In "Fix the For-Profit Colleges," (9/25/2011), the Press Telegram correctly points out the important role that career colleges play in educating low-income students who work part-time or need to attend classes at night or online. The author contends that these schools are "a much better choice" than community colleges for this segment of the American population. But then he goes on to make the outrageous assertion that "many of the for-profits themselves are in a corrupt relationship with the government, siphoning off up to 90% of their revenue from grants and loans, then leaving the bills to taxpayers when almost half of those students default." His solution: for-profits should "screen their student applicants for college readiness, and assume some of the losses when students default."
The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities represents the for-profit education arena. And we have news for the Press Telegram: our sector--far from being in a "corrupt relationship" with government-is actually highly regulated by a triad of state, federal and regional authorities. We advocate the highest standards of conduct for our members, and lead webinars for them on key regulatory developments and compliance issues so they will be operating in accordance with the law.
As you correctly point out, America needs both community colleges and career colleges to reach President Obama's ambitious goal for global postsecondary leadership. The problems of student debt, however, are less about "greasing palms" and more about understanding the nature of a special cadre of men and women, sometimes called non-traditional students, who burn the midnight oil to study, work and turn their lives around. If better screening were the answer to anything, all students who attend colleges and universities using merit based admissions criteria would graduate. Only about half do. Whether open admissions or selective admissions, student motivation and perseverance are elusive qualities, not susceptible to easy measurement.
To find out more, we invite the Press Telegram's columnist to visit our YouTube channel: www.youtube.org/ccamedia1, and listen to some stories of real students talking about how their career college education transformed their lives.
Brian Moran
Interim CEO and President
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Kudos to theatlantic.com
Kudos to theatlantic.com for figuring out what we have been saying for months, greater transparency not more complicated policy formulas are needed to assure the return on investment for all college students. Historic patterns of jobs and work are shifting, and while a college degree cannot guarantee upward mobility or a comfortable middle class lifestyle, we know that only value added education and skills are likely to lead to value added employment. In the vacuum created by manufacturing jobs having gone offshore, we need to provide prospective college students-both young and not so young-with the information they need to make effective
choices. So let's focus on the risks faced by every skill seeker in the new economy and not allow policymakers to skirt the issue by scapegoating with one type of school or student.
Brian Moran
Interim President and CEO
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
In reference to The Atlantic article, Do Colleges Need a 'Calorie Count'?, by Julie Margetta Morgan on Sept. 27, 2011.
choices. So let's focus on the risks faced by every skill seeker in the new economy and not allow policymakers to skirt the issue by scapegoating with one type of school or student.
Brian Moran
Interim President and CEO
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
In reference to The Atlantic article, Do Colleges Need a 'Calorie Count'?, by Julie Margetta Morgan on Sept. 27, 2011.
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg gives introductory remarks at an APSCU Event
Introductory remarks by Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President Emeritus, George Washington University at the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities panel event “Creating the Classroom of the Future: Technological Innovation Transforming Higher Education” on September 21, 2011.
I’m delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words about the world of educational technology, to which career colleges have played an important role, and contributed many innovations in the field, such as e-learning.
For the first 40 years of my academic career, I dictated all my correspondence to a group of administrative assistants well trained in the art of stenography – a short-hand method of communication that allows the note taker to copy down verbatim speech in real time by using a collection symbols that can best be described as a mixture of script and geometry, a combination of straight and curved lines, large and small, with open and closed forms that, to the untrained eye, look like a doctor’s signature on the bottom of a prescription. Stenography’s roots go back to ancient Greece; contains a heavy dose of influence from Japan and China; and its modern form was perfected during the 19th century by two Englishmen.
Stenography’s popularity in the last century is quite similar to the present-day 21st century net lingo abbreviations: B-T-W (by the way), L-O-L (lots of laughs or laughing out loud), O-M-G (oh my God) – each of which in shorthand is comprised of a set of three strokes made by the quick flick of the wrist going up, down and across the page. You might say that my speeches were translated into “text messages” years prior to my knowledge of that term.
I’m sure you have all heard that Al Gore invented the Internet. Well, today, I wish to publicly stake a similar claim that has not previously appeared in the news. Long before the Winklevoss twins told Mark Zuckerberg that THEY and not HE invited Facebook, I – Stephen Joel Trachtenberg - created social networking. Just ask any of the hundreds of friends of mine who are linked together by shared common interests: administrators I mentored are now college presidents communicating regularly with each other about their work; nineteen GW alumni, who served as presidents of the student-association, regularly chat with each other about jobs and family; classmates from James Madison High School share vacation plans and photos, and so on. I must have started over two-dozen “friends-groups” - some with more privacy controls than others.
Now, it’s true, I used phones, faxes and the U.S. mail to get my messages from place to place, and not the Internet, but that is a mere technically, as they say.
The development of communications technology is evolutionary - like so many other human tools: it began in pre-historic times with sharp rocks and pictograms on cave walls; it morphed into blinking lights from ship to ship at sea; smoke rings signaling war, peace and Papal elections; dots and dashes across the wires of telegraphic messages; to apps on smart-phones and with everything in-between from charcoal to pencils to lasers – from fresco cycles to power point. Technology is but an aid for the answers to three basic questions:
In schools we teach techniques for investigation: critical thinking, judgment, methods of experimentation and research, and explorations of creativity. For each generation, new technology allows individuals to probe deeper, calculate faster and make connections to more complicated and random factoids than ever before.
Bless technology for the aid it provides the learning process, but never succumb to the belief that it is THE ultimate panacea.
Remember that every generation considers what they are witnessing in real time to be novel and unique, newly minted and original. Let’s not typecast memories merely as anachronisms of an earlier era but understand they represent trends and linkages from the past going forward.
Students need proper tools to excel. They require and deserve schools with roofs that don’t leak, windows that open and close, toilets that flush, classrooms that come with chairs, desks and computers, hot lunches, outdoor play spaces for their bodies, and most of all, teachers who are competent, enthusiastic and able to excite young minds. Children taught under these conditions will come to college prepared to intellectually soar.
When they get to universities, they need find places that are economically affordable and well managed, institutions that utilize the resources of human capital, physical plants and technological infra-structure to provide options for learning that fit a variety of learning styles and academic disciplines. For some, one-on-one tutorials will be best while for others e-learning will provide the most suitable format. Place-based campuses will serve one group while at home e-learning centers suit others.
Location, delivery systems and instructional styles will increasingly become more and of a smorgasbord, a table where the learner will actively participate in what and how she learns.
The electronic platform will be a social equalizer, reducing the hierarchy between professor and students, leveling the playing field by giving students added power over curriculum. In a method of open-source learning, the questions and answers will continually flow to and from tutor and student, pushing the envelope to new heights. Courses will be free flowing lines of inquiry, motivated not only by faculty expertise but also by individual student and group projects that are shared activities.
During the 1980s, the Carter Administration, the high cost of energy drove colleges and universities in New England to close down for a month during the coldest part of the winter. With remote access to lectures and libraries, that old type of hiatus is unnecessary.
Over the years, GW has worked closely with the U.S. Navy to offer continuing education instruction to sailors serving on submarines and aircraft carriers floating around the world. At first, this was accomplished by using VHS tapes – those bulky black boxes once considered state of the art portable learning. Of course, with the advent of more advanced technology the delivery systems have changed formats many times but the general concept of studying while sailing continues.
If students can work at the bottom of the ocean, why can they not also do so on the surface of the moon, or for that matter, from their living rooms or office cubicles? Pod-casts can travel with you in a slender holder smaller than an old-fashioned cigarette case.
It is the interaction with knowledge, not the mere passive acceptance of information that makes the difference. To make a break through in knowledge, you must walk in front of technology, not sit behind it. As the saying on the T-shirt points out, “If you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.”
Innovation is the key to success.
Watch a replay of the live event on the APSCU Website.
I’m delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words about the world of educational technology, to which career colleges have played an important role, and contributed many innovations in the field, such as e-learning.
For the first 40 years of my academic career, I dictated all my correspondence to a group of administrative assistants well trained in the art of stenography – a short-hand method of communication that allows the note taker to copy down verbatim speech in real time by using a collection symbols that can best be described as a mixture of script and geometry, a combination of straight and curved lines, large and small, with open and closed forms that, to the untrained eye, look like a doctor’s signature on the bottom of a prescription. Stenography’s roots go back to ancient Greece; contains a heavy dose of influence from Japan and China; and its modern form was perfected during the 19th century by two Englishmen.
Stenography’s popularity in the last century is quite similar to the present-day 21st century net lingo abbreviations: B-T-W (by the way), L-O-L (lots of laughs or laughing out loud), O-M-G (oh my God) – each of which in shorthand is comprised of a set of three strokes made by the quick flick of the wrist going up, down and across the page. You might say that my speeches were translated into “text messages” years prior to my knowledge of that term.
I’m sure you have all heard that Al Gore invented the Internet. Well, today, I wish to publicly stake a similar claim that has not previously appeared in the news. Long before the Winklevoss twins told Mark Zuckerberg that THEY and not HE invited Facebook, I – Stephen Joel Trachtenberg - created social networking. Just ask any of the hundreds of friends of mine who are linked together by shared common interests: administrators I mentored are now college presidents communicating regularly with each other about their work; nineteen GW alumni, who served as presidents of the student-association, regularly chat with each other about jobs and family; classmates from James Madison High School share vacation plans and photos, and so on. I must have started over two-dozen “friends-groups” - some with more privacy controls than others.
Now, it’s true, I used phones, faxes and the U.S. mail to get my messages from place to place, and not the Internet, but that is a mere technically, as they say.
The development of communications technology is evolutionary - like so many other human tools: it began in pre-historic times with sharp rocks and pictograms on cave walls; it morphed into blinking lights from ship to ship at sea; smoke rings signaling war, peace and Papal elections; dots and dashes across the wires of telegraphic messages; to apps on smart-phones and with everything in-between from charcoal to pencils to lasers – from fresco cycles to power point. Technology is but an aid for the answers to three basic questions:
- What more can we discover?
- How can we share with each other what we have learned?
- How best to preserve what we know?
In schools we teach techniques for investigation: critical thinking, judgment, methods of experimentation and research, and explorations of creativity. For each generation, new technology allows individuals to probe deeper, calculate faster and make connections to more complicated and random factoids than ever before.
Bless technology for the aid it provides the learning process, but never succumb to the belief that it is THE ultimate panacea.
Remember that every generation considers what they are witnessing in real time to be novel and unique, newly minted and original. Let’s not typecast memories merely as anachronisms of an earlier era but understand they represent trends and linkages from the past going forward.
Students need proper tools to excel. They require and deserve schools with roofs that don’t leak, windows that open and close, toilets that flush, classrooms that come with chairs, desks and computers, hot lunches, outdoor play spaces for their bodies, and most of all, teachers who are competent, enthusiastic and able to excite young minds. Children taught under these conditions will come to college prepared to intellectually soar.
When they get to universities, they need find places that are economically affordable and well managed, institutions that utilize the resources of human capital, physical plants and technological infra-structure to provide options for learning that fit a variety of learning styles and academic disciplines. For some, one-on-one tutorials will be best while for others e-learning will provide the most suitable format. Place-based campuses will serve one group while at home e-learning centers suit others.
Location, delivery systems and instructional styles will increasingly become more and of a smorgasbord, a table where the learner will actively participate in what and how she learns.
The electronic platform will be a social equalizer, reducing the hierarchy between professor and students, leveling the playing field by giving students added power over curriculum. In a method of open-source learning, the questions and answers will continually flow to and from tutor and student, pushing the envelope to new heights. Courses will be free flowing lines of inquiry, motivated not only by faculty expertise but also by individual student and group projects that are shared activities.
During the 1980s, the Carter Administration, the high cost of energy drove colleges and universities in New England to close down for a month during the coldest part of the winter. With remote access to lectures and libraries, that old type of hiatus is unnecessary.
Over the years, GW has worked closely with the U.S. Navy to offer continuing education instruction to sailors serving on submarines and aircraft carriers floating around the world. At first, this was accomplished by using VHS tapes – those bulky black boxes once considered state of the art portable learning. Of course, with the advent of more advanced technology the delivery systems have changed formats many times but the general concept of studying while sailing continues.
If students can work at the bottom of the ocean, why can they not also do so on the surface of the moon, or for that matter, from their living rooms or office cubicles? Pod-casts can travel with you in a slender holder smaller than an old-fashioned cigarette case.
It is the interaction with knowledge, not the mere passive acceptance of information that makes the difference. To make a break through in knowledge, you must walk in front of technology, not sit behind it. As the saying on the T-shirt points out, “If you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.”
Innovation is the key to success.
Watch a replay of the live event on the APSCU Website.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Doing the Military a Disservice, a response to Campus Progress
In response to the Campus Progress article, Student Veterans and For-Profit Colleges: A Match Made in Hell? by Emily Crockett on September 23, 2011.
Campus Progress has one hell of a nerve, leaning left while trashing the hard won education of non-traditional students, including roughly 150,000 service members and veterans now attending private sector colleges and universities (Student Veterans and For-Profit Colleges: A Match Made in Hell? September 23, 2001). Having served their country, many putting themselves in harm’s way to do so, these are individuals who have first-hand experience with predators. While Campus Progress clearly revels in the idea of "predatory for-profit schools," does it not do military service and veteran students attending private sector colleges and universities a great disservice by describing this education as worthless? Were the education indeed worthless, would not word spread like hellfire through the military ranks? Or is this the case of an agenda driven organization feeding on the misfortune of a particular military student?
A few other points of clarification: looking within their respective student body populations, private sector colleges and universities educate about the same number of undergraduates as do private non-profit colleges and universities. The ratio of students to Post 9/11 GI bill dollars is also the same. Private colleges and universities do not receive generous taxpayer subsidies as do public colleges and universities, thus explaining the relative difference in GI bill dollars spent. Add the taxpayer dollars back into the equation and differences vanish.
PSCUs serve significantly poorer student populations. As a result, PSCU default rates are higher than schools serving more affluent students. Dropout rates are another matter. If only about half of traditional college and university students graduate, where do the rest of these students go? While the prevalence of short-term certificate and diploma programs at PSCUs make "apples and apples" comparisons with traditional colleges difficult, one suspects that those termed dropouts by Campus Progress are actually completers now on the job and getting on with life.
On including GI Bill benefits in the 90-10 calculation, if we are going to start telling military service and veteran students where they can spend their earned benefits perhaps we should also limit their spending at community colleges whose graduation rates fall below a certain threshold—say 50 percent. Otherwise, why throw this money away on otherwise worthless education? Perhaps because choice among competing higher education alternatives is critical less postsecondary education come to resemble public K-12 education.
And using the discredited GAO report as the touchstone for finding abuse in the PSCU sector? The agency had to modify its findings and reshuffle its investigative staff. One abuse of military service students or veterans is one abuse too many. Perhaps that rule should start with Campus Progress.
Campus Progress has one hell of a nerve, leaning left while trashing the hard won education of non-traditional students, including roughly 150,000 service members and veterans now attending private sector colleges and universities (Student Veterans and For-Profit Colleges: A Match Made in Hell? September 23, 2001). Having served their country, many putting themselves in harm’s way to do so, these are individuals who have first-hand experience with predators. While Campus Progress clearly revels in the idea of "predatory for-profit schools," does it not do military service and veteran students attending private sector colleges and universities a great disservice by describing this education as worthless? Were the education indeed worthless, would not word spread like hellfire through the military ranks? Or is this the case of an agenda driven organization feeding on the misfortune of a particular military student?
A few other points of clarification: looking within their respective student body populations, private sector colleges and universities educate about the same number of undergraduates as do private non-profit colleges and universities. The ratio of students to Post 9/11 GI bill dollars is also the same. Private colleges and universities do not receive generous taxpayer subsidies as do public colleges and universities, thus explaining the relative difference in GI bill dollars spent. Add the taxpayer dollars back into the equation and differences vanish.
PSCUs serve significantly poorer student populations. As a result, PSCU default rates are higher than schools serving more affluent students. Dropout rates are another matter. If only about half of traditional college and university students graduate, where do the rest of these students go? While the prevalence of short-term certificate and diploma programs at PSCUs make "apples and apples" comparisons with traditional colleges difficult, one suspects that those termed dropouts by Campus Progress are actually completers now on the job and getting on with life.
On including GI Bill benefits in the 90-10 calculation, if we are going to start telling military service and veteran students where they can spend their earned benefits perhaps we should also limit their spending at community colleges whose graduation rates fall below a certain threshold—say 50 percent. Otherwise, why throw this money away on otherwise worthless education? Perhaps because choice among competing higher education alternatives is critical less postsecondary education come to resemble public K-12 education.
And using the discredited GAO report as the touchstone for finding abuse in the PSCU sector? The agency had to modify its findings and reshuffle its investigative staff. One abuse of military service students or veterans is one abuse too many. Perhaps that rule should start with Campus Progress.
Response to The New York Times Op Ed Piece
In response to The New York Times Op Ed, For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.'s by Hollister K. Petraeus on September 21, 2011.
One instance of a military service member being abused by an unscrupulous for-profit college is one instance too many. Having served our country, service members deserve our unqualified support. But how does it serve the interests of these individuals to make claims in the nation's leading newspaper, not substantiated, that cast a pall over the educations of roughly 150,000 service members and veterans now attending private sector colleges and universities? That is exactly the tactic used in a recent op-ed by Holly Petraeus in the New York Times (For Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.'s, September 22, 2011).
Much is made of the fact that GI Bill dollars are not included in the government's 90-10 calculation, a regulation that requires career colleges eligible to participate in Title IV student aid programs receive no more than 90 percent of their funding from Title IV sources. This distinction leads Petraeus to conclude that for-profit colleges have an incentive "to see service members as nothing more than dollar signs in uniform." On reputation and word of mouth alone, schools over-marketing and under-serving military students would quickly fail. Yet the author creates the impression that our schools act in a venal way as a matter of course, rather than as a matter of a few isolated exceptions (such as is the case at every level of higher education).
As a society, we've moved beyond the point where we hold the group accountable for the actions of an individual member. Yet Petraeus castigates our sector with a very broad brush, basing her attack on opinions, not data.
For instance, in charging that for-profits "generally" have low graduation rates and a poor record of student placement, Petraeus ignores the fact that two-year career colleges out-perform community colleges in terms of graduation rates three to one or that nationally accredited career colleges place 70 percent of their graduates. While it is true that career colleges do have higher-than-average student default rates, it is equally true that career colleges serve a higher-than-average percentage of at-risk students-single moms, the less affluent, older workers, and, yes, military service members and veterans. Petraeus also cites the difficulty that career college students have transferring credits between institutions but fails to mention the difficulty that any student has in transferring credits, regardless of the school he or she attends. She talks about "a number" of for-profit colleges with questionable credentials. But what number? If the Department of Education’s own program reviews are the basis for drawing any conclusions, that number is very small.
It's time to start beating our rhetorical swords into plowshares, fostering the type of dialogue that puts our military students first, eliminating abuses where they exist, but not calling into question the hard work and accomplishments of those who have attended America's career colleges.
Jim Hutton, PhD
Communications Committee Chairman
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
One instance of a military service member being abused by an unscrupulous for-profit college is one instance too many. Having served our country, service members deserve our unqualified support. But how does it serve the interests of these individuals to make claims in the nation's leading newspaper, not substantiated, that cast a pall over the educations of roughly 150,000 service members and veterans now attending private sector colleges and universities? That is exactly the tactic used in a recent op-ed by Holly Petraeus in the New York Times (For Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.'s, September 22, 2011).
Much is made of the fact that GI Bill dollars are not included in the government's 90-10 calculation, a regulation that requires career colleges eligible to participate in Title IV student aid programs receive no more than 90 percent of their funding from Title IV sources. This distinction leads Petraeus to conclude that for-profit colleges have an incentive "to see service members as nothing more than dollar signs in uniform." On reputation and word of mouth alone, schools over-marketing and under-serving military students would quickly fail. Yet the author creates the impression that our schools act in a venal way as a matter of course, rather than as a matter of a few isolated exceptions (such as is the case at every level of higher education).
As a society, we've moved beyond the point where we hold the group accountable for the actions of an individual member. Yet Petraeus castigates our sector with a very broad brush, basing her attack on opinions, not data.
For instance, in charging that for-profits "generally" have low graduation rates and a poor record of student placement, Petraeus ignores the fact that two-year career colleges out-perform community colleges in terms of graduation rates three to one or that nationally accredited career colleges place 70 percent of their graduates. While it is true that career colleges do have higher-than-average student default rates, it is equally true that career colleges serve a higher-than-average percentage of at-risk students-single moms, the less affluent, older workers, and, yes, military service members and veterans. Petraeus also cites the difficulty that career college students have transferring credits between institutions but fails to mention the difficulty that any student has in transferring credits, regardless of the school he or she attends. She talks about "a number" of for-profit colleges with questionable credentials. But what number? If the Department of Education’s own program reviews are the basis for drawing any conclusions, that number is very small.
It's time to start beating our rhetorical swords into plowshares, fostering the type of dialogue that puts our military students first, eliminating abuses where they exist, but not calling into question the hard work and accomplishments of those who have attended America's career colleges.
Jim Hutton, PhD
Communications Committee Chairman
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Response to a Newsday Article
In response to a Newday Article: Chef-school students protest ripoff on September 5, 2011.
People "lured" to follow their dreams? That point of view is difficult to swallow. No doubt the culinary arts are a "passion profession." Those attending culinary arts programs should be thinking in terms of long term careers rather than graduating to jobs providing instant monetary gratification. And certainly, in deciding to pursue a passion, students should have the best available information to trade off the demands and rewards of a given profession. It's silly to suggest, however, that the experience of two disgruntled students, participating in litigation, are indicative of the thousands of individuals now in culinary programs. Or that students do not receive value by attending and graduating from these programs. Many jobs don't offer generous compensation starting out, but that doesn't stop journalists, teachers, social workers, and others pursuing a career passion from making their professional start. Nor should it stop chefs, patissiers, sommeliers, or others with a taste for the food and beverage life. Students should pick the program that best suits their needs and interests. For some, that will no doubt mean low cost, publicly subsidized community college. For others, those interested in a more immersive and personalized education, a career college is the best recipe for success.
People "lured" to follow their dreams? That point of view is difficult to swallow. No doubt the culinary arts are a "passion profession." Those attending culinary arts programs should be thinking in terms of long term careers rather than graduating to jobs providing instant monetary gratification. And certainly, in deciding to pursue a passion, students should have the best available information to trade off the demands and rewards of a given profession. It's silly to suggest, however, that the experience of two disgruntled students, participating in litigation, are indicative of the thousands of individuals now in culinary programs. Or that students do not receive value by attending and graduating from these programs. Many jobs don't offer generous compensation starting out, but that doesn't stop journalists, teachers, social workers, and others pursuing a career passion from making their professional start. Nor should it stop chefs, patissiers, sommeliers, or others with a taste for the food and beverage life. Students should pick the program that best suits their needs and interests. For some, that will no doubt mean low cost, publicly subsidized community college. For others, those interested in a more immersive and personalized education, a career college is the best recipe for success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


