Above is a segment of Good Morning America in which ABC reporters do their own sting on a U of Phoenix recruiter.
I zipped over to the Saddleback College Lariat website, where I found this:
Vanguard might not be a "for-profit," since it is affiliated with a church. Months ago, when I checked the Lariat website, I found several ads for notorious for-profits. I couldn't find those ads today.
UPDATE:
We received the following comment:
I'm David Wescott and I'm working with University of Phoenix. Given that you shared the video, I hope you're willing to let me share this link to get the University of Phoenix response to it. Let people see all the facts and then come to their own conclusions, yes?
Here's the link that Wescott provides:
University of Phoenix Responds to Recent Media Criticism
The above U of P response does not address the concern that the rate of student loan default is considerable higher at the U of P than it is at the average public college or university — and yet the "for-profits," including the U of P, get a disproportionate share of federally guaranteed loans. The response is full of the sort of distortion and flummery (it repeatedly refers to being "fully accredited"— there is no such thing; it implies that an accredited institution ipso facto produces graduates qualified for desired employment; clearly, that is not so) that one might expect from a business that is focused on, well, profit, not education.
In the U of P’s response, the following remark holds a place of prominence:
However, we’re disappointed that these media reports ignore the thousands of success stories from University of Phoenix students and alumni, the overwhelming majority of whom are successful in their career and proud to be a Phoenix.
This is mere deflection. Instead of dealing with the disturbing actions of, and facts about, the U of P (keep in mind that the U of P was ordered to pay $277 million dollars in a recent legal decision that concerned recruitment practices), this writer changes the subject: "yeah, but what about the good things that happen at the U of P!"
I wonder if the U of P offers logic courses.
One might suppose that an institution of higher learning would offer a defense that rises above gross fallacies and specious rhetoric. But consider this paragraph:
Our degree programs are fully accredited and prepare students to thrive in today’s job market. For example, since 2004 we have graduated more than 25,000 teachers and 15,000 nurses. Our teaching program is accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education. Each state has its own state teacher credentialing examination and standards and graduates of our teaching program must pass the necessary state examinations and student teaching requirements in order to become credentialed to teach in their state of residence.
Having read this, a reader might suppose that U of P graduates are credentialed, but that’s not quite what this writer says, though he may seem to. In response to the complaint that graduates are often NOT prepared to compete in the marketplace (for teaching jobs, etc.), the above writer notes that “Each state has its own … credentialing examination … and graduates of our … program must pass the necessary examinations … in order to become credentialed to teach in their state of residence.”
In other words, earning a U of P degree does NOT guarantee that its graduates will become credentialed and employed, for they must still past the state's examinations.
So how again is this a response to the complaint? No how.
Further, as the ABC segment revealed, even U of P graduates who do pass the tests in Texas and New York are not ipso facto qualified to teach in those states.
* * *
Cat lovers will enjoy the following video (no doubt I’m the only Fan o’ Felines in the world who hasn’t already seen it a thousand times):
UPDATE:
We received the following comment:
I'm David Wescott and I'm working with University of Phoenix. Given that you shared the video, I hope you're willing to let me share this link to get the University of Phoenix response to it. Let people see all the facts and then come to their own conclusions, yes?
Here's the link that Wescott provides:
University of Phoenix Responds to Recent Media Criticism
The above U of P response does not address the concern that the rate of student loan default is considerable higher at the U of P than it is at the average public college or university — and yet the "for-profits," including the U of P, get a disproportionate share of federally guaranteed loans. The response is full of the sort of distortion and flummery (it repeatedly refers to being "fully accredited"— there is no such thing; it implies that an accredited institution ipso facto produces graduates qualified for desired employment; clearly, that is not so) that one might expect from a business that is focused on, well, profit, not education.
In the U of P’s response, the following remark holds a place of prominence:
However, we’re disappointed that these media reports ignore the thousands of success stories from University of Phoenix students and alumni, the overwhelming majority of whom are successful in their career and proud to be a Phoenix.
This is mere deflection. Instead of dealing with the disturbing actions of, and facts about, the U of P (keep in mind that the U of P was ordered to pay $277 million dollars in a recent legal decision that concerned recruitment practices), this writer changes the subject: "yeah, but what about the good things that happen at the U of P!"
I wonder if the U of P offers logic courses.
One might suppose that an institution of higher learning would offer a defense that rises above gross fallacies and specious rhetoric. But consider this paragraph:
Our degree programs are fully accredited and prepare students to thrive in today’s job market. For example, since 2004 we have graduated more than 25,000 teachers and 15,000 nurses. Our teaching program is accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) and is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education. Each state has its own state teacher credentialing examination and standards and graduates of our teaching program must pass the necessary state examinations and student teaching requirements in order to become credentialed to teach in their state of residence.
Having read this, a reader might suppose that U of P graduates are credentialed, but that’s not quite what this writer says, though he may seem to. In response to the complaint that graduates are often NOT prepared to compete in the marketplace (for teaching jobs, etc.), the above writer notes that “Each state has its own … credentialing examination … and graduates of our … program must pass the necessary examinations … in order to become credentialed to teach in their state of residence.”
In other words, earning a U of P degree does NOT guarantee that its graduates will become credentialed and employed, for they must still past the state's examinations.
So how again is this a response to the complaint? No how.
Further, as the ABC segment revealed, even U of P graduates who do pass the tests in Texas and New York are not ipso facto qualified to teach in those states.
* * *
Cat lovers will enjoy the following video (no doubt I’m the only Fan o’ Felines in the world who hasn’t already seen it a thousand times):
18 comments:
We all know that churches are not interested in a profit, right?
Clearly, some churches (and pseudo-churches) embrace profit-making, but surely some do not and pretty much are what they claim and appear to be. Vanguard is the university for a particular denomination (at least in California), but I don't know the details. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt (i.e., after my initial Googling brought up no red flags).
The cat cartoon was obviously made by someone who understands cats very well. Except for the "pointing out mouth" part. I ain't seen that. Not yet.
I'm David Wescott and I'm working with University of Phoenix. Given that you shared the video, I hope you're willing to let me share this link to get the University of Phoenix response to it. Let people see all the facts and then come to their own conclusions, yes?
http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/media_relations/for-the-record/university-of-phoenix-responds-to-good-morning-america.html
Did you know that there's a large UOP facility right next to "ground zero?" Much closer than the planned mosque will be. True story.
Mr. Wescott: I'm not a fan of for-profit colleges, but in that pantheon I agree that there are some decent ones and UOP is one of those. However, I hope you will agree that a good deal of abuse goes on in your industry. I also hope that UOP will join the voices calling for reform and regulation of the industry. If reform does not happen, UOP will eventually be ruined along with the real miscreants.
Yes, you are surely the only one.
I hadn't seen this cat cartoon, either. Excellent, except for the highly unrealistic bat-to-head part (but it's hilarious, nonetheless).
My huge cat, Tommy, eventually resorts to licking my ears. I challenge anyone to sleep through that!
MAH, Fan-O'-Felines
Well, MAH, you are obviously avoiding the clouds and breezes in order to write a missive. Well done.
It isn't easy! But I need the blog to keep me connected to the outer world, here in the quiet land of rural Montana. Thanks, Jan-ny!
MAH
So Erin and I have a cat (we live in an apartment together now) and our cat is just like this. He licks my freakin' hair too! What kind of thing licks another things hair?
An absurd kitten.
BS
I'm a little confused with the UOP problem. If one attends UOP, acquires some degree from them, goes to take the state examination and still doesn't qualify for a teaching position, what more do they need to do?
How does this differ from the normal?
Is it that the person can still obtain a teaching position, granted they get the degree and take the examination but that the university promised that they need only attend UOP for the job? Is that where the misleading is occurring? No, that can't be it, because in the video the undercover man specifically asked, "So all I have to do is get my degree, then take the exam?"
What am I missing?
You'd have to go back to the original article, etc. As I recall, the UofP recruiter falsely claimed that the degree acquired at UofP would be sufficient to get hired either "simplicter" or after taking and passing the state exam (in Texas and New York). As I understand it, neither is true. Only those who pass the state's exams receive the needed credential. Evidently, some degrees (combined with having passed these tests) make one qualified for instruction in Texas and New York, while the UofP degrees combined with having passed the tests do NOT. That would not be surprising. I seem to remember that the claim that UofP grads who pass the tests are still not qualified (which implies, of course, that some who pass the test with degrees from elsewhere ARE qualified) came from the GMA reporter. Where she got it, I dunno.
The larger issue here, of course, is that 56% of UofP students fail to pay back their loans--and thus the taxpayer must pay them, while UofP laughs all the way to the bank. The rate of default is quite high at public institutions also, but it is significantly better (sans profit-making). --BvT
In my experience, cats often lick "others," including humans. They're into licking, man. I think they like salt. -BvT
Oh this cat is quite the licker, and I have no qualms (with the one exception) about it. But my hair...my freakin' hair!
Anyways,
"I seem to remember that the claim that UofP grads who pass the tests are still not qualified (which implies, of course, that some who pass the test with degrees from elsewhere ARE qualified) came from the GMA reporter."
That implication is the thing I am talking about. If the word qualification was used, I guess I agree that the implication is a fair one, but I still have to ask, "OK, so what else do they need to become qualified?"
I think the biggest deal is that one goes to school for some n years and then finds out they are completely dead in the water still, except with a debt on their back. Someone is always makin' money (not that this justifies anything of course).
Like, lets say a person is "qualified" to teach when they have met the following criteria:
1. They have a degree for some accredited university (profit or non-profit)
2. They pass state-specific exam
If these aren't sufficient, then what is the other thing? Or if these are sufficient, what is wrong with the degree? (I'm assuming nothing can go wrong with the state-specific exam, so long as you pass it).
Again, we're not told by the GMA reporter why she says what she says, but I suspect that the KIND of degree offered by the UofP is the wrong kind. In the state of California (I'm not sure if this is still true, but it was true for many years), one is deemed "qualified" to teach Philosophy courses if one has a Masters in either Philosophy or Religious Studies. That may have changed; in any case, there are employers who would not dream of hiring someone to teach philosophy (at the college level) unless they have a masters or doctorate in philosophy. They certainly would not regard a person who has only a Religious Studies degree as qualified to teach philosophy. Sometimes, teachers are expected to get a Masters in teaching in which, oddly, one does not "master" any field, but one somehow "masters" teaching in that field. (It is a KIND of masters degree.) This sort of degree will not be acceptable to some employers, who will expect an instructor to actually have some sort of mastery in the field that they hope to teach. I seem to recall that former trustee Steve Frogue taught history, but he did not have an advanced degree in History. Rather, he had one of those "teaching" master's degrees (from Chapman). So the world of "credentialing" and "qualification" is not as simple and sensible as one might suppose that it would be.
Thanks for the time Chunk.
As an aside, the "teaching degree" is one of these things I am becoming aware of, I'm surprised it is even allowed. I read a piece recently that showed that some junior high/high school math teachers (who teach math) were teaching multiplication, but they had no understanding of what it was, or that it could be used for things like finding the area of a rectangle. Nor did they indicate knowing even how to find the area of a rectangle.
Isn't that weird? I imagine it'd be like trying to get me to teach biology, or religious studies or something. I just have no interest. But I could probably get up in front of a room full of kids and spout it out. Of course, I suspect they wouldn't learn anything. Maybe a list of incoherent facts.
Weirds me out and makes me sad at the same time. Bad case of the weird sadness.
Well, hair is the most natural thing for a cat to lick, BS; for it is the way in which they groom themselves and their loved ones. Maybe you should re-assess your shampoo....
Glad to hear of the cohabitation of you, Erin, and kitten. That warms my heart!
MAH
Post a Comment