Search News


Browse Archives

News

Inflated Assessment by Phoenix?

June 6, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In a new, first annual report on academic outcomes, the nation's largest private university -- and the largest for-profit -- makes a case for value-added education. The University of Phoenix reports that on the Educational Testing Service’s Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) test, “University of Phoenix seniors score significantly higher than their University of Phoenix freshmen counterparts in all areas."

The report emphasizes comparisons of Phoenix's (lower) freshman and (higher) senior year scores in critical thinking, reading, writing, mathematics, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. “Results show that as a group, University of Phoenix students make significant progress in basic content areas from freshman to senior levels. University of Phoenix students often enter their studies with lower scores in the general education areas as compared to more exclusive institutions but perform at levels comparable to seniors at other institutions by the time they graduate.” In reading, for instance, Phoenix freshmen, defined as students with one to 30 credits, attain average MAPP scores of 116.45, compared to 117.20 for freshmen from all institutions, whereas Phoenix seniors have MAPP scores of 119.27, just below the 119.72 average for all students.

But are Phoenix freshmen and seniors actually “counterparts,” as the report claims? The university's public relations office indicated Thursday that it did not have adequate time to respond to a question on the proportion of seniors who transferred at or above the sophomore level, but the report itself states that the student who starts and finishes a degree at the same institution “is an anomaly at University of Phoenix." For the university's 165,000+-student online campus, its federally-reported graduation rate, reflecting only the number of full-time, first-time entering college students who complete a bachelor's degree within six years, is just 5 percent.

Given its high transfer rates of mid-career professionals with some college education and significant workplace experience -- the university began as a "degree-completion institution," where students "sought out to finish what they had started" -- how does Phoenix know the disparities in freshman and senior year scores are attributable to the Phoenix education and not reflective of the different demographics of those who fall under "freshman" or "senior" status in terms of credit attainment? The university only recently began catering specifically to first-time college students through its two-year degree granting college, Axia, where it now steers students who come in with few or no transfer credits.

“These are really different populations. I would tend to think that that would be the disparity between their different skill levels, frankly," said Trace A. Urdan, an analyst with Signal Hill, an investment group.

“It gives kind of a false impression to suggest that they should somehow be credited with the improvement," Urdan continued relative to Phoenix's report. “I’m not saying that they’re not helping these students and it may in fact be that the first-time students who are starting in Axia, it may be after two years, you would see gains on that same test. But that’s not what they presented in the report. What they presented in the report was PR, and not very clever."

Phoenix's leader, however, described the problem of tying measurable gains to classroom learning as a universal one in higher education. “How do we know that people who come into the Ivy League and leave who are highly successful can attribute that directly to the education they receive there? That’s always a bit of a dicey proposition for all of higher education,” Phoenix’s president, William J. Pepicello, said in an interview Thursday. He added that the university did not break down scores by transfer status for this first report but that he fully expects that from it, future research questions will emerge.

“The point we were trying to make in the report is if you look at where students who graduate from the University of Phoenix are compared to the rest of higher education, we’re very comparable. There’s always a mix of reasons how people get there," Pepicello said.

“We hope that a major part of that is linked to their experience at the university with the curriculum.”

In releasing its first Academic Annual Report, Phoenix invokes the language of the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, citing “access, accountability, quality, and affordability.”

“Lots of people think they know about the University of Phoenix and they think they know what we do and who we are, but for the most part people tend to focus on the business side of what we do,” said Pepicello.

“One of the things I wanted to do was tell the academic story of the University of Phoenix and talk about how we are addressing the social agenda of the university.”

The report, for instance, emphasizes the university's diverse student body – just 54.3 percent white, compared with 61 percent nationally, with more than twice the percentage of African Americans enrolled in 2008 than the 2005 national average (24.6 versus 12 percent).

In addition to the MAPP, the report includes comparisons on the Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (SAILS), which 1,170 Phoenix students took. The university found that Phoenix students performed significantly better than students at all participating SAILS colleges in searching, evaluating sources, and understanding economic, legal and social issues, while at statistically equivalent levels in developing a research strategy, selecting finding tools, using finding tools features and retrieving sources. Phoenix students scored significantly below others in documenting sources.

Also in the report, the university argues that when all students are counted -- as opposed to only first-time students, as allowed under federal graduation rate formulas -- degree completion rates are comparable with national averages (38 percent for bachelor degrees versus 43 percent nationally, for instance, and 27 percent for associate degrees, equal with national norms). The university also argues that Phoenix students with risk factors inhibiting graduation – like enrolling part-time, being a single parent, or working full-time while enrolled – graduate at higher rates than peers with the same number of risk factors nationally. In its report, the university stresses its mission of serving high-risk students. "Inclusion and reaching out to underserved populations are at the heart of the university's mission," the document states.

“They’re laying out a lot of things about who they are and how they work," said Clifford Adelman, senior associate for the Institute for Higher Education Policy. "They’re trying to do comparative analysis; this is what all schools are falling over each other to do.” Adelman added that critiques relative to freshman to senior year growth apply not just to Phoenix, but to any number of colleges attempting to prove their "value-added" status in similar ways through other generalized, standardized testing measurements.

“I’m giving them credit for trying to do something. Everyone’s trying to do something and their motivations are fine. But what they’re trying to do does not really reflect their purpose for being an institution.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Inflated Assessment by Phoenix?

  • At Least They Are Trying
  • Posted by Sean McKitrick , Assistant Provost for Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment at Binghamton University (SUNY) on June 6, 2008 at 7:15am EDT
  • I agree with Clifford Adelman--at least the University of Phoenix is trying to demonstrate value added, and is trying to demonstrate that its seniors are learning at higher levels than first-year students.

    I find it curious that the article questions UP for not testing the same students pre and post, when even standardized tests such as the CLA cannot guarantee that they are testing the same students. Worse yet, I know of very few institutions that are able to claim that they even plan to conduct pre and post tests (using the same students), whatever the field or whatever the type of institution. In my view (and it is most likely the minority view), UP is positioning itself for a time when the value of for-profit education will be questioned and even downgraded (even more than it is now)--especially with regard to student learning outcomes; politicians, bureaucrats, and higher ed. officials frequently look toward for-profits with high degrees of suspicion. When this happens, at least they can say that they have student learning data; other, more traditional institutions are not even in the same ballpark with regard to describing what, and to what extent, student learn.

  • Picking on Phoenix
  • Posted by IHE Reader on June 6, 2008 at 8:10am EDT
  • I agree with Sean. Phoenix is no worse than any other college that compares freshman and senior scores knowing full well that they aren't the same students. NSSE works the same way. All freshmen and seniors are surveyed, and the senior pool consists of some first-time freshmen from years past, but also includes many transfer students who may well exhibit higher levels of engagement at their transfer institution.

  • A Little Unfair
  • Posted by Jane S. Shaw , Executive Vice President at John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy on June 6, 2008 at 8:10am EDT
  • This article takes a somewhat negative tone from the beginning -- not quite fair, I think. How many other schools are forthrightly providing this kind of information to the public?

  • Need to change IPEDS measurements
  • Posted by Mark Shay , Chief Academic Liaison at EducationDynamics on June 6, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • The federal system referenced (IPEDS) counts only full-time, fresh starts which is the vast MINORITY of today's college students. Most college students will not graduate from the school they start with. At the recent National Dialog on Student Retention conference, keynote speaker George Kuh cited an example of this flawed system - at University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) 70% of those receiving undergraduates were not tracked in IPEDS. He also cited that the average graduate has attended 2.1 schools. Until we get better data on all graduates, precise conclusions are impossible.

  • Phoenix and its defenders
  • Posted by Rich on June 6, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • I'm surprised to see the defense of U of P and the criticism of the article. Until U of P shows otherwise, there is all of the contextual reason in the world to believe their assessment was spurious, because only a negligible number of U of P students enter as freshmen and continue through baccalaureate graduation. Period--end of story. I have no problem with the U of P, but clearly this was an "inflated assessment" precisely as suggested in the article. The burden on those who think otherwise isn't to launch into airy disquisitions about how this or that assessment instrument is flawed, but rather to propose a scenario under which the U of P assessment might have any validity whatsoever. Go ahead--give it a go!

  • Phoenix and Its Defenders
  • Posted by IHE Reader on June 6, 2008 at 9:05am EDT
  • Rich, I don't think anyone would disagree that the report is flawed. However, it is flawed in precisely the same ways as every report that uses similar data (regardless of the survey or testing instrument). To single Phoenix out unfairly suggests that they are somehow the only bad apple. In fact, the whole barrel is spoiled.

  • Posted by Theme of the story on June 6, 2008 at 10:15am EDT
  • I am surprised that so many people are missing what the article is saying. The article is questioning the fact that U of P's report IMPLIES that they tracked the same students and so marked improvement.

    That being the case, it is very easy for U of P execs to come out and say, "that's not what we did, you misread." While the author makes references to how the data was gathered, etc., the point she begins with is that U of P takes a very skewed approach to offering up data in a certain light to make it appear that they tracked the same students from beginning to end. At the end of the article, she basically says that tracking a specific student from start to finish is near impossible.

  • U. Phoenix made a prima facia case.
  • Posted by Ken D. on June 6, 2008 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Anyone who thinks they do a better job than U. Phoenix now needs to prove it with their own data.

    Quibbles about the U. Phoenix methodology prove nothing whatsoever as to whether other institutions are any better.

  • The Corporation
  • Posted by Man Singing at Inquirer Party on June 6, 2008 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I lean most toward IHE's reading. U of P is not the only "bad apple." I am, however, biased against education for profit.

    I work for a for-profit other than Phoenix. We do a heroic job of teaching despite less than ideal working conditions, in my opinion. For-profits can squeeze a great deal of good work out of their faculties, seemingly on a perpetual short-term basis. Many of us do consider it exploitive, as in no faculty governance, heavy teaching loads, and a number of other issues not to be enumerated here.

    I'm also prejudiced after having read Joel Bakan's book _The Corporation_ and after having seen the Mark Achbar documentary of the same name. The thesis of these works rings true for one who has worked in that setting. The corporation as it has evolved in U.S. has the legal status of a person. What kind of person? A sociopath, argues Bakan.

    The CEO and everybody working for a corporation can be good, decent, dedicated, hardworking, caring people who see their business as an equal exchange between helping students and making a profit for its stockholders. Also as an innovative way to lower education cost and provide a service to students, many of whom would likely be left behind because the traditional sector seems incapable of addressing their needs.

    But the INSTITUTION--not the people!--as such is sociopathic, and must, for its very survival, resort to the same projection of guile and charm that sociopathic individuals use to play their self-serving games. In other words, PR. After all, are oil companies really doing as much for the environment as their TV commercials claim with beautiful photography, lilting music and beautiful people? For that matter, what happens to a democracy when it becomes an Election Industrial Complex, little other than a massive Public Relations campaign?

    Moreover, it appears to me that a similar institutional, corporatization has been for many decades taking possession of traditional public and private education. And we must remember that part of the growth of the for-profit sector has been enabled by lobbying and other pressures to underfund K-16 education precisely to "create a need" for the privatization of public funds (student loans) and the narrowed curriculum of the for-profits.

    And just as it's been shown that hospitals competing for patients is a major factor in escalating health care cost, perhaps today's saturated market in education providers is having a similar effect.

    Yes, I'm biased. But please consider that it is precisely bias that generates insights that would be otherwise unavailable for our more objective consideration. It is bias that can ask certain otherwise unasked questions:

    Why, for example, do corporations need the Public Relations Industry in the first place? Because some folks like me are biased and give corporations a bad rap? Maybe. Or do corporations, like sociopaths, need to mask what they're really doing? Remember I'm not talking about the officers and the employees, but the institutional thinking and behavior that we may find ourselves lapsing into in order to survive within, and do the bidding of, The Corporation.

  • UP Data report
  • Posted by James W Hall on June 6, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • While testing specialists can always find objections to data designed to measure student performance, the real story today is that many of the non-traditional universities are taking serious steps to measure student performance and to share that data publicly. The most notable recent effort is represented by a multi institutional consortium called Transparency By Design, a project that was initiated by The Presidents’ FORUM, a coalition of not-for-profit, for profit, public and independent institutions that serve adult students. The objective, as with all professional groups, is continuous improvement in performance. These institutions, which are providing opportunities for thousands of students to pursue their degrees through such non-traditional approaches as online courses, assessment of student competencies and individual mentoring, are committed to ensuring that their credentials represent the high level of student performance expected of a university education.

    James W. Hall

  • missing the point
  • Posted by Trace Urdan on June 6, 2008 at 2:35pm EDT
  • I think what some of the readers commenting here fail to understand is that the students recruited into first year "Axia" seats and those being graduated with BAs are two entirely separate populations of individuals. The first set are 20-somethings that have not been successful in school who enroll with the goal of acquiring an associate degree, while the latter group are 35+, working in white collar jobs with generally more than a year of college credits from another insitution. So the cause and effect isn't tenuous, as it may be at other schools -- it's completely divorced.

    For those interested in a more sincere effort on the part of for-profit schools (of which I am a whole-hearted supporter) to hold themselves academically accountable, I would recommend them to examine the Transparency by Design initiative being spearheaded by Capella University (http://www.capellaeducation.com/news/news/10-22-07_transparency.aspx/). This represents a sincere effort to measure inputs and outputs, is open to any school that wishes to participate, and stems from a fundamental confidence that the school really is delivering value.

    That's not to say at all that Axia/UOP is not delivering value. Merely that the report offers no evidence one way or the other.

  • Phoenix is a mixed bag
  • Posted by Trevor , Graduate of Phoenix at Bellevue University on June 6, 2008 at 5:25pm EDT
  • The university certainly helped me learn a lot. However, there were any number of pseudo illiterates participating in my information technology coursework. Some of them flaked out and some of them should have been kicked out. From my perspective, the grading curve at UoP was a little wacky. I experienced a few tyrant instructions (facilitators) and a few lazy ones but none of them were completely incompetent. Three quarters of them appeared to be inflating the grades of the underperformers in my classes - if you turned in a pile of crap with a bibliography at the end and managed to double space you passed. That seemed to be the rule of thumb.

  • Another great data point
  • Posted by Derek Kraus , President on June 6, 2008 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Not to over-analyze data, as for-profit schools, especially publically traded schools, tend to offer up more data than any of our nonprofit educational institutions, but another great point for UOP to note may be the graduation rates by race.

    I say this only because they noted themselves that they have a greater racial mix than the national average; however, let it be known that their admissions (or sales) process is more aggressive than traditional college admissions. Therefore, how much of this enrollment is from just hard-core sales processes and how well do they keep these racial mixes constant through graduation?

    Just a thought from someone who's worked in the for-profit education sector.

  • ‘Inflated Assessment by Phoenix?’
  • Posted by Who-A-Thought on June 11, 2008 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Lord it is a miracle, UOP is providing a valuable education to Americans.

    Open your eyes this is more spin as so the house of cards don't come crashing down.
    The smoke will clear one day—It’s just a matter of time.