The article titled "Fed Up at the University of Phoenix" stated that congress was attempting to renew the higher education act to provide greater regulation and oversight. It went further to criticize how the federal grants just gave corporate investors higher profits as students racked up debt. The article "Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011" brought up the issue of federal dollars were going to for-profits as a result of government programs like the G.I. Bill. It also brought up the point that degrees from institutions such as Kaplan and University of Phoenix are generally looked down upon. It gave the example of the paralegal who was fired after they found out her degree was from Kaplan. For profit colleges often do not have their credits transfer which sends up yet another red flag.
Private non-profit colleges and Universities receive 10 percent of their revenue directly from government appropriations, grants, and contracts. In contrast private elementary and secondary schools receive little to no funding. I feel like private elementary and secondary schools can be better but that is not always the case. It seems that private schools can adapt their curriculum and teaching styles while public schools follow a strictly set curriculum. A private school can assign grades with smiley faces and rainbows and ban the teaching of evolution while a public school must have standardized testing and letter grades. I feel like the most expensive schools generally are much better, the ones which the elite choose to send their children, fostering an ideal academic environment that would simply not be possible at a public school due to cost. I don't think it is fair for our elite universities to favor students from private schools that not everyone can afford. Standardized testing helps, but only to an extent; it seems like in the end those with money always come out ahead. Further, grade inflation exists at private institutions; this is for both high schools and colleges. Here at the University of Oregon it seems that while the quality of education is generally poor it might actually make sense to have this policy. Here is a graph showing the trend of grade inflation.
In class today, we were asked about a solution to make higher education affordable. I thought about how to reduce costs when choosing a University. I chose in-state and a public university rather than a private or out of state school. I additionally took a number of courses from a community college and then tested out of of classes. I avoided many of the University of Oregon's "money making lower division lectures" by jumping directly into "upper division courses" this increased the marginal value of my education. My DSC 240 professor joked about how the students at Lane Community College could take the same courses from him, they paid half the cost, and they had computers and a 30 person class size compared to our 450 person lecture hall.
Introductory courses inflate grade point averages which is unfair to those who choose to save money and take them from a community college. Grades from transfer courses do not count towards grade point and are not likely to meet the University of Oregon's general education requirement. The point that I am trying to make is that there is little flexibility when it comes to higher education and cost saving policies for students are not favored as it would usually mean a loss conflict with for the University.
I agree with the video you posted where PHD William Pepicello said that the recruitment practices of the Univeristy of Phoenix are "indefensible." I feel like often times the recruitment practices are predatory and misrepresent the real value of the college. I was shocked that the recruiter encouraged the person to "max" out their federal loan. I feel like part in parcel to this is the federal government actually extending the loans in the first place. It's really irresponsible that the federal government would give out these loans to people who obviously cannot repay them or do not actually know the full details of repayment. The "gainful employment act" proposed by congress intended to provide oversight for these predatory loans. The intention is that there is a government panel that could gauge whether students could repay for-profit government loans, which saddle students with tremendous debt. The students who pursue the degrees end up paying up to 5 times the amount they would in a comparable degree at a community college while not receiving distinguished benefits. Sadly, in the draconinan fashion of the Republic House the bill was shot down.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/18/house-quashes-rules-on-st_n_825322.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI never thought about the university requirements as a way to stop people from going elsewhere and paying less for general education courses, but now that you point it out it makes a lot of sense. Students pay the same rate of tuition for upper division courses as they do general education courses. The fact that as a non-resident I pay about $2,000 to take a Writing 122 class taught by a graduate student is pretty absurd. Yes, I could take it at a community college, but, as you said, the credit would then be considered transfer credit and would not go towards my GPA.
ReplyDeleteCost saving policies are definitely not favored. I see the value in being required to take arts and letters, science, mulit-cultural, and science classes, I do not, however, see the point in requiring courses that are remedial and often painful for most students. Someone in class proposed that to save students money on such classes in college, more pressure should be placed on public schools to teach students those skills. How can a student be prepared for college level courses and assignments if they do not have a strong set of writing and comprehension skills? These skills should be acquired for free in the public education setting.
Before even researching the recruiting schemes by for-profit colleges, I was always weary of online schools like the University of Phoenix and DeVry. The articles we were assigned to read certainly point out the numerous flaws in our federal loan program and in unaccredited degree programs. The so-called ABC "investigation," however, was hardly a breaking, undercover story. One naive victim and one deceptive employee should not and do not encompass the entire for-profit system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, two important issues must be investigated. First, large federal loans should not be distributed to people with a history of bad credit or to those with any red flag indicators that signal an inability to repay the government. Secondly, prospective students should already be aware of the type of schooling they receive through an online university. Currently, it's common knowledge that not all employers view online degrees the same as those received by students at state and private universities.
I really like the video, it shows how for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix mislead students and cash in as much money as possible. The undercover video really shows how recruiters want students to take out the max of loads, even if they don't need that much. I agree how some students are mislead and how degrees from these for-profits aren't accepted in some job markets. Also the value of these degrees are consider legit from some employees along with the huge amount of debt that can't repay back. I disagree on your view of private school, you made it seem like a joke compare to public school. Those things you said are true, that private school don't have standardized testing, but they do get tested in some ways. It's true that people with money come out ahead but that is life and life isn't fair. Private university do cost more but its worth it in the long run compare to a public school. It was a smart thing that you took class from a community college to save costs and I agree how some of the UO general require classes should not be necessary, it wastes money.
ReplyDelete