Original article (external link)

As we all know, the focus should be on the benefit of the students. As testified by Greg Harris, the student, we can easily see the customer centered culture in the for-profit institutions and the slow change nature of those not-for-profit institutions. What can be more powerful than a customer's testimony?

A lot of things we see now all have logic reasons.
As we point out for profit will do what ever it can to make profit. The diversity in that sector reflect this simple truth. The spectrum ranging from the big power house like University of Phoenix to the misdemeanor diploma mill. The move of power house to obtain accreditation is simply a move to convince and persuade their customer. For one thing, I think it should not be interpreted as that they endorse the current accreditation system. The diploma mills, on the other hand, are just short-sighted companies that try to gain the short term profit by cheating on their customer. The rest of the sector are trying to survive between these two extreme.

A lot of the things we see in for-profit institution are no mysteries if you make analogy of our capitalized companies:
  • Do you think the course standardization will happen?
    • It might. But not all institution will follow. Just look at IT standard we have today, it happens but company will only adopted if it benefit them. Just look at how willingly Microsoft adopt some of the standards.

We also need understand that the very reason for-profit institution are so active is due to it's flexibility. If we tie them down with too much regulations, the industry will be dull and customer will be the looser. Their active is come from the flexibility of their operation. Each company are driven to creative in the name of the profit. The competition benefit customer.

We have learned. The regulation should be on the product and it have to be something objective or measurable. And it have to apply to all organization - no prestige organization allowed.

The open enrollment statement is a flaw. There is no saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks! It's may not be easy but it's not impossible. Besides, this benefit to the society. Oh, yes, prestige institution wouldn't want them since it will only bring them the possible bad outcome. It is true, for-profit could be just after students money, but not if we set a clear measure of the outcome.

Accreditation is to blaim!! They are prestige just like accredited institutions. They scratch each other's back for too long.

Labeling fight - The root of the problem, the label is not well defined and, therefore, can't be defended!

All of these support the call for standard test!!

My scratch
The title?
Diverse Business model - Large for-profit entering accreditation
Labeling -
Public own?
Course standard curriculum comparison - how this cut into the bottom line of for-profit and how realistic is this?? pedagogy?? How you get info about Phoenix??
One institution taking the lead??
Bad-outcome ?? A good one!!
state funding shortage - state are not immune
accreditation? does it matter? is it a good model?
Students' point of view - flexibility!
Slow change! Why? prestige!!
Next wave for for-profit!! - complain for outcome!!
The quality of Open enrollment

related notes
A lot of my opinions can be found in my earlier articles:
on Rioting in China Over Label on College Diplomas (external link)
  • How consumer model applied to higher Ed.
on Higher Ed. competency-based assessment (external link)
  • Why competency-based assessment should be considered.
on Report Calls for Tighter Rules on State's For-Profit Colleges (external link)
  • Why should we check the performance of both for-profit and non-for profit institutions.