BlogU

  • My For-Profit Biases

    By Joshua Kim May 14, 2010 2:00 am EDT

    I received a few e-mails this week from people who work in the online for-profit sector, following my offer to review and report on their online courses. The communications, I think, we're aimed at trying to suss out any “anti for-profit” biases that I may harbor, particularly if they were going to let me loose to evaluate their courses. Fair enough.

    I thought it made sense to think about my own biases, and then state them for the record.

    1. Favorable - Innovation: I think much of the innovation, experimentation, and student-centered teaching in higher education is probably coming out of the for-profit, online education world. These schools (businesses?) operate in a market for student enrollment and retention. Sure, marketing can get some percentage of students, but marketing cannot keep a student - and poor word of mouth spreads quickly. I imagine that it simply makes good business sense to design a high quality product, one that is built around the students learning style and learning needs as opposed to the instructor. The ability of for-profits to engage in systematic quality control, through the development of a strong course design methodology and instructor training program that can be scaled, will naturally lead to consistently high quality courses. The benefits of specialization (course design, technology expertise, subject matter expertise), can diffused to entire programs, as the marginal costs for building new courses drops once the methods and experts are in place.

    2. Negative - Rigor: I'll own up to a bias that a for-profit online course will be less rigorous and demanding than a non-profit course. This bias stems from simple economics - students who flunk out don't pay tuition. It seems as if it is in the interest to of the for-profit to pass students. But I know that this is a bias, and has no connection to any actual data or findings. I'd like to see for myself and I'd be heartened if I were proven wrong.

    3. Negative - Faculty: Perhaps this bias stems from the fact that U of P has declined, so far, to allow me to teach. But seriously, I'm still old school enough to believe that the best teaching is done by people who are creating in their fields. I believe in the pairing of researching and teaching. My most exciting and challenging educational experiences have always been in classes where I felt a part of the current conversation and debates, and where my professor was adding to the knowledge in that field. These classes often (not always) allow their students to also contribute to the debates, and take part the process of scholarship. I know that good research does not automatically equal good teaching, but I do believe that when good researchers are given high quality support, tools, methods and motivations that they have the potential to be the best educators. (I see it everyday!) Of course, I cannot evaluate the quality of teaching by evaluation the quality of an online course - so this bias should not enter into my reviews. Still, I wanted to get the bias out on the table in order to create an opportunity to debate its veracity.

    4. Favorable - The People: I'm thinking that the people involved in the online for-profit industry are primarily educators who share a common set of values with their colleagues in the traditional non-profits. I'm thinking of the academic people who control the design and the teaching of the courses. Chief academic officers, deans and chairs (or their equivalent), faculty, and course designers - I'm betting that all these folks have strong education motives that supersede their profit motives. Further, I think the people involved in online for-profit higher education probably got into the business because they see that sector as the best place to contribute to fundamental change in how post-secondary education is designed and delivered. They are impatient with the rate of change at traditional institutions, and see the entrepreneurial spirit and the discipline of the marketplace as the best levers to participate and contribute to progressive work.

    5. Negative - Sharing and Transparency: Here I want to acknowledge up-front that I see this both the traditional non-profit higher ed world (my world) and the for-profit world as equally guilty. From where I sit, it seems like there is a lack of communication, collaboration, and understanding between and across for-profits and non-profits. I don't see the big for-profit online education providers represented in the leadership advisory roles and committee assignments of our professional organizations. It seems rare for non-profit and for-profit learning technology professionals, faculty, or leadership to collaborate on articles, presentations or projects. I just don't see that many sessions at conferences where people from the for-profit world show to the community what they have been up to, what issues they are struggling with, what solutions they have found. I'm not sure if the for-profits have just not been invited to these tables, or if they are choosing not to make a place.

    My hope is that the category of for-profit and non-profit recedes as a salient variable, and that in the future our discussions can be around learning and innovation. Is this a reasonable goal? And if so, what is the best route to reach it?

Go to comments (6) »
Advertisement
On the Job Market Together?

Comments on My For-Profit Biases

  • Role of Adjunct Faculty in For-Profit Education
  • Posted by Harish Chandan , Associate Professor of Business at Argosy University on May 14, 2010 at 8:45am EDT

  • Role of Adjunct Faculty in For-Profit Education

    The business model of for-profit education includes a heavy relaince on adjunct faculty. To deliver a high quality education, adjunct faculty have to be socialized into the mission of the organization. This bulids adjunct faculty commitment and effectiveness.

    This process for building adjunct commitment needs to be formalized at the university level and should be built into the mission of the organization. Informal and ad hoc processes to integrate adjunct faculty are often not effective due to lack of consistency.

    Harish Chandan
    Building adjunct commitment should include planned interaction between adjunct faculty and full-time faculty.

  • Disagree on 3 & 5
  • Posted by BarryD , e-Campus at Community College on May 14, 2010 at 8:45am EDT

  • Overall I think your biases are pretty common among us not-for-profit folks in education. However, my experience in two of those areas would go against your biases.

    3. You "believe that the best teaching is done by people who are creating in their fields." You are defining "creating in their fields" as being an academic researcher. That might fly in certain fields, but in my opinion it doesn't even come close in others. I taught accounting for 17 years as either an adjunct at a research university of with tenure at a community college. I never had research expectations. Over half of the research professors I worked with at universities had NEVER worked in the accounting profession. They were accounting students and then accounting faculty and never worked as an auditor, a tax consultant, etc. etc. Furthermore, academic research in accounting is mostly obtuse and has very little relevance to the work of practicing accountants.

    Most of the for-profits that I am familiar with boast about hiring faculty members who work in the field. As long as they have some teaching skills, I would much rather learn from someone working in the field than from someone who has only THOUGHT ABOUT working in the field. Although I give the example of accounting, I believe that there are several other fields where the same argument would be very relevant.

    5. You also think that there is a negative with the for-profits when it comes to sharing and transparency. I probably would have held the same bias up until a couple of years ago. Since that time I have seen several examples from Capella University where they openly share much of their data about student success and related items, have shared the work they're doing with data analytics, curriculum development, and in many other areas. This sharing is not confined to Capella in the for-profit space, but they are the ones that I have had the most personal contact with.

    Looking forward to hearing more from you on this topic. Have a good day.

  • Related reading
  • Posted by George Kroner on May 14, 2010 at 8:45am EDT

  • A couple Sundays ago there was an interesting read in The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute that compared graduation rates of different types of higher ed institutions. The infographic shows something interesting (and not entirely unexpected). Based on the data available and the method chosen to evaluate it, private, for-profit, 4-year institutions in 2008 had the poorest graduation rates while private, for-profit, 2-year institutions had the highest - each when compared against public and private/not-for-profit institutions. Here's a link to that article: http://bit.ly/939Lmk

  • Need to read the article for the full story
  • Posted by L. Calix , Instructor at Empire State College on May 14, 2010 at 10:45am EDT

  • It's important to take into account the differences in student populations being served, as mentioned in the article cited by George K.:

    "Note that traditional graduation rates do not adjust for differences in the challenges that students present to schools in different sectors—for-profit schools, for example, enroll more students who face a harder time in college (for example, they are far more likely to be married with children or to have been raised by parents with lower levels of education than students in colleges in other sectors). " http://bit.ly/939Lmk

    As an instructor in a public institution serving similar students, I recognize we have similarly low graduation rates. Yet our--and for-profit insititutions-- are providing a valuable educational service to many people who might otherwise not have access to higher education. While there is always room for improvement in any institution, I say let's recognize the contribution and applaud the efforts. If the for-profit sector is growing it is largely because the non-profits and public institutions have not found a way to adequately address these needs.

  • Also Disagree on 3 & 5
  • Posted by Russell Poulin , Associate Director at WCET on May 14, 2010 at 10:45am EDT

  • I have to go along Barry D on disagreeing on 3 & 5:

    3. The teaching informed by research model is fine for many institutions, such as Dartmouth where you reside. Practitioners have to deal with emerging issues every day and that should not be discounted. We should not be limited to only one model. If we do, we will be educating far fewer people than we are now.

    5. I'm not sure about the organizations in which you participate, but the for-profit institutions have been a growing influence on my organization, WCET. They have shared their knowledge generously, but I do have to admit there are times where we reach barriers where the discussion ends. We have also worked with for-profits, non-profits, and state institutions on the Transparency By Design project and its College Choices for Adults (www.collegechoicesforadults.org) website. While we're still working on meeting all our transparency reporting goals, we have made great strides in openly sharing data.

  • Practice vs. Research
  • Posted by Harish Chandan , Associate Professor of Business at Argosy University on May 14, 2010 at 12:15pm EDT

  • Most of the Adjuncts in for-profit schools are practitioners in their profession. They apply the acdemic knowledge in the real world and bring that enriching experience to the students.

    To be successful in their practice, these adjuncts have to be aware of the new knowledge being created through research.

    In other words, for-profit graduate schools have to be active in research along with student-focused teaching. A good teacher has to be both a researcher and a practitioner.

Print
© Copyright 2011 Inside Higher Ed