“Shellacking the For-Profits” — from InsideHigherEd.com by Jennifer Epstein

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats made it clear Wednesday that their examination of for-profit higher education has only just begun, and that they plan to pursue legislation aimed at reining what they see as the sector’s dishonest — if not fraudulent — practices.

At a hearing on the “student recruitment experience” at for-profit colleges that began Wednesday morning and carried on through the mid-afternoon, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, outlined plans to hold more hearings on the sector, to collect broad sets of information from for-profit colleges, and to begin drafting legislation aimed at cleaning up the sector.

“Education is too important for the future of this country,” he said. “Facing the budget problems we have in the next 10 years, we just can’t permit more and more of the taxpayers’ dollars that are supposed to go for education and quality education … to be going to pay shareholders or private investors.”

From DSC:
Coming from a corporate background, I’m thinking this morning in terms of market share. If those of us in the more “traditional” institutions of higher ed were smart, we’d take this as  major opportunity. The for-profits made a big mistake here — sacrificing integrity and reputation for building up their revenues; very bad move. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once said something like, “Glass, china, and reputation, are easily crack’d, and never well mended.”

The for-profits here seemed to have taken their cues from the casino we call Wall Street. Yet another example of cold-heartedness. This is an opportunity for those institutions of higher ed to take the legitimate, effective items of what was/is working for the for-profits and implement them with integrity insteadfor example, implementing the use of teams.

Also relevant:

From DSC:
Here’s an article that gets at the use of TEAMS of specialists:

Outsourced Ed: Colleges Hire Companies to Build Their Online Courses — from The Chronicle by Marc Parry

Some recent postings from Ray Schroeder’s “Recession Realities in Higher Education”

The future of colleges and universities -- from the spring of 2010 by futurist Thomas Frey

From Spring 2010

From DSC:

If you are even remotely connected to higher education, then you *need* to read this one!


Most certainly, not everything that Thomas Frey says will take place…but I’ll bet you he’s right on a number of accounts. Whether he’s right or not, the potential scenarios he brings up ought to give us pause to reflect on ways to respond to these situations…on ways to spot and take advantage of the various opportunities that arise (which will only happen to those organizations who are alert and looking for them).


Reflections on The E-Book Sector — from InsideHigherEd.com

First of all, some excerpts (with emphasis from DSC):

E-textbooks might be the most-talked about and least-used learning tools in traditional higher education. Campus libraries and e-reader manufacturers are betting on electronic learning materials to overtake traditional textbooks in the foreseeable future, but very few students at traditional institutions are currently using e-textbooks, according to recent surveys.

Not so in the world of for-profit online education.

For-profit institutions in general are moving toward wider e-textbook use than other sectors of higher education, Stielow says. “I think a great many [for-profits] are certainly trying to move toward this model,” agrees Bickford. And the ones that have appear to be succeeding.

Why is that?

John Bourne, executive director of the Sloan Consortium, which studies online learning, posits that it might be a function of the more centralized administrative structures at for-profit institutions. “For-profits do things like provide lesson plans for instructors, provide you with what you’re supposed to do; they hire all these adjuncts to deliver all these things that have been sculpted by instructional designers,” says Bourne. Being able to dictate to the faculty what text format they should assign to their students probably makes it easier to implement e-textbook adoption across the institution, he says.

It is more difficult to engineer change at such scale at nonprofits, because of their more distributed governance models. At those colleges, faculty control of curricular texts — including mode of delivery — is “sacred,” Bourne says.

Manny Rivera, a spokesman for Phoenix, says that the online giant’s centralized administration does indeed allow it to make sweeping changes without many hang-ups. “The university is set up to be more nimble to confront market forces,” Rivera says. “So we’re able to innovate more quickly.”

From DSC:
To be more nimble…to confront market forces…to be able to innovate more quickly…to use materials created by teams of specialists…hmmm….sounds like a solid position to be in as the bubble continues to expand (and may even be beginning to slowly burst based upon where students are going — more community colleges, more state/public schools, lower-cost alternatives, etc.)






College students change priorities in tough job market — from CNN.com by Lauren Russell

The Odd Couple: “University” and “Business” — from UniversityBusiness.com by S. Georgia Nugent
Moving toward better communication between higher ed leaders and the public

As a reader of this magazine, you were probably not surprised—much less chagrined—by the 2009 publication of a three-volume set of books entitled, The Business of Higher Education (Praeger Publishers, 2009). Nor, I would wager, do you find University Business an unusual magazine title. As the CEO of a college, neither do I.

But we need to recognize that, for many constituencies of the academy not among University Business readers, the phrase “university business” may sound odd, if not oxymoronic. And that is true for at least two reasons.

U of California resuscitates the Master Plan — from huffingtonpost.com by Anya Kamenetz

Yesterday the University of California made a groundbreaking announcement that has the potential to break the tuition cost crisis and finally deliver the crucial benefits of higher education to millions of Americans and to tens of millions who demand it and deserve it around the world. They are putting $5 to $6 million into a pilot project to create online versions of courses with an eye toward eventually creating completely online degree programs.

More than one in four US college students already take at least one online class. So why is this an important announcement?

Because a public university system is declaring that it will innovate its way out of recession, and even more importantly, that it will not cede the banner of innovation to the for-profit sector that is encroaching more and more on public higher education’s territory (emphasis DSC).

And it’s not just any public university system that’s doing this, but the largest public university system in the country and the global template for mass higher education for over fifty years. Clark Kerr’s Master Plan in 1960 introduced the idea that higher education would be a massive, state-run, open and democratic, publicly accessible resource for all.

Also see:

U. of California Considers Online Classes, or Even Degrees — from The Chronicle of Higher Education by Josh Keller and Marc Parry
Proposal for virtual courses challenges beliefs about what an elite university is—and isn’t

(Oakland, Calif.) Online education is booming, but not at elite universities—at least not when it comes to courses for credit.

Leaders at the University of California want to break that mold. This fall they hope to put $5-million to $6-million into a pilot project that could clear the way for the system to offer online undergraduate degrees and push distance learning further into the mainstream.

The vision is UC’s most ambitious—and controversial—effort to reshape itself after cuts in public financial support have left the esteemed system in crisis (emphasis DSC).

Supporters of the plan believe online degrees will make money, expand the number of California students who can enroll, and re-establish the system’s reputation as an innovator.

“Somebody is going to figure out how to deliver online education for credit and for degrees in the quality sector—i.e., in the elite sector,” said Christopher Edley Jr., dean at Berkeley’s law school and the plan’s most prominent advocate. “I think it ought to be us—not MIT, not Columbia, not Caltech, certainly not Stanford.”

Disappearing Departments — from InsideHigherEd.com

Kean University department chairs have spent a year on the endangered species list, and now they appear headed for all-but-certain extinction.

A rough plan to eliminate chairs took shape last May amid heavy protest, and administrators now have a draft proposal they say could be carried out as early as July. The plan, which would replace departments with schools headed by presidentially-appointed “executive directors,” has been met with renewed furor from faculty, who view it as a power grab that leaves the future of many disciplines uncertain. The university has already moved to eliminate such departments as philosophy and social work, but this plan would kill even large departments like English and biology, dividing faculty members into new organizational structures they played no role in creating.

“The university has become a battlefield, [where administrators] do as they see fit, when they see fit without any academic justification,” said Bryan Lees, a chemistry professor (emphasis DSC).

From DSC:
And what would you do if you were in the administration’s position? Funds are running short…budgets are tightening big time…and we’re getting down to the bone in many institutions of higher education (if you doubt this, check out one of Ray Schroeder’s blogs).

Like it or not, institutions of higher education are businesses — most often with excellent, noble goals that better our societies around the world. But they are businesses; and, like so many other types of organizations out there, it comes down to funding and sound business models.

To survive and thrive today, we all must come to the table to help initiate change where it is necessary to do so. Let’s be proactive, and creative in our thinking — being willing to make changes — before it’s too late. If we do not, administration may have no choice (in many situations out there) but to make some tough decisions and you and I might find ourselves on the short end of the stick. The ax may have to come out.

Did we sit back and watch this situation unfold? What steps did we take to stop this bubble from getting any bigger? Regardless…the key question now is:

How can we survive and thrive during this period of change?

  1. To me, the first and foremost answer to that question is that we become willing to change.
  2. Secondly, we realize that we are on the same team; it should not be administration vs. everyone else.
  3. We be creative and responsive in our thinking. Let’s not get broadsided. Keep an eye on the trends out there and be responsive to them.
  4. Develop new types of cross-disciplinary degrees, especially ones that allow for students to be creative, and to identify and follow their passions.
  5. Then see my other suggestions at: http://danielschristian.com/



From DSC:
I read two things this morning that were very disturbing:

1) The first was an email from Senator Levin, where he summarized the Financial Crisis Investigation Hearings. He provided a link to his Senate website where it concludes with the following:

These findings are deeply troubling. They show a Wall Street culture that, while it may once have focused on serving clients and promoting commerce, is now all too often simply self-serving. The ultimate harm here is not just to clients poorly served by their investment bank. It’s to all of us. The toxic mortgages and related instruments that these firms injected into our financial system have done incalculable harm to people who had never heard of a mortgage-backed security or a CDO, and who have no defenses against the harm such exotic Wall Street creations can cause.

Running through our findings and these hearings is a thread that connects the reckless actions of mortgage brokers at WaMu with market-driven credit rating agencies and the Wall Street executives designing the next synthetic. That thread is unbridled greed, and the absence of a cop on the beat to control it.

As we speak, lobbyists fill the halls of Congress, hoping to weaken or kill legislation aimed at reforming these abuses. Wall Street is on the wrong side of this fight. It insists that reining in its excesses would unduly restrict a free market that is the engine of American progress. But this market isn’t free of self-dealing or conflict of interest. It is not free of gambling debts that taxpayers end up paying.

I hope the executives before us today, and their colleagues on Wall Street, will recognize the harm that their actions have caused to so many of their fellow citizens. But whether or not they take responsibility for their role, I hope this Congress will follow the example of another Congress, eight decades ago, and enact the reforms that will put a cop back on the Wall Street beat.

2) …and I thought of posting it. But I thought, no…I won’t go there. Who am I to point this out? How does this affect higher ed and the rest of us? (BTW, I don’t know enough about Senator Levin to support or not support him or his efforts here). But then I saw this article immediately after that:

E-mail Suggests Goldman Knew Harvard Would Lose –The Boston Globe

A Goldman Sachs e-mail from February 2007 acknowledged that a large trade in complex mortgage-related securities would be “good for us’’ but bad for several customers, including Harvard University.

The e-mail was part of a large batch of correspondence released over the weekend by the Senate subcommittee that grilled Goldman executives yesterday about their alleged role in the financial crisis.

The Harvard e-mail was one of many portraying the Wall Street giant as having profited on the housing bust — indeed, betting against the sector — while rivals and even esteemed clients lost money.

Harvard declined to disclose how much it lost on the trade. The Senate-released e-mails, however, show Harvard was on the losing end of a $500 million derivatives trade. Essentially, by entering into an exotic collateralized debt obligation — a wager on the direction of mortgage securities — Harvard lost money when the mortgages went bad. Full Story

From DSC:
…and when I saw this second item, I had to write something here.

We are affected by the actions of others. We impact others with our actions. We are all in this boat together.

Is there — or should there be a place for — a role of those of us in higher education to attempt to instill some morals and values into our students?  It seems to me we at least need to point out that the future actions of our students will have positive or negative affects on others, and to not just look out for themselves, but also look to the interests of others.

I don’t mean to come off as high-and-mighty, full of finger pointing. But it seems to me that during an influential point in our students’ lives, we should be helping make the world a better place…not raising up students who hungrily move into the Wall Street offices and repeat the same types of behavior that got us into a heap of trouble — or to students who can’t wait to get into a lucrative lobbying position, while shutting off their consciences in their pursuit of obtaining the almighty dollar.

A seven-figure gift from an online student — from College.inc and The Washington Post

An Arizona businessman has donated $4 million to a university where he earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees entirely online.

Tagged with:  

Ray has posted the below items from April 13th onward:

Tagged with:  

Some recent items from Ray Schroeder’s Recession Realities in Higher Education Blog highlight the financial pressures colleges and universities are now really beginning to feel:

Added on 4/1/10:

Lecturer layoffs could hit University of Michigan campus come fall – Juliana Keeping, AnnArbor.com

Layoffs could be on the way for the largest college at the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus. Departments in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts are considering scenarios that would include laying off members of the lecturers’ union to meet savings goals, officials confirmed. Individual departments’ savings plans could also include the consolidation of some classes and having tenure-track faculty teach more classes. If implemented, scenarios like these would result in fewer lecturers being needed, U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said.

Higher education budgets and the global recession: Tracking varied national responses and their consequences — from cshe.berkeley.edu

Excerpt from the Abstract:

States have very limited ability to borrow funds for operating costs, making the federal government the last resort. In short, how state budgets go, so goes US higher education; whereas most national systems of higher education financing is tied to national budgets with an ability to borrow. Without the current stimulus funding, the impact on access and maintaining the health of America’s universities would have been even more devastating. But that money will be largely spent by the 2011 fiscal year (Oct 2010-Sept 2011), unless Congress and the White House renew funding support on a similar scale for states that are coping with projected large budget gaps. That now seems unlikely.

  

Original posting from George Siemens — Higher Education Budgets and the Global Recession

Tagged with:  
© 2024 | Daniel Christian