Hi, I'm new to these forums!

 I've been taking classes at Ashford for about a year (and should be working on a paper right now).  The classes have been ok, but not nearly as stimulating or memorable as the brick and mortar classes I enjoyed before I became housebound.  I'm taking classes mostly out of personal interest and I don't really anticipate putting the degree to use. 

I like the text books at Ashford, and I like doing the research papers. The school is great if you just want to breeze through, get some easy 'A's, and have your degree.  But I'm a little disappointed in some of the teachers who seem either overburdened or uninterested in the subject matter.  A lot of times, the focus is more on getting the grade and completing the class than on learning.  It is a little too reminiscent of high school. 

The discussions are not very stimulating.  In a few cases, I've seen students copy and paste the same reply into multiple threads just to meet the posting requirements.  A lot of times the reply has nothing to do with the OP.  This is particularly disappointing for me, since one of the main reasons I decided to take the classes was for the opportunity to participate in academic discussions.  I can find more intellectual conversations on livejournal.

I figured that all of this came with the territory of online education.  And then I read this article about for-profit schools in the Atlantic Monthly.  And it made me wonder...

Has anyone here noticed a difference between the quality of education in profit vs. non-profit online schools?  Does anyone have any non-profit schools they'd like to recommend?  Southern New Hampshire University has an online program similar to the one I'm doing at Ashford and I'm thinking of switching to that or another non-profit school.

 Thanks!

Hey tomthecat,

I understand your frustrations, but not all "for-profit" schools/universities are of that same caliber, and then again, it could just be that particular class?  I am trying to be positive, because at Capella, there have been maybe one or two classes that I was like, "are you serious?"  But I can assure you, as I got deeper and deeper into the program, my instructors did not take any crap.  I have been challenged to the utmost.  So that's what I am saying, it could be that class, but if you feel you are not being challenged, look at alternatives.  You want to feel like you EARNED the degree.  But whatever you do, don't be a school-hopper....lol.  I knew someone who jumped around school after school and didn't complete anything. 

 JaynaB

Hi Jayna,

Thanks for your reply.  You have a good point that the quality varies from class to class and the upper level courses are taken more seriously.  Many of the students in my intro class didn't have college-level skills and I didn't see how they would be able to pass the test in order to continue.  It didn't make sense to me that the school would have people enroll in a course before taking a placement test, and I complained to the school about it because it didn't seem fair to the students who needed more prep work.   It makes sense after having read this in the article that I linked to in the OP:

"...to keep their stock prices up and investors happy, the schools had to show that they were constantly expanding, which meant there was intense pressure to get students in the door and signed up for classes and financial aid...

As long as students were enrolled long enough to be considered a “start,” meaning that they attended classes for a week or two, the schools got to keep some of the money, and they got to include students in their official enrollment tally, which gave Wall Street the impression they were expanding."

Hi there, I'm an Ashford alumni in their MBA program and I blogged on my experience there pretty extensively.  My experience went like this, the first class in the MBA program was a breeze, there were more than 40 people in it and I don't recall really having to sweat anything too much.  Business Law was more of a shock for me because it was the first time I earned less than an "A" in years after busting my butt at Southwestern College for 18 months.  I had become pretty adept at earning A's and when one instructor pointed out that wasn't enough I was surprised.  By the time we hit the mathematics courses people were dropping from the program like flies and by the time we were on the final few courses of the program there were fewer than 15 people in my classes on the back end.  The MBA program at Ashford was the single most rigorous coursework I've ever been subjected to and that includes 3 other graduate schools I've attended, all of which are non-profit.  Bellevue University (though I'm just starting out), Western New Mexico University (just awful there) and St. Joseph's College of Maine.  Profit status has no bearing on a school's performance, if they get caught by their accrediting agency breezing people through, they're done. 

That being said Ashford is not owned by a publicly traded company, thus no "stock holders".  I have had some classes that were more interactive than others, but really some classes were so intense in the actual work that it was all we could do to meet the minimum posting requirements, which came as a lower priority being that they impacted the final grade less than say a research paper.

Bellevue which is non-profit has a pretty interactive forum but then they weight their grades to mandate such, at least in the class I was in.  Southwestern College, also a non-profit had some highly interactive classes and some with little or no interaction.  The bottom of the barrel was WNMU, a state school and non-profit where I had undergrads in the class with me, discussions were chaotic and I know I was plagerized at least once.  So again, profit status in my opinion was never the cause to the effect.

Which Ashford program are you in and how many classes are you into the program now?

Thanks for all the info!  This is very helpful.  Overall, my experience at Ashford has been more positive than negative.  I transferred in with an AA and have taken seven classes at Ashford.  Some of them have been excellent, and some... not so much.

I'm not a fan of the excellerated format, is another thing.  I'd rather take my time and be a part-time student, since I'm more or less taking classes for the experience of it anyway. 

I talked to someone at Southern New Hampshire University today, and she was definitely not a salesperson.   Very refreshing in a way, but I didn't get a lot of info out of her.  The social sciences program looks very compatible with what I've taken at community college as well as at Ashford and they offer a minor in sustainable development as well, which is very interesting to me.

 I'm curious about your experiences at Belleview so I will keep an eye on your blog.  Thanks again for all the info.

 Btw, Ashford is owned by Bridgpoint, which is publicly traded on the NYSE.  Here is the info about that.

I stand corrected, they are on the NYSE.  I thought they were owned by a private equity fund...my mistake.

That being said be careful of the "grass is greener" when eyeballing other schools, it can cost time, money and effort for little to no return.  Ashford has the slickest execution of any online learning I've ever seen, that being said not every school is right for everyone.  You may like Bellevue more being that they use a traditional semester length for their courses, but I suppose it boils down to your priorities and preferences.

majortomthecat:

I figured that all of this came with the territory of online education.  And then I read this article about for-profit schools in the Atlantic Monthly.  And it made me wonder...  Has anyone here noticed a difference between the quality of education in profit vs. non-profit online schools?  Does anyone have any non-profit schools they'd like to recommend?  Southern New Hampshire University has an online program similar to the one I'm doing at Ashford and I'm thinking of switching to that or another non-profit school.

http://community.elearners.com/blogs/atsu/archive/2009/10/29/what-s-wrong-with-for-profit-schools.aspx

I didn't even get to talk about accreditation, though, and that too is a factor.  Maybe tomorrow....

-=Steve=-

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply!  Tuition costs are a very important factor in deciding which school to attend, and for-profit schools are motivated to keep their costs down in order to compete, which is reflected in the list that you linked to.

I think that the reason the Washington Monthly accuses for-profit schools of being predatory is because many of them actively recruit students who, realistically, are less likely to finish their degrees and are going to have a very hard time paying back the loans.  An example of this is Ashford's practice of streamlining students into their first class before having them take a placement test. 

As you pointed out, the schools themselves are not alone in deserving blame for this - it's a broken system that's been created and is maintained by both Democrats and Republicans.  Non-profit schools are not under pressure from investors to get "asses in the classes" as the Washington Monthly phrased it, but as far as I know they could resort to these practices as well if they are not doing well and are depending on tuition to meet overhead costs.  I think that stricter regulations on entrance requirements are in order.

When for-profit schools are looking for ways to make investors happy, they can be tempted to cut corners in other areas as well,  which may explain why teachers employed by corporations typically get a smaller piece of the pie than do teachers at non-profit schools.  Personally, I'd rather attend a school that pays its teachers better because it attracts more qualified teachers.  I like the idea of my tuition money going back into the institution and the community rather than investors' pockets.

One thing that I find appealing about non-profits is that their existence is based on social obligations.  These schools were founded in order to improve society, so hopefully that's what they do best.  For-profit schools help society and individuals as well, but this is secondary to their primary purpose - which is to turn a profit for the investors.

majortomthecat:

Thanks for the reply!  Tuition costs are a very important factor in deciding which school to attend, and for-profit schools are motivated to keep their costs down in order to compete, which is reflected in the list that you linked to.

Unfortunately tuition costs aren't given the same amount of priority by every student.  A lot of times, when one can be lured by loans into thinking that the time to pay is so far off that it's just not that important how much that monthly bill will be.  And I think there are schools that know this and price themselves accordingly.

I think that the reason the Washington Monthly accuses for-profit schools of being predatory is because many of them actively recruit students who, realistically, are less likely to finish their degrees and are going to have a very hard time paying back the loans.  An example of this is Ashford's practice of streamlining students into their first class before having them take a placement test.

I can't speak to this.  I worked for a for-profit university, and they had a placement test as part of their admissions process, and no, they didn't admit everyone.  Most people, yes, but not everyone.

As you pointed out, the schools themselves are not alone in deserving blame for this - it's a broken system that's been created and is maintained by both Democrats and Republicans.  Non-profit schools are not under pressure from investors to get "asses in the classes" as the Washington Monthly phrased it, but as far as I know they could resort to these practices as well if they are not doing well and are depending on tuition to meet overhead costs.  I think that stricter regulations on entrance requirements are in order.

You're too kind to them.  Plenty of tuition-dependent non-profit schools are almost entirely non-selective.  I worked for one of those too, and the admissions people had a lot of pressure on them to make their numbers.

When for-profit schools are looking for ways to make investors happy, they can be tempted to cut corners in other areas as well,  which may explain why teachers employed by corporations typically get a smaller piece of the pie than do teachers at non-profit schools.  Personally, I'd rather attend a school that pays its teachers better because it attracts more qualified teachers.  I like the idea of my tuition money going back into the institution and the community rather than investors' pockets.

Why do you think instructors at proprietary schools are paid less than those at non-profit schools?  If we're talking about adjuncts, I don't think there's a categorical difference.  I teach online occasionally for a non-profit two-year college, and it's just beer money for me, I do it more because I like the school and want to keep teaching on my CV than for the money.

One thing that I find appealing about non-profits is that their existence is based on social obligations.  These schools were founded in order to improve society, so hopefully that's what they do best.  For-profit schools help society and individuals as well, but this is secondary to their primary purpose - which is to turn a profit for the investors.

Having worked for both kinds of institutions, I think this is one of those kinds of things where how things work in theory differs from how they work in practice.  Some non-profit schools are more socially minded, but it's not something one notices as a category.  And some proprietary schools seem very community minded.

-=Steve=-

In Ashford's defense, they are an "open" university which is concept that occassionally faces ridicule in the U.S. somewhat unfairly in my opinion.  They will admit anyone with the basic qualifications and put everyone to the same weedout process in the actual degree work itself.  It may seem cruel but it is also absolutely fair,everyone gets a legit shot unlike other schools who are going to use a screening and qualifying process to ensure or at least increase the liklihood of student success.  I'm not saying one approach is better or worse, only that they stem from 2 entirely different philosophies on who should be educated and where.

From my experience Ashford is more concerned with helping people through that first step of getting their degree which is often the toughest.  As far as I know they don't require a placement test, but then I was in their graduate program and did not have to take the GMAT or GRE.