My A.T. Still University Experience : higher education administration

Is Harvard Extension School Really Harvard?

SteveFoerster — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:35:00 GMT

“I won't say there aren't any Harvard graduates who have never asserted a superior attitude. But they have done so to our great embarrassment and in no way represent the Harvard I know.” — Derek Bok, President Emeritus of Harvard University

For many years I've seen people mention the Harvard Extension School as a possible way for eLearners and others to earn a Harvard degree at a reasonable price. HES is one of thirteen schools that make up Harvard University, along with Harvard College (the campus-based school for undergraduates), Harvard Law, Harvard Business School, Harvard Medical, and others. HES offers evening and online courses that apply to certificate programs, as well as Associate's, Bachelor's, and Master's degree programs.

The primary difference between HES and Harvard University's other twelve schools is that anyone who meets basic eligibility criteria is welcome to enroll in HES courses, and if one does well enough in those courses, to apply them to a degree. Unfortunately for eLearners, degree programs from HES require at least one semester in residence taking courses on campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Still, for those who live in the Boston area, or who might conceivably live there for a few months, it's an enticing possibility.

Now, over on the forum, the subject of HES has come up again. This time, though, someone has referred to an opinion piece by an IT consultant named Don Burleson on HES and its relationship to Harvard University. Now, I've seen some whoppers in my time, but I have to say that this piece ranks as one of the most poorly-informed screeds I've ever read about higher education. Basically, Mr. Burleson believes that people who earn degrees from HES have not only not earned degrees from the "real" Harvard, but are liars and frauds for saying that they have!

As pretentious as this shows this fellow to be, before we summarily dismiss him as a crank, why not get it from the horse's mouth and see what Harvard University itself has to say? We can start with the About Us page on the HES site, which offers this:

As Harvard University's primary resource for continuing education for a century, Harvard Extension School offers an open and comprehensive academic curriculum, with courses and programs to meet the interests and needs of a diverse public. Explore a subject in depth. Gain advanced training for a career change. Earn specialized field credentials. Whether you take a course or work toward a degree, we have options for you.¹

That's clear and concise, but since that's merely on the HES part of Harvard University's web site, maybe it's just part of the vast conspiracy of fraud that has Mr. Burleson so upset. Fortunately, for those who want more, there was also a lengthy article just three weeks ago in the Harvard Gazette celebrating the centennial of HES. Since the Gazette is an official university publication, it's undeniable that HES is not only part of Harvard University, but an integral part of which they have long been very proud indeed.

The underlying issue here is that some people, for whatever reason, just can't accept the idea that a program that is open access could possible also be rigorous. And that's nonsense. It is the coursework, assignments, and examinations that determine whether a course or program is rigorous. In no way does it diminish that rigor just because a school's policy is to let anyone who want to find out if they can handle that course or program give it the old college try.

So basically, when it comes to whether a degree from Harvard Extension School is really one from the "real" Harvard, we have two choices. Either we can believe an elitist curmudgeon who, as it turns out, never even went to Harvard, or we can believe Harvard University itself. I don't know about you, but that's the easiest thing I've had to decide all day.

Next up, bloggers and freedom of the press.

Photo of John Harvard statue courtesy of Tim Sackton

Add to:

What's Wrong with For-Profit Schools?

SteveFoerster — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:30:00 GMT

“It is not easy for men to rise whose qualities are thwarted by poverty.” — Juvenal

Currently on the forum there's a discussion about whether there's a big difference between for-profit and non-profit schools. A link was posted to this article in the Washington Monthly that takes for-profit schools to task, essentially calling them predatory and that they have conspired with evil Republicans to exploit unsophisticated prospective students in order to enrich themselves while leaving those students with unmanageable debt that recent legislative changes have made almost impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. Whew!

And you know what? There isn't zero truth to this. Many schools are far more expensive than they need to be to break even, or even make a reasonable profit. Consider your typical online course. Let's say it costs you a thousand bucks. (I know, some are even more, but it makes the math easy.) And let's say there are twenty students in the course. Adjunct instructors don't usually get paid more than two thousand dollars to teach a university level course, so that's where two of the students' tuition is going. What about the the rest of the eighteen grand? Sure, there's overhead, you need to have support staff, and office space and computers and supplies for that staff. Preparing reports for the accreditors takes a lot of time, and you need people to help with that, okay. But does all that really cost nine times as much as the person who actually does the lion's share of work by teaching the students? Color me skeptical, but I say there's a heck of a lot of profit in there.

But before you start to think that I agree with the Washington Monthly that the profit motive is eeeeevil, let me add a few other ingredients into this witch's cauldron of debt creation.

First, non-profit schools often cost just as much as the most expensive of the the for-profit schools. In fact the most expensive ones cost even more: Check out the list of the 100 schools with the highest annual tuition rate. For a bunch of schools that are supposedly non-profit, don't those rates seem kind of steep?

Second, much of the blame lies with the federal student loan system. The left-of-center Washington Monthly blamed the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans, but there's no one in Washington with clean hands when it comes to this broken system. It was, after all, Democrats who sent the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to Bush's desk last year. And while that reauthorization did include a few baby steps toward making things easier for students, they did nothing to address the systemic problem that making it artificially easy to access student loans means that tuition rates will inevitably rise to soak up all that extra money that's become available. I guess they were too busy trying to protect their buddies in the entertainment industry, and I do use that term loosely.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, if for-profit schools are works of the devil, then why is it that they're also standing up to be part of the solution? As I've remarked before, companies like Straighter Line and for-profit schools like Penn Foster College and Andrew Jackson University are leading the way when it comes to providing solutions for students that are extremely low cost. In other words, the profit motive has more than one side — it leads some schools to charge as much as they can, yes, but it also leaves them vulnerable to other schools that come in and undercut them to attract their students away.

So no, there's nothing inherently wrong with for-profit schools. Some of them charge a lot, aided and abetted by Uncle Sam, and others of them see that situation as an opportunity to attract students by charging less.

Next up, I protest the imprisonment of fellow blogger Kareem Amer.

Add to:

Morgan State: Protected At Its Students' Expense

SteveFoerster — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:23:00 GMT

“The decision by the Maryland Higher Education Commission to prohibit access by Maryland citizens to an online academic program of a Maryland university is insane!” — Donald N. Langenberg, chancellor emeritus of the University System of Maryland

Having grown up and now living back in Northern Virginia, Maryland is the state right across the bridge. It's always a little awkward to watch your neighbor do something silly, but I suppose that's the situation in which we Virginian observers of higher education find ourselves today.

Morgan State University in Baltimore has a campus-based doctoral program in community college administration. The University of Maryland University College is starting a mostly online program in (you guessed it) community college administration. Morgan State sued to stop UMUC from being able to offer this program, even though it's significantly different in mode of study, because Morgan State is a historically black university and as such wants special protection from competition from other universities in the Maryland state system.

There were a number of hearings and so forth, but we'll skip the boring legal stuff and skip to the end, where the ruling yesterday from the Maryland Higher Education Commission was in favor of Morgan State.

But here's what I don't get. There are only two rationales for giving Morgan State special protection, and neither one of them calls for a decision like this.

If the idea is that Morgan State University should be desegregating, and thus attracting a more diverse student body, then it shouldn't matter whether all those students go to Morgan State or UMUC, because either way they'll be studying together. If the idea is to serve the students, and not to serve the bureaucracy, inhibiting competition makes no sense.
If the idea is that as a historically black university that Morgan State should be protected from having "its" constituency poached by a different state university, then the university is being protected at the expense of the students it is supposed to be serving. Again, if the idea is to serve the students, and not to serve the bureaucracy, inhibiting competition makes no sense.

It's situations like this that highlight the problem with public HBCUs. If the goal is to provide equal access to public services, then having different outlets for those services meant for different ethnic groups seems really counterintuitive. And I think most people tend to agree, or there wouldn't have been such an outcry about that Louisiana justice of the peace refusing to marry interracial couples. I suppose the way I see it, the idea that there should there be special public universities that are designed to serve one of my kids, but not the others, just because their moms are different, seems indefensibly strange to me.

It's enough to make one wonder whether Justice wears a blindfold to ensure impartiality — or to hide her tears.

Next up, should one try to learn a foreign language online?

Image courtesy of Mira66

Add to:

Speculation and Uncertainty as Penn Foster College Bought by Princeton Review

SteveFoerster — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:36:00 GMT

“Uncertainty will always be part of the taking charge process.” — Harold S. Geneen

As was pointed out on the forum today, and has been reported in various media, Penn Foster College is being bought by Princeton Review. In this they're playing catch up with rival Kaplan, which both has an extensive set of test preparation services as well as their own university.

This is interesting around here for a number of reasons. One is that Penn Foster College is often recommended as a good low cost option for eLearners whose goals can be reached with nationally accredited degree. We have a number of their students and alumni here, including the venerable Terry, our own in house blogger on the school and his experience with it.

As a result, many people have questions about what the sale may mean for the future of the school and especially whether it will affect current students. Some have pointed out that this is the second time in four years that Penn Foster College has changed hands. The most often cited fears seem to be that Princeton Review will raise its tuition. If I had to guess, I'd say that students can expect this. Penn Foster is just about as inexpensive a school as one can get, and since there aren't many others around competing at their price point, I can see a buyer looking at them and thinking that there's more revenue to be had. That Inside Higher Ed reports that many observers believe that Princeton Review paid a handsome price for Penn Foster College only makes a tuition hike seem more likely.

What would essentially guarantee a tuition hike, and a large one, is if Princeton Review decides to have Penn Foster College seek regional accredtiation. Back a few years ago when they were still called Education Direct, PFC applied for candidacy for regional accredtiation. I'd be curious whether their sort of independent study would be okay with regional accreditors, who aren't always easily excited about doing things differently in higher education. But Princeton Review president Michael J. Perik did say that they hope to use this to develop closer relationships with community colleges, so that they can provide more services to them to help them offer online programs. I wouldn't be surprised if that means that they'll offer community colleges a private label front end to what are essentially Penn Foster College programs, in other words where community colleges would essentially entirely outsource their online programs to Penn Foster College. That would be a very interesting development to watch, especially as different stakeholders weigh in.

In the end, only time will tell what Princeton Review's plans for Penn Foster College are and how it will affect current and future students. But here's hoping that whatever developments are in store for us, they don't change too much of what makes the school work so well for so many!

Next up, I comment on the Morgan State decision.

Add to:

Panel Discussion On Skyrocketing College Costs

SteveFoerster — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:33:00 GMT

“Universities share one characteristic with compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty: there is never enough money to satisfy their desires.” — Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University

Yesterday I went to the Cato Institute, a think tank here in Washington, D.C. that promotes civil liberties and free markets. They had an event called Taking Control of Spiraling College Costs, where a panel of experts gave their various reasons for why they think that college is so expensive and what might be good ways to counteract that trend.

This particular event was co-sponsored by the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, and two of the panel speakers were affiliated with them. One, economist Robert E. Martin, is the author of a recent policy paper called The Revenue-to-Cost Spiral in Higher Education. In it, he outlines a number of suggestions as to why higher education is different from other industries, and how those differences translate into costs that increase so much more quickly than other things in the economy.

Cato also had some relevant policy papers. One, Making College More Expensive by Gary Wolfram, is subtitled, "The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid", and explains why Pell grants and federal student loans may put college within reach of more people in the short term, but inevitably makes it more expensive for everyone in the long term. This point was echoed by most of the panel members as a big problem, but they seemed to understand also that changing the way this is done would be politically infeasible even if Congress and the Obama administration were interested in scaling this back, which given their recent expansion of direct student lending, is clearly not the case.

There was another view on this present, however. Kevin Carey, Policy Director at a different think tank called Education Sector, argued that radically decreasing federal aid to students was not the most effective way to control costs. He suggested that colleges and universities needed to be required to be more transparent in how they spend their money. The panel did all seem to agree that many colleges and universities spend an inordinate amount of money in non-academic ways, such as athletics, and recreational facilities like the University of Missouri's resort-like Tiger Grotto. But other than Mr. Carey, no one on the panel thought that transparency would be much of a deterrent to needless spending when there was so much money coming into the system.

All in all it was an interesting event with good points made by all panelists. I'm not sure whether any of the solutions presented were likely to be considered by policy makers, though. I'll stand by my earlier belief that college costs will be reduced indirectly, by the continued rise of alternative approaches like low cost DETC-accredited schools, initiatives like Straighter Line, and so forth.

Next up, I finally get around to wishing Gandhi a happy birthday.

Add to: