Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find this thread to be humorous. The OP keeps stating "show me the evidence", ignoring that the evidence is in, it's abundant, it's been cited, and it's unambiguous.
Statements such as "the faculty and structure of the class define a program's quality" are vague and trite. The hard, quantifiable metrics have been listed in this thread - any discussion along the lines of the original post need to start by looking at those metrics and let the cards fall where they fall. I think any objective observer will understand where the cards fall.
Unfortunately, I did attend the University of Phoenix. I graduated from that school with a BS in IT. I was firmly along the path of my career, at the time, my employer paid for my degree, and there were few other school programs at the time that would have worked with my work & family obligations.
However, that line-item on my resume is now one of the most embarrassing aspects of my work/education pedigree. There are many options today for somebody in the same shoes I was in. Today, one would be better off going to almost any State school online program than the UoP program I attended. It would be cheaper, and one wouldn't have to "defend" the program in an interview.
In my case, my UoP Bachelors was the single largest driving force behind me getting my Masters from a private, non-profit, highly-reputed university. I simply could not stand the thought of continuing with the UoP degree being the single Education line-item on my resume. Now it is completely overshadowed and a non-factor in my qualifications.
Why do I feel the way I feel about the UoP? For all of the metrics discussed previously in this thread. Additionally, based on my own experience, I know the "quality" of the education that school offers, and it's horrendous. I know the quality of the people I interacted with in my classes throughout the program. I know the quality of the "educators" and find the vast majority of them to be a joke - the faculty is largely a parady of a bona-fide faculty. Anecdotal? Sure - but my experience was hardly unique. I am quite confident that my experience with the "quality" of the UoP is shared by every single person that attends that particular school.
Now that I've got the Masters, I'm very tempted to pursue another Bachelors from another school and delete any reference to my ever having had anything to do with the UoP.
Ok vagobundo94, please point me to the hard, quantifiable metrics that have been provided in this thread that demonstrate the for-profit industry, as a whole, is inferior to the more traditional institutions. Don't reiterate the sob stories about how awful someone's experience was at a for-profit or how the poor and minority groups are being taken advantage by the evil for-profits.
Ok vagobundo94, please point me to the hard, quantifiable metrics that have been provided in this thread that demonstrate the for-profit industry, as a whole, is inferior to the more traditional institutions. Don't reiterate the sob stories about how awful someone's experience was at a for-profit or how the poor and minority groups are being taken advantage by the evil for-profits.
These are the metrics:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz
....similarly stringent entrance requirements, accreditation requirements, graduation and employment rates, median income of graduates, rate of acceptance into graduate programs...
There is an abundant amount of rankings and research available on these metrics. There have been several links in this thread to various investigative articles on for-profit schools. The only thing you are doing is calling "BS" on these articles and claiming that those metrics don't mean anything. The "real" quality indicator is the rubics your program utilizes.
Finally, I didn't give a sob story of any kind, or discuss the poor or minorities. Your ability to engage in discourse is a joke, and your defensiveness of for-profit programs is weak.
All that I ask is that people do not assail the entire industry because of a few bad actors. I thought I was clear about this from the begining.
Actually, that's not the position you've taken. What you've really been saying is "Don't assail a few good actors because the industry as a whole has flaws."
And that's an okay position to take. But it doesn't relate to the question in your OP. The answer to that is simple: overall, public schools are higher quality and less expensive than for-profit equivalents. This conclusion has been supported over and over again with both empirical evidence and analysis of systemic flaws.
I find this thread to be humorous. The OP keeps stating "show me the evidence", ignoring that the evidence is in, it's abundant, it's been cited, and it's unambiguous.
Statements such as "the faculty and structure of the class define a program's quality" are vague and trite. The hard, quantifiable metrics have been listed in this thread - any discussion along the lines of the original post need to start by looking at those metrics and let the cards fall where they fall. I think any objective observer will understand where the cards fall.
Unfortunately, I did attend the University of Phoenix. I graduated from that school with a BS in IT. I was firmly along the path of my career, at the time, my employer paid for my degree, and there were few other school programs at the time that would have worked with my work & family obligations.
However, that line-item on my resume is now one of the most embarrassing aspects of my work/education pedigree. There are many options today for somebody in the same shoes I was in. Today, one would be better off going to almost any State school online program than the UoP program I attended. It would be cheaper, and one wouldn't have to "defend" the program in an interview.
In my case, my UoP Bachelors was the single largest driving force behind me getting my Masters from a private, non-profit, highly-reputed university. I simply could not stand the thought of continuing with the UoP degree being the single Education line-item on my resume. Now it is completely overshadowed and a non-factor in my qualifications.
Why do I feel the way I feel about the UoP? For all of the metrics discussed previously in this thread. Additionally, based on my own experience, I know the "quality" of the education that school offers, and it's horrendous. I know the quality of the people I interacted with in my classes throughout the program. I know the quality of the "educators" and find the vast majority of them to be a joke - the faculty is largely a parady of a bona-fide faculty. Anecdotal? Sure - but my experience was hardly unique. I am quite confident that my experience with the "quality" of the UoP is shared by every single person that attends that particular school.
Now that I've got the Masters, I'm very tempted to pursue another Bachelors from another school and delete any reference to my ever having had anything to do with the UoP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vagabundo94
These are the metrics:
There is an abundant amount of rankings and research available on these metrics. There have been several links in this thread to various investigative articles on for-profit schools. The only thing you are doing is calling "BS" on these articles and claiming that those metrics don't mean anything. The "real" quality indicator is the rubics your program utilizes.
Finally, I didn't give a sob story of any kind, or discuss the poor or minorities. Your ability to engage in discourse is a joke, and your defensiveness of for-profit programs is weak.
You and the others keep missing my point...show me the "hard, quantifiable metrics", not the categories themselves. We can debate all day long whether these categories (similarly stringent entrance requirements, accreditation requirements, graduation and employment rates, median income of graduates, rate of acceptance into graduate programs) are good indicators of quality...but how do you know for sure that for-profits are inferior to traditional schools. Yeah, there is less prestige and they are more expensive; but that does not mean they are inferior to traditional schools.
Also, I didnt' say that you gave a sob story...others within this thread have been sobbing about their poor experience.
Why do you hurt me so much by insulting my ability to engage in a discussion on this topic Stop responding to my posts if you find this so humorous and weak. I suggest that because you are unable to provide solid quantifiable data yourself, you attack me personally. That seems more indicative of poor discourse and debating.
Actually, that's not the position you've taken. What you've really been saying is "Don't assail a few good actors because the industry as a whole has flaws."
And that's an okay position to take. But it doesn't relate to the question in your OP. The answer to that is simple: overall, public schools are higher quality and less expensive than for-profit equivalents. This conclusion has been supported over and over again with both empirical evidence and analysis of systemic flaws.
That doesn't make sense...why would I say to assail (i.e. attack) the good actors? Why would you attack a good school? Can you point to the thread where I stated that position? If so, then it is time for me to end this thread because it has gone on for too long and I am fighting an uphill battle in this forum.
The answer is not that simple...not everything is black and white in higher education. Where is the empirical analysis and data that shows inferiority? Not the categories as I mention in the previous thread to vagabundo94.
Last edited by csbjornstad; 06-10-2011 at 02:55 PM..
That doesn't make sense...why would I say don't assail (i.e. attack) the good actors? Why would you attack a good school? Can you point to the thread where I stated that position? If so, then it is time for me to end this thread because it has gone on for too long and I am fighting an uphill battle in this forum.
The answer is not that simple...not everything is black and white in higher education. Where is the empirical analysis and data that shows inferiority? Not the categories as I mention in the previous thread to vagabundo94.
Posts #63, #67, #57 are key to your defense. Yet all of them provide nothing but anecdotal examples from your personal experience at one for-profit.
Quote:
You and the others keep missing my point...show me the "hard, quantifiable metrics", not the categories themselves. We can debate all day long whether these categories (similarly stringent entrance requirements, accreditation requirements, graduation and employment rates, median income of graduates, rate of acceptance into graduate programs) are good indicators of quality...but how do you know for sure that for-profits are inferior to traditional schools. Yeah, there is less prestige and they are more expensive; but that does not mean they are inferior to traditional schools.
There has been extensive analysis on why criteria such as entrance requirements, accreditation, and post-grad outcomes are reliable metrics for assessing quality. Look at posts #69 and #70, just for a start.
And, that doesn't even include my own commentary on the incentives at work in the industry.
Just because you are willing to provide unwarranted denials all day does not mean that we are engaged in debate. You must explain why these criteria are invalid.
Posts #63, #67, #57 are key to your defense. Yet all of them provide nothing but anecdotal examples from your personal experience at one for-profit.
There has been extensive analysis on why criteria such as entrance requirements, accreditation, and post-grad outcomes are reliable metrics for assessing quality. Look at posts #69 and #70, just for a start.
And, that doesn't even include my own commentary on the incentives at work in the industry.
Just because you are willing to provide unwarranted denials all day does not mean that we are engaged in debate. You must explain why these criteria are invalid.
I do not necessarily deny that these may be indicators of quality...although some of them I do...but how are you and the others any more credible by stating these indicators are good measures of quality, but unable to provide the hard data that supports your position.
Yes, I have not provided any data myself...but I am not the one arguing that the for-profits are inferior. Where is the hard data? Show me some research that demonstrates that for-profits as a whole are of lesser quality. If so, then you might want to forward that to the accreditors and the DoED so that they can discontinue their Title IV funds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop responding to my posts if you find this so humorous and weak. I suggest that because you are unable to provide solid quantifiable data yourself, you attack me personally. That seems more indicative of poor discourse and debating.
