Higher Ed GPS: How Will We Get Where We Are Going?

Call it what you will—for profit, private sector, proprietary—one sector of higher education has been largely defined by a number of statistics, including admissions, retention, graduation rates, and use of Title !V funding, to name a few. It is undoubtedly true that the for-profit segment has had its share of struggles. But to be fair, the entire sector has been painted with a broad brush that includes everything from dog grooming schools to regionally accredited universities.   For that reason, the numbers can sometimes be misleading.   And to be perfectly honest, public and private not for profit higher education also has had its share of embarrassment and scandal.   Check The Chronicle of Higher every week. But all that aside, there is another set of statistics that gets very little attention, one that helps to define the place of for profits in the larger context of higher education. Here are a few of the telling numbers. Number of for profit institutions re...

The following item appeared recently under Quick Hits in The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Daily Briefing: Descendants of slaves are  calling for restitution  from Georgetown University based on the profits it made from a sale of 272 slaves in 1838. Apparently the university has apologized, is determining how best to make amends, and is engaging in a long-term dialogue with descendants of slaves who demand restitution.   This entire situation is a primary example of the BS that is making a mockery of higher education in America.   Christian Smith opened the can of bullshit in his piece entitled “Higher Education is Drowning in BS,” published on January 9 in CHE.   It is a scathingly accurate introduction to the silliness that pervades the higher education community, silliness that undercuts the very credibility of higher education and obviates its ability to address major societal concerns.   I have my own list of gripes, some of which appear ...

A recent article by Joshua Kim in IHE admonishes institutions not to pursue online education for the money.  He rightly points out that online education should not be viewed as a quick fix for revenue shortfall.  Instead, online should be aligned with mission and strategic goals as part of a larger institutional strategy.  In the comment section of the article, Anthony Pina expands on this perspective, suggesting that quick profits are attainable by developing online programs, but too often at the expense of quality and in the long run failing to meet student needs by building a sustainable infrastructure. Both authors are on target.  However, these insightful remarks miss the larger point. It's not just about the money in either the short or long run. It's not even just about mission alignment, quality,  and serving today's students. It's about bringing higher education into the mainstream of society. Outside of higher education, online (read: technology) IS ...

I spent a good portion of my career in higher education in the “for profit” sector.   As such, I was frequently criticized for the funding model of institutions where I worked, especially as compared to public non-profit higher education, where education is supposedly a public good and not a commodity.   For the publics, of course, budgeting is a zero-sum game, where the expenses and revenues balance out.   On the other hand, for profits rake in huge sums of money that go mostly to investors, at the expense of academics and student services, right? Wrong.   Thanks to a restrictive regulatory environment, for profits are accountable for reporting where all the money comes from and where it goes.   My institutions regularly filed reports detailing how (and how much) money came in and how it was allotted to various areas, including marketing, academics, etc.   Oh, yes, and the reports included the amount of state, local and other taxes we paid. Of cou...