Search News


Browse Archives

News

Defeat for For-Profit Model

January 12, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The University of Illinois has been pushing for months to create a new campus dramatically different from the existing ones at Urbana-Champaign, Chicago and Springfield. The new campus would be entirely online, and staffed almost entirely by adjuncts who would not report to regular academic departments. The new entity -- the University of Illinois Global Campus -- would also be a private, for-profit business and would focus on high-demand fields.

That was the theory. And although some professors helped develop the plan, faculty leaders and many rank and file professors didn't like it at all. The senates at all three campuses opposed the plan and on Wednesday, the administration and faculty leaders announced that the new campus would be totally revamped.

On Wednesday evening, administrators and faculty leaders sent an e-mail to the campuses announcing that the effort would be renamed the Global Campus Partnership to reflect their agreement that every new online program would have a partnership with an existing academic department. And while the e-mail message did not say so explicitly, faculty and administrative leaders confirmed that the new entity would be nonprofit, would not seek its own accreditation, and would be under the academic control of the faculty. Courses will be designed and supervised by faculty members in existing academic departments.

Nationally, many professors worry about the increasing push to apply for-profit models to traditional higher education -- an approach that has been particularly appealing to administrators (with mixed results) in online education. In Illinois, that approach was shut down.

"The administration could have moved ahead with its own model, but it would have had no faculty support," said Terry Bodenhorn, a professor of history at the university's Springfield campus and chair of the University Senates Conference, which includes representatives from all of the Illinois campuses.

Bodenhorn was among a small group of professors that drafted an alternative structure for the new campus in the last month -- a model that university administrators agreed to this week.

"I want to give a lot of credit to President Joe White, who I think correctly saw that the goals and the mission of the Global Campus were more valuable to him than the specifics of how it was done, so he was willing to consider these alternative structures we were proposing. And these structures would still allow him to create the scale he was looking for," Bodenhorn said.

For professors, Bodenhorn said, the key issue was that the new online entity fit into "the academic model." He said that under the agreement reached with the administration, the "master teacher" approach will be used. Instead of having new online programs created by administrators alone in the Web division, existing academic departments will create programs, and each course will have a permanent, regular faculty member to design and plan it (and sometimes to teach it). While adjuncts may teach some sections, they will report to the faculty members who create the courses, Bodenhorn said.

Faculty leaders agreed that the university could have an "incubation system" to plan online offerings in areas where faculty members had not stepped forward. But even those offerings would have to be approved by a traditional academic department, which would then supervise, Bodenhorn said.

What is key, he added, is that the online effort "will be an academic unit, and not specifically a profit-seeking center."

Because all of the academic programs would be affiliated with existing academic programs, he added, there will not be an effort to get separate accreditation for the online program.

Bodenhorn, who has taught online, stressed that the faculty opposition to the original plan was based on concerns about governance and academic values, and not opposition to online education. He said that many professors who have been involved in the effort to kill the idea of a for-profit unit within the university system are in fact excited about the university offering more programs online.

Thomas P. Hardy, a spokesman for the Illinois system, confirmed that the online program would now be nonprofit, and that academic programs would remain connected to existing departments. Hardy said that administrators had wanted the structure they proposed originally because they wanted it to be "a little more nimble and to respond to the market more quickly than perhaps you would get through the traditional academic unit structure."

But he said that officials were committed to working with faculty members, and were pleased with the interest in online education. "The faculty unquestionably agreed with the concept here in terms of why to do it, and how it matches up with a big public university's mission," he said. "Where there was difference of opinion was on how to do it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Defeat for For-Profit Model

  • Distance Learning is the future wave
  • Posted by NLP , Dr. at Ateneo on July 23, 2007 at 5:50am EDT
  • More and more people are on the go. Families migrate, businessmen taking weekly transcontinental flights, students always exploring new cultures.

    The only way to give them education is with services constrained neither by time nor space.

    I believe the distance learning systems fits the evolving cultural landscape.

    After all, by what standards, and according to whom is classroom education the one true perfect source of knowledge?

    Socrates and Aristotle wandered around to teach: perfect examples of distance learning!

  • Posted by Colleen on July 23, 2007 at 11:45am EDT
  • As a online student i think that this is great! I give credit UI for being the first to step out and try something new. I wish them much success.

  • Protection of academia or academics?
  • Posted by Merit Scholar at Distance Learning Student & Instructor on January 12, 2007 at 8:15am EST
  • While I completely understand unversity faculty wanting to protect the reputation of their institution, the reworking of the Global Campus to require on-campus faculty oversight denies the reality of the changing landscape of academia.

    As IHE has reported, there have been significant changes to the tenure-track over the past several years. Some of that change has been prompted by online offerings taught by off-campus faculty.

    The graduate of totally online graduate program and now an adjunct instructor for two conventional universities' online divisions, I have seen a staggering variance in how such programs are administered.

    One treats every instructor as independent contractors. Despite being the only instructor (on or offline) for a particular class, with no advanced consultation, I was forced recently to include an additional text to my class because the on-site faculty deemed it necessary. The other program seems to treat its online adjuncts the same as those campus-based, except that there is no online "tenure track." One conceivably could teach as many online classes as a full-time faculty member does on-campus, but the only way to establish a career is to physicially be on campus.

    I very much enjoy my online teaching. It permitted me workable alternative cash flow during graduate school. But now that I have graduated myself, it would be nice to capitalize on the working relationships I have already established.

    For all of the concern/complaints about the growing pool of adjuncts and the proliferation of online programs, instead of keeping them the part-time protectorate of established faculty, why not capitalize on the same techology which allows for online learning to integrate off-campus online faculty as true members of the academy?

  • Balancing Centralization-Decentralization
  • Posted by University Prof on January 12, 2007 at 8:50am EST
  • There's no simple answer to the questions the university is facing, however, by choosing not to centralize operations, and allowing each academic department to control course development and standards, they will likely find - as many other institutions have - that the output is extremely inconsistent and relatively costly to maintain.

  • It's all about control
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A "tired" retired Business Professor on January 12, 2007 at 11:30am EST
  • In my first 37 year career as a public servant in a civil service job, I rose to a reasonable level of responsibility in managing a large department approaching a billion dollars in program funds. I used to think the politics (small "p", internal wrangling and fighting and not the large "P", legitimate decision-making and governance) was bad. But..., in my second 18 year career when I joined with a higher education institution for esoteric reasons of giving back and developing the future leaders, I was rudely awakened to the fact that the politics I have learned in getting the job done in the public sector didn't hold a candle to the personally vicious, unethical, demeaning (I could go on with descriptors) political infighting that goes on in higher education in the US with little or no "management", I began to understand the appalling lack of oversight and accountability that goes with it.

    What we see here is another attempt by coddled, selfish, protective so-called educators to prevent a legitimate strategic direction that will serve the future generations that we have largely failed to date and bring them the world view they need to lead in the coming millenium. My plaudits to the UOI administration for this bold move and I urge them to move will all due speed to establish the program. My alma mater at Penn State has lead the way in this area successfully for years. Will the faculty of the UOI be up to the challenge or will they wallow in their own "navel-gazing" politics?

  • Costs
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on January 12, 2007 at 11:30am EST
  • Well, University Prof, that's the thing about maintaining academic standards and faculty governance. It's not cheap. Why does everybody think education should be cheap? Efficient, sure, I understand that. But all the hard core capitalists & freemarketeers who so freely criticize academia ought to understand the implications of one of their favorite cliches: You get what you pay for.

    I'm not against on-line courses, by the way. I'm designing & will be teaching one this summer. It is a regular university course developed through the usual channels by a regular member of the faculty. What's so hard about that?

  • Academic Model
  • Posted by PS on January 12, 2007 at 11:35am EST
  • By "academic model," did the U of I professor mean the model that has remained virtually unchanged for hundreds of years and exists to serve the needs of the professor, as opposed to the needs of the learner, and for which there is little to no evidence it actually enhances learning and development? For a group of alleged innovative and creative thinkers who advocate change for everyone else in society ('outside' the walls of the academy) and its social structures, professors are sure a bunch of hypocritical, uncritical change-resisters when it comes to themselves.

  • Academic quality and the 2-class system
  • Posted by Sarah Ullman , Professor at University of Illinois at Chicago on January 12, 2007 at 12:45pm EST
  • Many faculty wish to preserve a model in public higher education that has yielded great value to society in terms of teaching and educating citizens, producing research that informs the human condition and has applied uses, and providing service to society and our communities, because we see the value it gives to students and ultimately citizens in a democratic society. Academia remains the only institution where open debate on controversial issues can occur informed by knowledge generated by faculty research. Public higher education has given access to the same educational experiences once reserved for only the elite of society.

    The current fiscal realities appear to be the driving force behind all institutions (public, private, corporate, nonprofit) seeking to outsource their ever-shrinking pool of full time employees with benefits and produce a cheaper product. Unfortunately, an educated mind is not the equivalent of a product that yields an immediate profit. This leads to a mismatch when trying to apply business principles to higher education.

    I agree with the poster who said "you get what you pay for." Replacing residential campus programs with distance education is not going to yield the same experience for students, and will likely only further the 2-class system for those seeking a college degree as well as for the workers employed by academic institutions. Certainly, enhancing traditional programs with some online courses or creating hybrid courses may in fact be useful and give students more choices.

    I strongly recommend a recent book by Mary Burgan (2006) "Whatever happened to the faculty? Drift and decision in higher education" - John Hopkins University Press.

    She addresses the current faculty situation in a comprehensive manner and also has an excellent chapter on distance education in which she discusses some of the myths about the ease with which distance education is purported to solve these financial problems. Data she cites suggest it is far from clear that it costs less, takes less time to develop/teach such courses, or leads to better learning outcomes. Furthermore, dropout rates from distance learning programs are twice that of traditional programs, which is frequently left unmentioned in discussions of this subject.

  • A Victory for Shared Governance
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , Professor at University of Illinois on January 12, 2007 at 1:45pm EST
  • This is a tremendously important victory for my colleagues in Illinois. The original proposal would have had the corporation own all the courses faculty designed. It would have had administrators without specific disciplinary expertise--rather than faculty subjected to peer review--designing curricula. The university would have created a whole new major educational endeavor without any faculty oversight. The long-term impact on shared governance and the faculty role in higher education would have been immensely destructive. Congratulations to those who fought this fight, for it had both local and national implications.

  • U Illinois Global Campus
  • Posted by Paul Marthers , Dean of Admission at Reed College on January 12, 2007 at 2:00pm EST
  • This is also about "brand," and Illinois faculty rightly do not want to see their institution's brand get compromised or diluted.

  • A victory?
  • Posted by B.D. on January 12, 2007 at 7:25pm EST
  • " .. Congratulations to those who fought this fight .."

    Yes -- now all that has to be done is (1) make it affordable and (2) uniquely valued in a ocean of competitors. Good luck.

  • Posted by P.P. on January 13, 2007 at 1:00pm EST
  • It is too bad that people continue to be misinformed about the Global Campus Initiative. For example, Dr. Nelson seems confused about who would design courses for the Global Campus. First off, Dr. Nelson states that according to the Global Campus plan, courses designed by faculty would be owned by “the corporation.” Then Dr. Nelson states that according to the Global Campus Plan, courses wouldn’t be designed by faculty. Well, would the faculty design courses or the Global Campus or not?

    One simply needs to read the following passage in the Frequently Asked Questions document http://www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/reports_retreats/Global_Campus/GC_FAQs.asp document posted in September 2006 on the UI Web site to answer the question:

    “Tenure-system faculty from the Chicago, Springfield, and Urbana-Champaign campuses will have an integral role in the Global Campus. They will be involved in course and program design, program oversight, and may elect to teach online courses. UI faculty will also provide oversight of the programs through the campus faculty senates (who must approve all campus programs offered in collaboration with the Global Campus) to ensure that the highest quality academic standards are achieved and maintained.”

  • It's a New World
  • Posted by John W. Bales , Professor at Tuskegee University on January 14, 2007 at 11:35am EST
  • For profit online education is coming. Faculty at traditional institutions will not, for the most part, be a part of it. Forget them and move on.

  • UI is already a success online
  • Posted by Jeff Harmon on January 15, 2007 at 11:10am EST
  • It appears that most readers do not realize that the University of Illinois is already a leader in nonprofit online higher education. You can browse the UI's 60 plus online programs at http://www.online.uillinois.edu/catalog/Programs.asp.

    The only problem with the UI's existing offerings is that most of the high demand programs are at capacity and in the current model, the university cannot hire part-time faculty quickly enough or at a ratio necessary to meet market demand and increase its market share. So the question is, will this revamped model allow for the necessary growth?

  • What About Student Services?
  • Posted by Scott T. on January 20, 2007 at 8:50am EST
  • The struggle over who governs the online programs at institutions will be one that will be fought for years to come. What this school has not addressed is how will it service its students from the global campus. Adult students will soon demand a high level of support services and institutions will need to struggle to determine how to facilitate this within an online or call center environment. Simply transferring a phone call all over campus (like how most institutions handle their campus based students) will result in them going to for profit schools that take providing a high level of customer service seriously (and they are out there).