the fundraisers who want engagement. They want engagement for their donors and feel donations follow a circle model of "engagement, communication, and gifting." On the other hand many provosts and professors, according to the article, see donations as a one way road. The donor, donates and moves on. Edward J. Kvet, Provost of Loyola University in New Orleans states in the article, "on the academic side, we just want them to be there in name only."  The fundraiser or in the case of this article, Thomas W. Young, Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Gustavus Adolphus College, recognizes that sometimes donors can cross the line from engagement to interference. This is the difficult dance - how to engage donors to feel involved in how their donation is being used yet limit their involvement since the money is donated and to some extent under institutional control.

This article brought back a rather interesting and funny re-run episode called the benefactor factor episode from The Big Bang Theory show. Basically, this episode covers a similar idea of the chronicle article. A character in the episode is unsure if he should sleep with a prospective donor of the institution to ensure his department gets the money. As I type this it does not seem that it would give you a laugh or get you thinking but if you have the time I recommend watching it and see what your reaction is.

I think this article and episode really show how the dance with donors to donate cane be quite challenging. In addition the article shows how difficult it can be to turn down donations and to balance the two camps each who feel they have leadership over the donation.

An additional point of interest is one of the donors from this article is now a board member for the institution - engagement or interference?

A New Leaf?

The first institution I worked for in the field of higher ed was the University of Phoenix and I admit that, at the time, I never really paid much attention to the debate between for-profit / non-profit (and / or not-for-profit). I was in my mid-20’s, was happy to have a job and loved helping students. After working there just a few months and receiving a promotion from Student Services Support to Academic Advisor though, I started to learn more about the campus operations and the organization as a whole, and that’s when my education about higher education really started.

Part of my training as an Advisor, was to spend time sitting in on some of the recruiting appointments so I could gain an understanding of how the entire enrollment process worked. While there were a couple of recruiters who were very upfront and clear about exactly what prospective students could expect, the vast majority of the recruiters that I watched were really just there to tell the student what they wanted to hear, and whatever it took to get them to sign the application and sit down to complete the FAFSA:
- Sure, you can always take your classes on Tuesday nights only
- Of course you can complete your degree in just two years
- No, there isn’t any math required for your degree
- I’m sure all of your transfer credits will apply to your program

As an Advisor, I spent a great deal of time doing damage control by trying to get students to be realistic about what it would actually take to complete their degree (basically correcting all of the inaccurate information the Recruiter had told them). One a particularly challenging day, I remember speaking to one of the Recruiters about how it would be so much better for everyone if the Recruiters would just be honest with prospective students up-front, and his response was, “well, we really want you guys to get your bonus each quarter though”. After hearing him say that, I remember the feeling in my gut that told me, this was not the place for me.

While UoP had eliminated paying the Recruiters bonuses for the number of students they enrolled, they still had incentives in place to keep the recruiting department performing at their peak…a large part of the employee’s evaluation was based on how many students they enrolled (and evaluation performance was tied to raises) and if the Recruiters for a particular campus met a particular enrollment target, all of the full-time staff at that campus (except the recruiters) received a bonus. It was a tactic to keep all of us tolerating the inaccurate information the Recruiters gave out.

Fast-forward almost 15 years (and a transition from for-profit, to private not-for-profit, to public), and I have learned a great deal, but so many of the lessons I learned while at UoP stick with me; the biggest one is…just be honest with students about what their situation is, and what they are facing. As I read the article A New Leaf at Phoenix? in Inside Higher Education about some proposed changes that the University of Phoenix announced it was going to make starting last year, I had a flashback and was somewhat surprised that many of the practices I experienced at UoP were still going on.

The article discussed changing the title from Recruiter to Counselor (really though…what’s in a name??), removing the recruiting productivity piece from the performance evaluation of the Recruiter (oh, I mean Counselor), focusing on maintaining a longer-term relationship with the student instead of primarily being focused on just getting them in the door (and not really caring if they stuck around after that), and being less aggressive in their follow-up with prospective students.

While the overall tone of the article seemed to be that UoP was embarking on these changes because it was the right thing to do, my cynical-former-employee self simply said, “yeah, right”. They’re doing these things because they saw tighter regulation and scrutiny on the horizon and did what any smart business (that wants to stay in business) would do…turn pending legislative mandates into a public relations opportunity. It may be a new leaf, but it’s the same old tree.

KY AG Fights for Consumer Protection

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway is on a mission. His goal is to advocate for consumers in lawsuits against for-profitschools that misrepresent themselves in some way. 


Two of the institutions he has already taken on are the National College of Kentucky,Inc., for allegedly falsifying job placement numbers and Educational Management Corporation (EDMC), which owns Argosy University and Brown Mackie Colleges. EDMC is charged with violating federal law by paying admissions officers a commission based salaried for the number of students recruited.

Conway’s investigations into the for-profit sector started when his office began receiving complaints of students being exploited financially by seven of the more than 100 for-profit institutions in Kentucky.

Conway is not the only attorney general seeking action against these institutions. He is joined by 22 other states investigating these institutions. And Conway has gained significant support from the media and other political figures, such as the director of the C.I.A. and his wife, Hollister K. Petraeus.

Actually, Petraeus had an interesting letter to the editor on the topic in the New York Times back in September. In this letter, Petraeus condemns for-profit colleges for maliciously misleading veteran students by enrolling them and then offering no academic, financial or counseling support. She states for-profit schools use military students for their G.I. Bill monies, which in turn maintain the institution’s ability to receive other federal student aid.

Another editorial in the New York Times in Octoberexpands on this issue. For-profit schools have collected 37 percent of dispersed G.I. monies but enrollment numbers show only 25% of veterans have been trained. The first-year attrition rate is astounding, noted at 409,437 students. This group is lead by the Apollo Group, the umbrella corporation for the University of Phoenix. This was also noted in a Chronicle of Higher Ed article in September.

 

Not all for-profit schools are using immoral practices and it is important to acknowledge the work being done by The Foundation for Educational Success, an independent organization focused on enforcing standards for the for-profit colleges. Unfortunately, only approximately 17% of the nation’s for-profit schools have endorsed these standards.

The work of Conway and others in making these institutions more accountable is impressive and imperative. I am pleasantly surprised to see the standards and ethically driven improvements of those institutions involved with the Foundation for Educational Success. When I review the advertisements and job descriptions of for-profit schools, I am now inclined to check the Foundation’s website and see if the institutions has accepted and is working towards the standards. 

We expect public higher education institutions to be accredited or to maintain self-assessments using the Council for Educational Standards measurements, I’m just glad to see those expectations being applied to other educational outlets as well.