Search News


Browse Archives

News

Revolt Against Outsourced Courses

March 31, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Here's the pitch: "Can you really GO TO COLLEGE for LESS THAN the cost of your monthly CELL PHONE BILL? We can't say that this is true in ALL cases -- hey, you might have a GREAT cell phone plan. But maybe it's your cable bill, electric bill, or your GAS bill. ... The point we're trying to make is that taking general education, required college courses just became A LOT more affordable."

How affordable? $99 for a course. And if you take the courses offered by StraighterLine -- in composition, economics, algebra, pre-calculus, and accounting -- you don't need to worry that the company isn't itself a college. StraighterLine has partnerships with five colleges that will award credit for the courses. Three are for-profit institutions and one is a nontraditional state university for adult students. But one college among the five is more typical of the kinds of colleges most students attend. It is Fort Hays State University, an institution of 10,000 students in Kansas.

There, even as professors are still pushing to get information about StraighterLine so they can evaluate it, students have taken a look and decided that they don't like what they see. In articles in the student newspaper and in Facebook groups (attracting debates with the university's provost and the company's CEO), the students argue that StraighterLine is devaluing their university and higher education in general.

"In the short term, this may save FHSU a small amount of money (although this is debatable). In the long term, this could increase the cost of a degree for current students, lower the quality of education and academic standards at FHSU, lead to unemployment for many passionate educators, and eventually cheapen the value of a degree from FHSU for both current and future alumni," says the Facebook group created by students that has set off the discussion.

This week the issues are also being discussed critically by composition instructors. The blog Kairosnews, well respected in the composition world, writes that StraighterLine may represent a challenge to faculty control over general education and that faculty should worry about the company because of the "the novel and creative end-run it makes around traditional accreditation barriers."

Defenders of the arrangement have plenty of arguments of their own, noting that institutions like Fort Hays need to experiment with new forms of instruction and questioning the track record of traditional colleges in teaching basic courses, especially to those who need remedial help. Burck Smith, the CEO of StraighterLine, said that with the low graduation rates and low retention rates that abound, "it's hard to claim that we as higher ed are doing a good job."

From Tutoring to Instruction

StraighterLine is an offshoot of another company led by Smith, SmarThinking. That company provides outsourced online tutoring and writing assistance to students at colleges (as well as high schools or other organizations). The idea is that colleges and universities can't afford to provide tutoring during the hours students may need it. By providing tutoring online and to many institutions, SmarThinking improves service and provides middle of the night assistance that wouldn't otherwise be available. SmarThinking boasts hundreds of clients, including plenty from both nonprofit and for-profit higher education.

Smith cites leading education thinkers to explain his approach to education at StraighterLine, and in particular notes the work of Carol Twigg at the National Center for Academic Transformation, which argues -- just as Smith says his company does -- that courses need to be redesigned and that higher education should not assume that the traditional professor model is the best way to promote learning.

StraighterLine is a combination of education materials provided by McGraw Hill, courses that are planned by educators who have spent years thinking about how to teach introductory courses to college students, and the tutoring provided by SmarThinking. Smith said that the quality of his education team is high, and their biographies indeed include an Oxford Ph.D. and plenty of experience at traditional colleges -- plus a good deal in the for-profit sector.

Because StraighterLine just started in May, Smith said it cannot point to any long-term data on the success of its courses. But he said that the available evidence is encouraging. Of the students who started a course, 82 percent have either passed it or are in the process of completing the course. Of those students who have dropped out, 80 percent did so after only a single course (or midway through a single course). Because most students take their courses sequentially, that means that the students who failed generally did so after spending only $99. Compare that to the cost of tuition for a semester -- possibly paid for with a federal loan -- and Smith said that there is a clear benefit of his approach to both students and the taxpayer.

While critics question why colleges should award credit for such courses, Smith suggested that there is some hypocrisy in anyone claiming that colleges award credit only for work that they supervise. Colleges routinely award credit for Advanced Placement courses, for dual enrollment courses with high schools and for credit awarded by other colleges, institutions that may or may not share educational philosophies. Awarding credit for work done elsewhere is in fact common and accepted, Smith said.

What StraighterLine has done, he said, is to offer courses at affordable rates. "We are the free market for distance education, and at high quality," he said.

He also argued that colleges like Fort Hays stand to benefit. The students who transfer their credits to the university aren't from Kansas, and aren't those likely to enroll. But by getting their first credits there, they just might, Smith said.

Lawrence V. Gould, the provost at Fort Hays and the architect of the university's ties to StraighterLine, was not available for comment. But in an op-ed in the student newspaper, he cited the same argument Smith made -- that participation would yield more students for Fort Hays.

"How many FHSU students are taking or have completed SL coursework? Absolutely none. We have credentialed the coursework of 28 students so far; none of them from Hays or Kansas. Beyond the fact that no one has told anyone at FHSU to put students in SL coursework and never will, what does this tell us? It tells us the real reason why FHSU chose to be an SL partner college," he writes.

"The underlying purpose of the SL-FHSU partnership is to use SL as a lead generator. When a student from Dedham, Maine takes a SL course, the student can choose FHSU to credential the course. When that happens, the next step is to encourage the student to choose a full program of study at FHSU and take the remaining 121 hours from our institution. If that happens, FHSU has an opportunity to earn approximately $14,000 in revenue per student, revenue that can be used to save a faculty or staff position at FHSU or buy energy, supplies or educational equipment. This is a collective good that holds the potential to benefit the entire institution; not just one department."

Gould went on to say that "we may not like it, but by virtue of receiving less monies from the state general fund, public comprehensive universities are having to become more 'mission-centered and market-smart' at the same time." And he noted that colleges can't afford to go with their traditional ways of doing things. "The new 'normal' in higher education is constant change and continuous improvement. I’d rather have a partner who understands how to work toward quality in that type of environment. Darwin said it long before I did. It’s not the smartest or the strongest that survive; it’s those who can adapt and improve."

Evolving to What?

In the analysis of StraighterLine on Kairosnews, the faculty role is the central question explored. The blog raises questions about whether the combination of a major publisher and a centralized online provider of instruction will effectively take away control of courses from instructors.

And then there is the question of whether the StraighterLine approach should be viewed as a source of new jobs -- after all, it employs educators, and so does SmarThinking.

Smith said his businesses shouldn't be viewed as the end of the professor's job but as the birth of "new course formats," employing academics in new ways. Asked how much he pays his academics, compared to traditional colleges, he declined to cite figures. But he said that on the continuum from adjunct to tenured professor, the compensation offered is more like that given to adjuncts. Asked if his educators receive health insurance, Smith said that they are generally people who work part time, and that the company doesn't provide health insurance to people who work part time.

Several faculty members at Fort Hays declined to talk for attribution about the agreement with StraighterLine. According to some, however, there was never a formal faculty review of the program before Gould announced its launch, although some faculty members reportedly were aware of the discussions before they were announced. An English Department committee last month gave a report to the provost, saying that months after the university agreed to start awarding credit for the courses, the faculty was not certain that the courses were equivalent in rigor to those offered at the university and lacked enough information about the courses to form an educated judgment of their quality.

Students have turned to Facebook to ask questions about the issues that they say are unclear to them:

One student asked: "If Straighter Line fails too many students or make courses too challenging, they run the risk of losing support from the schools that use their service. How do they maintain academic honesty in an entirely virtual class? How do they anticipate the needs of a wide variety of students if their courses are pre-designed and generic? Can anyone actually tell me (with a straight face) that virtual general education classes offer the same quality as face-to-face instruction from passionate educators on the FHSU campus? Why bother being a liberal arts institution if we are going to devalue general education courses?"

Several students asked whether there were any non-financial reasons for aligning the university with StraighterLine.

Another wrote: "This is ridiculous. What's next, ordering our degrees from an ad in the back of a catalog across the page from the full-pager advertising tapeworm diet pills? This is only half a step away from offering degrees in private investigation, mortuary services, etc. like those advertised on TV."

Phillip Van Horn, a graduate student in education at Fort Hays who also earned his undergraduate degree there, is one of those who organized the Facebook protest. He said in an interview that the student anger is a result of the pride students feel in the quality of education they receive at Fort Hays.

"I can appreciate that this is seen as the wave of the future. But it makes me wonder why we exist as a college if we are going to start outsourcing courses," Van Horn said. "It makes me wonder if education in the future is going to lack the intimacy and tradition of the college experience."

Van Horn remembers his first year composition course for the way the instructor identified those who didn't need the basics, but needed to be challenged, and developed simultaneous assignments that reflected the various skill levels of students. While StraighterLine promises hours of one-on-one consultation available online, Van Horn said he remembers daily discussions with his instructor, in class and in her office. She's the one who helped him figure out which courses to take, to rethink his plans for a major.

Experiences he had, Van Horn said, should be shared by all college students. "My Comp I course changed my life."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Revolt Against Outsourced Courses

  • Darwin Didn't Say It
  • Posted by Cranky Ol' Prof on March 31, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Provost Gould says: "Darwin said it long before I did. It’s not the smartest or the strongest that survive; it’s those who can adapt and improve."

    Actually Darwin didn't say it, but businesspeople sure like to "quote" it. Makes you wonder...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths

    (see bottom of article)

  • Outsourced education
  • Posted by Nevada Ned on March 31, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Years ago, David Noble warned against this kind of thing, in his book Digital Diploma Mills.

    Noble recounts the history of correspondence schools in the 1920's, in which students took correspondence courses from respectable "real" universities. Dropout rates were extremely high. The correspondence-school branch of the university depended on getting the tuition money from students who dropped out. Little funding was available for grading papers, so that job was farmed out to poorly paid part-times, working on piecework. Instead the money was spent on advertising and promotion of the courses.

    The melancholy history of correspondence schools was duplicated in the 1990's when the Web was new. Universities started on-line branches, dreaming of building up vast empires. The promoters hoped that on-line education would be less expensive than face-to-face. Instead it turned out to be more expensive. After massive losses, many universities shut down (or downsized) their on-line divisions. Getting a degree from an online university becamse a joke in Hollywood.

    Would you get on an airplane if you knew that the pilot had become qualified by a correspondence school?

  • Posted on March 31, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • There seems to be more than one issue here. While I understand the concern of the students and the faculty in regard to outsourcing courses, there is no indication if these courses are self-paced or teacher-led. I would add my voice to the protest if the courses are self-paced and don't include significat contact between instructor and students and among the students themselves. However, if the course is instructor-led and dominated by quality interactions, I'll vigorously defend the ability of an online course to match the rigor and engagement of a face-to-face course.

  • Looking to the Future...
  • Posted by Jane S. on March 31, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • This is just the beginning. Better get used to it.

  • Clarification of SL Courses
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/StraighterLine on March 31, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Hello -- I am the CEO of SMARTHINKING and of StraighterLine. I want to take the opportunity to clarify a few things about our courses. Then, I want to add my perspective.

    SL Courses -- SL courses were designed using the principles of the National Center for Academic Transformation's Course Redesign model. These principles -- that the student engage with the content rather than being lectured to, have 24/7 academic assistance, and use alternative staffing strategies to run the course -- have demonstrated signficant cost reductions and student outcome improvements. For StraighterLine, the courses are self-paced (or a school can impose its own calendar), but each course comes with up to 10 hours of 1-1 live instruction or writing critiques from SMARTHINKING's tutors (90% of which have a masters degree or PhD). Further each student is assigned a course advisor who works proactively with the student to move them through the course. Finally, the course content is from McGraw-Hill which is used by thousands of colleges. With the embedded SMARTHINKING service, a student struggling in college algebra at 2:00 AM can get live help within 3 minutes. Students in our composition classes have 5 graded assignments and up to 7 submissions to our online writing lab -- all responses typically returned within 24 hours. By using this model, we can create very affordable, very well-supported, very flexible developmental and general education courses. The NCAT model and the SMARTHINKING service have both shown proven improvements in student outcomes. I will also note that the NCAT model and the StraighterLine model only really works with high-enrollment, relatively standard, general education courses.

    Partner Colleges -- The way that we work with Fort Hays and other colleges is much the same as almost all colleges work with other alternative credit generation strategies. Whether AP, CLEP, ACE, Dual Enrollment, Life-Skills Assessment, or credit transfer, there are a myriad of ways in which colleges allow students to bring credit to the college. StraighterLine is controversial only because it's new and for-profit, not because there's no precedent. Further, StraighterLine courses are more open and consistent than the credits that many colleges are already accepting under existing credit-transfer regimes.

    Client Colleges -- We do have colleges interested in putting their own students in these courses (not Fort Hays currently). The reasons that have been cited for this are to expand the capacity to serve developmental students, easily offer courses in non-traditional formats (shortened terms, mid-semester starts, summer bridge programs, Jan. terms), serve students despite enrollment caps, offer distance education offerings without having to invest in the infrastructure and marketing.

    Responses to points in the article -- The opening of the article artificially conflates price with quality. Does offering a $99 per month model mean that the courses are of low quality? Or, perhaps it more closely ties student cost to the amount of time and resources consumed, thereby lowering the cost for students who pass AND fail the course. While the article quoted students from FHSU at length, it failed to talk to any students that have taken StraighterLine courses. Also, the article insinuates that, because we are a for-profit, we have limited incentive to enforce academic honesty and academic standards. Our incentives are the same as everyone else's (whether for-profit, not-for-profit, or public). If our courses are perceived as low quality or as a method for cheating, then we will lose our partner colleges, our students and our business.

    To close, distance education has brought competition in course formats and price points to all of higher education. Students are increasingly choosing courses from different places and amassing them into a degree (witness the growth of swirling, dual enrollment, 2 year -> 4 year transfers, etc..). StraighterLine presents one method and price point of receiving quality courses. Students wanting different formats -- face-to-face, online, instructor led, lecture-type, etc... -- will be able to choose them. As a nation and an industry we have been wringing our hands about the cost of higher education, quality of higher education, and budget cuts. Here's a model that shows that you don't have to sacrifice quality for affordability.

  • Let's be objective
  • Posted by Lori C. , Instructor/International Programs at Empire State College on March 31, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • What is the issue here? It seems there are several being paraded under the same banner: Online vs. traditional classroom education? Standadization of course content? Outsourcing? Faculty jobs? How much is simply resistance due to fear of the unknown?

    Let’s separate the issues and base our opinions on an objective analysis of what is being offered and the involvement of the college or university in overseeing the continuing quality of the courses and student results. I have no association with Straighterline or Smartthinking, and no opinion as to their worth, but I think we have a responsibility to explore alternatives that help make a quality college education more accessible and more affordable, both for students and the colleges.

  • re: Clarification of SL Courses
  • Posted by CompLitProf on March 31, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Dear Mr. Smith,

    I wonder if you might care to comment on how the pay (and of course, the benefits) offered to your instructors compare to what instructors receive in traditional higher education? Do you make use of the adjunct model, or are your instructors full-time employees?

  • Always amazed
  • Posted by Bob Sweo at UCF on March 31, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I am always amazed at how quick most in higher ed are to reject innovation given that we are supposed to be a leading engine of it. Most faculty complain that whatever new being tried couldn't possibly be as good as their classroom as if a classroom is the be all and end all of great education. Yet if you look back through history the classroom was never the best education possible just the most efficient. For important people we really needed well educated (like future Kings and Queens) we used private tutors.

    The best private tutors rarely lectured for hours on end. They introduced a new idea, motivated students by showing how important the idea is to their life, then let the student work with the idea until they got it. That experience is far easier to copy in a computer environment then a classroom. The management of groups, time management for different learning speeds and social loafing that occurs in a classroom waste time and remove learning motivation. The one on one between student and really well designed software can be a much more intimate experience.

    Not to say StraightLine necessarily has the best model down. I have worked with many of the McGraw Hill materials and have often been left wanting. But first iterations are rarely perfect. We should be encouraging models that try to make high quality education costs reasonable not discouraging them. Professors who are concerned about their jobs should focus on where they can add the most value, in creative processes. Computerized education can teach the known theories. We are still a long ways away from when they will be able to enrich creativity as a human can.

  • duplicitous sleights of hand
  • Posted by H.S. , adjunct professor at various universities on March 31, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • on the continuum from adjunct to tenured professor, the compensation offered is more like that given to adjuncts. Asked if his educators receive health insurance, Smith said that they are generally people who work part time, and that the company doesn't provide health insurance to people who work part time.
    As an adjunct myself, I find this simply disgusting. You simply elide the point that very, very few adjuncts find our teaching circumstances desirable. Precious few do not care that we earn less than a living wage for no benefits and no job security. Most are deeply angry, and tired, of the treadmill on which we labor to scrape together enough to pay our bills. You are exploiting a gutted job market, and degrading our professionalism. To say we could go elsewhere is equally duplicitous, as that is far easier said than done. Any university who uses your services is a partner in crime. On the other hand, by distilling the trend towards running higher education as merely an issue of dollars and cents and flashy extras over teaching, you may be doing us a service by making it impossible for administrations to hide much longer the extent to which they are damaging the institutions they run and the students who place their trust in them. The FHSU students are correct in pointing this out that this cheapens the very idea of a college education, and I hope that their openly expressed anger is a sign that students everywhere are waking up.

  • Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • With all due respect, Burck Smith's commentary comes with an immense conflict of interest. What I see lacking is objective proof that quality is any factor in any of this or that the school's intended learning outcomes for the course are being met.. 

    A "change" no one should tolerate is any entity other than the faculty deciding a curriculum. It is unclear here whether the faculty at Fort Hays reviewed these courses and approved them or if a naive provost on a very misguided personal view of entrepreneurship decided to take the curriculum into his own hands and commit it in part to control by a commercial partner.  

    The students are pretty ticked to mount a blog campaign. If students mounted a similar campaign against the quality of education being delivered by a faculty member, what dean or provost would allow the faculty member's posting an infommercial favoring him/herself to serve as the resolution? This whole venture merits investigation and peer review.

     

  • Response to Mr. Smith
  • Posted by Mitch , Assoc. Professor at Michigan State University on March 31, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • 1. You mention "quality" several times in your note above, but offer no evidence beyond your assertion that SL courses are of high quality. You need to do better than that.

    2. You say that if your courses are perceived as low quality that the free market system will take care of the problem--but this assumes that students are using an evaluation of quality as the criterion measure for SL courses. I believe a more honest assessment is that students perceive SL--and other online courses--as simply cheaper and more convenient, and that low quality will be ignored so long as they pass the courses and the price stays low.

    3. Disparaging comments from FHSU students simply because they have not taken SL courses doesn't seem like a very savvy customer relations approach. Any Fort Hays student is entitled to their opinion about what a $99 gen ed course is doing to the value of their degree from the institution.

    4. You ask, "Does offering a $99 per month model mean that the courses are of low quality?" In a word, yes. There's a reason that Yale charges more than other schools--its quality. Being the bargain priced option in education is not necessarily a good thing.
    5. The out sourcing of course content, grading and teaching of required gen ed courses calls into question serious issues of academic integrity, and professional ethics. You say that using content from PH is no different than a professor using a text book--only someone who has actually taught would understand how absurd this comparison truly is. And your straw man comparison of the lecture format to supposedly vibrant, cutting edge online instruction sets up a false dichotomy between poor teaching done face to face and teaching of an unknown quality done online.
    I think all of us critics would have more respect for you if you just came out and told the truth. You are trying to undercut the college tuition price structure by using canned content delivered online--reducing overhead, like faculty salary and benefits, facilities costs, etc.--and "repackaging" your product as somehow newer, different and even better.
    Your indignation at the FHSU students' vocal dissatisfaction with this plan ring hollow, assertions of SL "quality" aside. You are selling snake oil--don't pretend to be giving away knowledge.
  • Offshoring
  • Posted by Unemployed Academic on March 31, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Offshoring, here come the academic jobs!

  • Tomorrow's Higher Education
  • Posted by Robert W Tucker , President at InterEd, Inc. on March 31, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • The majority professoriate's view on what higher education ought to be is a sobering reminder of this special interest group's extreme conservatism in considering their own profession. Conservatism has its place but not when it ignores obviously relevant facts and generalizations to defend a status quo that crystallized 150 years ago when school calendars were developed to recognize the labor needs of farmers, and higher education was a miniscule industry serving primarily the very rich and the very smart. Today, higher education is a sweepingly broad family resemblance construct that encompasses educational systems serving nearly all strata of society.

    How should we provide worklife-long postsecondary education to a nation 75%-80% of the GDP of which derives from intellectual services, systems, and processes? The only answer of which I am certain is, "As many ways as we can that make educational and economic sense because tomorrow's strength will derive from today's diversity in processes." How do we invent all of these diverse processes to keep up with the many distinct growing and evolving demands for higher education (including just-in-time proficiencies and adaptive object-oriented content delivery)? Here, I can only think of one tried and true strategy: embrace experimentation, keep track of the results, and evolve continuously as the evidence dictates.

    The next time you hear a member of the professoriate complaining about the good old days (that never were but that's another discussion), remember: adaptation is the sine qua non of intelligence.

  • Who is developing these courses?
  • Posted by Ann Barbara on March 31, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I'm not against for-profit higher education. However, I am against any higher education model that assumes non-specialists can do the work of specialists in a discipline.

    What worries me about Straighterline in this sense is that the company's team leaders (?) for English -- for whom developing and administering a composition program in developmental and first-year writing is the primary goal -- are not specialists in this area. One has an M.Ed. and the other has a Ph.D. in English literature (http://www.straighterline.com/about/ and http://www.smarthinking.com/static/aboutUs/ourTeam/). Rhetoric/composition professionals have demonstrated how important their specialized knowledge and skills are to developing and maintaining quality, responsive writing programs.

    These individuals may be very good at their work -- I'm not questioning their own hard-earned credentials. But I do question CEO Smith's choices of writing program administrators (WPAs) given the incredible scrutiny that Straighterline's new initiative was bound to encounter. In other words, why did the company take one individual from Smarthinking's Social Studies program and another from the writing tutoring program, which was developed by a rhetoric/composition professional some years ago, and put them into dual positions in Straighterline when their expertise -- revealed in their company official biographies -- isn't in the disciplinary speciality in which they're now working? Why didn't CEO Smith hire someone with demonstrated experience in developing writing programs and/or courses specific to developmental and first year writing, which -- though interrelated -- assuredly are not the same as online learning assistance in writing? A person with training and experience in both WPA and writing center work certainly could handle both positions (humongous job though that would be), but in what ways are the current coordinators qualified?

    I would feel much better about Straighterline if the CEO had demonstrated this understanding about the importance of disciplinary knowledge in developing and administering a writing program that actually is afforded college credit. As it is, it looks to me like the program has been developed on a shoestring and with minimal understanding of the English studies field. These observations make its potential quality suspect until proven otherwise.

  • Various responses
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/StraighterLine on March 31, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Credentials -- For writing, Dr. Christa Ehmann is our VP of Education. She wrote a book titled Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction which was published by the National Council of Teachers of English. She is also on NCTE's committee for Best Practices in Online Writing Instruction. The bios for our Director of Writing, Dr. Allyson Fetterhoff and our course manager, Julie Radachy are on our website.

    Further, SMARTHINKING's online writing service has critiqued about 1 million essays for several hundred thousand students. We have client conducted studies that testify to the impact of SMARTHINKING's writing service on student performance. As we are being held to a higher standard than schools hold themselves, we felt we needed to have real data about student improvement. The credentials of the rest of SMARTHINKING’s academic team are similar. It’s on our website.

    Other Quality Criteria – The course objectives are clear and are publicly available on our website. The assessments in the courses match the objectives. Our regionally accredited partner colleges have reviewed our courses and found them as good or better than their own online general education offerings – or at least as good as other people’s credits that they recognize.

    We also have national accreditors – who provide accreditation at the course level as opposed to the institutional level – reviewing our courses. They will be finished shortly. Using the same standards that colleges hold themselves to, our online general education courses are at least equal. Whether it is our credentials (view them on StraighterLine’s and SMARTHINKING’s website), curriculum, amount of instruction, presence of additional support services or reputation of the providers.

    Further, we do much better with regard to service levels to students (wait time to get questions answered and response times for essay assignments).

    Lastly, we do all this at a very affordable price that is unsubsidized by the government. For all those who think that these courses are of poor quality, I welcome the opportunity to compare them to a random sample of online general education courses from your school or a similar cohort of schools.

    Curricular Control By Faculty – It’s not at all clear what curricular control means. There are many third party companies and programs that universities and faculty have approved. For-profit companies like Gatlin Education, Bisk Education's University Alliance, and Ed2Go provide turn-key programs for which universities offer credit under their own names. Non-profit consortia like Regis' New Ventures and the Institute for Professional Development do something similar. You can look on their web sites to see the multitude of regionally accredited universities with whom they work. Agreements with these entities are acknowledged by accreditors. In California, these types of agreements are called Instructional Service Agreements. There are other names, but they are fairly common – jus t not for general or developmental education. StraighterLine is only setting a precedent in that it offers similar services for general education courses.

    Students at FHSU – I am not disparaging students at FHSU. I commend them for their allegiance to their college and their preference for a face-to-face, discussion based education format. My only point is that there are more options than just that and that many students who will go to FHSU and take upper level courses may prefer the StraighterLine price and format for lower level courses – just like many, many others who get credits from any non-traditional credit generation process (AP, CLEP, ACE, transfer, dual enrollment, etc…) Also, I would hesitate to infer that this is a broad-based movement from the presence of a single Facebook page. While it might be the case, it could just as easily be a couple of people who set it up and sent it around. It's pretty easy to do.

  • re: what's the proper comparison
  • Posted by Peter C. Herman , Professor of English Literature at San Diego State University on March 31, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Burck Smith writes: "For all those who think that these courses are of poor quality, I welcome the opportunity to compare them to a random sample of online general education courses from your school or a similar cohort of schools."

    But the question is not whether these online courses are as good as other online courses; the question is whether the courses Burck Smith provides are as good as couses taught by a qualified teacher in a classroom. If they are not (as I and many of the other respondents to this article likely assume), then Mr. Smith provides a lesser product at a lesser price. You get, in other words, what you pay for, and caveat emptor applies.

  • Credentials
  • Posted by Ann Barbara on March 31, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • From CEO Smith: "Credentials -- For writing, Dr. Christa Ehmann is our VP of Education. She wrote a book titled Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction which was published by the National Council of Teachers of English. She is also on NCTE's committee for Best Practices in Online Writing Instruction. The bios for our Director of Writing, Dr. Allyson Fetterhoff and our course manager, Julie Radachy are on our website."

    Exactly. The credentials and biographies for the Director of Writing (shown as "coordinator" on the Straighterline site, by the way) and "course manager" are on the website -- as I noted. One is a literature specialist with experience as Smarthinking's coordinator of online writing tutors and the other is a specialist for Smarthinking in Social Studies. How do their backgrounds qualify them to do specialized online writing course development? Given the high stakes for students of taking a credit-bearing course with Straighterline, why isn't there a specialist in writing studies (rhetoric/composition) developing these critical-level writing courses? Or, do you perceive that just anyone can develop writing courses? If so, why aren't similar non-specialists developing math or science courses?

    Dr. Ehmann did co-write a book with Beth Hewett, a previous writing program director at Smarthinking who is a rhetoric/composition specialist, as many in the discipline know. Ehmann's credentials as an online educator aren't in question here, and mentioning her is a moot point as she's not listed on your website as the Director of Writing.

  • Outcomes Assessment
  • Posted by A Prof on March 31, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • "Of the students who started a course, 82 percent have either passed it or are in the process of completing the course."

    Passing is not what matters. What matters is how they did in their next course, at their regular home institution (say Fort Hays or the University of Michigan), in comparison to students who took the same required English composition course at their home institution or a nearby CC, or got a particular AP score from ETS.

    There are also real accreditation issues. It might be true that the (off-shore?) tutors who are "evaluating" the papers have an excellent education and provide great feedback, but do they all have the masters degree and 18 hours of graduate credit at an appropriately accredited institution, as is the case for the instructors grading papers in our English department? We have to certify that to our accrediting agency, as well as our list of learning outcomes and how we assess them when we teach a class for credit.

  • More Various Responses
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/StraighterLine on March 31, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Appropriate Comparison -- While debating the merits of online instruction vs. face to face instruction is certainly a valid argument to have, it is not relevant to arguing about StraighterLine. If you would abolish distance education, then you are abolishing the accepted practice of thousands of institutions including StraighterLine. Further, if you believe that all distance education is inferior to face to face education, then why do almost all colleges charge the same or more for distance education courses? If anything, your argument would support the advent of StraighterLine so as to reveal greater price variation among differing course formats.

    Credentials -- If I understand you correctly, you don't think we have sufficient credentials to teach and develop online writing because Christa Ehmann's name isn't listed on the StraighterLine website (which is untrue. Her name and bio are on the site)? Also, that Allyson Fetterhoff's PhD in Literature from the University of Maryland isn't an appropriate credential despite running the largest online writing center in the world? Also, that Julie Radachy, despite having a masters degree and being one of our lead tutors for multiple years and having been screened and trained by SMARTHINKING isn't qualified to direct the course? Also, that somehow SMARTHINKING isn't qualifed despite having client conducted studies that show the impact of our service on student writing outcomes? I guess I don't have a response for that.

    Assessment -- While I think that all the accreditation regulations that you just mentionned are only loosely tied to student outcomes, we do meet all of those requirements. Your comment about the impact of these courses on future success is a good question. It's too early to tell as we've only been doing this since October. However, given SMARTHINKING's history, the types of students who are signing up for these classes (self-motivated students who are succeeding), and the heavy use of all of the course elements in other parts of higher ed (ST, Bb, MH, Course Redesign Theory), I am optimistic. Further, I think the appropriate comparison would be with other methods of awarding credit from outside institutions -- like CLEP, AP, transfer credit etc...

  • Outcomes Assessment
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on March 31, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • "Evaluation" has been a bad word (not Michael Jackson "bad" either, but politically incorrect "bad") since the mid-1970s. If all college graduates were to take the Graduate Records Exam (for which scores - "outcomes assessment" have steadily been eroding for 4 - 5 decades) or a similar measure of "outcomes assessment" then we would have a much better idea of the value centers of higher education.

    Pair the GRE or other "outcomes assessment" with qualitative evaluation of college graduates by chief human resources officers at corporations across the country (many of whom have stated that college graduates today can't read or write well, don't pick up business software processes well, and by and large can not work or play well with others. Focus on the "outcomes assessment" scores and CHRO's evaluations of their top performers and then publish the results by alma mater.

    I double dog dare anyone to seriously suggest this to "for-profit educators." PS - our junior and senior tutors use the money we pay them to apply towards their education at our own fine institution. They may not be professional tutors who will work all night, but they are some of our own best students and we need to support them in their academic pursuits.

  • Stop Dancing Around FTE
  • Posted by DFS on March 31, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • And that's all that matters.
    The more money we can gather in, the more will grow that avenue.
    We all know that online education is only for the self-teachable, so why don't they just "audit" something online and come in and challenge?
    Why, the (monetary to the college) results would be disastrous!
    We simply cannot have that.
    Heads in the sands, people. That's it.

  • Posted by Mitch on March 31, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • CEO Smith had better grow some thicker skin if he thinks that the questions about online education done the way his company is doing it are going away.

    And pricing a "real" college course the way it would be offered at Walmart ($99! I can almost see the blue flashing lights!) doesn't help.

  • What's the difference?
  • Posted by One of many on April 1, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • I can't see what the fuss is about here. I've just returned from a first gig adjuncting at a remote location for -- no names, please -- one of those universities "in the Catholic tradition" that reinvented itself as a source of credentials for working adults. My class is the sort of traditional, face to face class in a serious academic subject that is being valorized here -- at least, it would look that way from a distance....

    My students, who are about to graduate with their baccalaureates, told me that almost all their previous exams have been take-home, unproctored, objective exams "with maybe one or two short answer questions." Although they are required to do papers in almost every course, the university does not concern itself with their access to research materials and no one has ever taught them how to do research. These students have no library available locally, and no idea how to access their library's internet subscription databases. So they are trying the sorts of random Internet searches I expect freshmen to do.

    Of course all their previous classes have been taught by adjuncts whose names they cannot remember (and who no doubt were rehired based on evaluations and the "success" rate of the students in their courses). 

    The regional accrediting agency has no problems with any of this, of course.

    So there you have it. There's the alternative to StraighterLine; American college education today. 

    These students pay around $1275 per three-credit course. The "education" they are getting certainly isn't worth that! $99 per sounds about right, but even that may be too much.

  • Accreditation problems?
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on April 1, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Smith writes that "his" courses are not yet accredited either regionally or nationally.

    This will create major headaches for anyone trying to transfer credits earned at his school.

    You have to wonder about the quality controls at any publically funded institution that includes non-accredited courses, especially those taught by instructors whose academic credentials have not been verified. Usually state agencies that handle consumer complaints at postsecondary for-profits provide some measure of quality assurance, but not in this case.

    Lastly, institutions are required by their accreditors to prominently display their accreditation information, but Smith doesn't. This is because his consortium itself has not been accredited, either nationally or regionally.

    The information regarding the history of correspondence courses is highly relevant, but misses the quality control role played by accrediting associations.
    However, accreditation associations are like trade associations that basically self-regulate quality at the institutional level, once every 10 years. Of course, what happens after the visiting team leaves campus is anyones guess, usually a return to business as usual.

    The larger problem is that a QA/QC system designed to operate at the institutional level need not ensure consistent quality at the level of individual courses, and frequently does not, especially in regard to distance education. Even dual enrollment has enormous quality control problems that have yet to be addressed, since they are taught by high school teachers without meeting regional best practices standards for college courses.

     

  • Quality vs Cost
  • Posted by James J on April 1, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • There seem to be several different discussions about the positives and negatives of a university turning to a for-profit organization for some of it's educational needs. I'd like to comment on the conversation about cost vs. quality. I'm neither condemning nor praising the quality of StraighterLine's courses. I have never taken one and am frankly unfamiliar with them, but to claim that the classes are of a low quality due to the lower price tag does not follow. Quality does not have to come with a high price tag. What we are trying to determine here is the value of the course. If StraighterLine's courses are of a high quality at a lower cost, then they bring value to the table for both the university and for its students. If they are not of a high quality then they do not add value. A quick Google search found an article/letter from Larry Gould (Provost at FHSU) with his thoughts this issue: http://www.fhsu.edu/leader/?p=387

  • Credentials
  • Posted by Ann Barbara on April 1, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • No, you don't understand me correctly, Mr. Smith. But I suspect that maybe you don't understand the issue I've tried to raise here about using specialists in writing theory and practice to construct and maintain writing courses -- particularly developmental courses. If that's right, it would explain why Straighterline doesn't have such a specialist to help head up this important educational initiative. And, as I said in my earliest post, that's why I worry about this initiative. To reiterate from earlier messages: I respect the hard-earned degrees of each of these people, but I worry that they don't have the specialized qualifications for the writing program development that they're doing. That said, perhaps they have additional training and/or intensive reading in these areas? Possibly they've consulted with specialists and developed their thinking and practices with that in mind? If so, you could have made that more transparent. That would be a more helpful addition to the discussion than defensiveness. There are a lot of people with a willingness to suspend disbelief about initiatives like Straighterline, but your case isn't helped when earnest questions are treated like unwarranted attacks.

  • Author Attribution
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/StraighterLine on April 1, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • A quick clarification -- the book that I mentioned in a previous post "Preparing Educators for Onilne Writing Instruction" was co-authored by Dr. Beth Hewett and Dr. Christa Ehmann. Beth was SMARTHINKING's first Director of Writing from 2000 - 2002. She and and Christa continue to collaborate on various projects including consulting with the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).

  • Red flags!
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at FHEAP on April 1, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Following James' link to FHSU, there is this astonishing admission :

    "...SL courses come from an unaccredited knowledge-networking organization and become credentialed when they are accepted by an accredited partner or client college/university."

    This completely side-steps US DOE's Title IV QA/QC (i.e., "recognized accrediting agencies") provisions. It also tells me that none of these students are eligible for student loan guarantees and Pell grants. Too bad for the students!

    Futhermore, if they knew that this was happening, it is doubtful that regionals/nationals would approve public institutions using this kind of pass-through consortium for distance learning, since it includes distance learning from non-accredited schools.

    "FHSU credentials literally hundreds of hours of similar credit per year from unaccredited sources like ACE and places all kinds of transfer credit on students’ transcripts. But what is it about SL courses that provides me with a higher level of confidence about judging quality relative to, say, credentialed transfer credit from a community college or ACE? It’s simple. I know more about the SL content, design, syllabi, instructors, etc. because we’re a partner university with SL."

    That this is actual practice speaks volumes about the inability of the present system of accreditation to independently ensure quality, especially for distance education. This arrangement is rife with conflicts of interest, allowing schools to -- in essence -- accredit their partners, whose courses they then market themselves.

  • Well said, One of Many
  • Posted by adjunct professor on April 1, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • In witnessing how courses are taught by adjuncts at the university where I am currently employed as one, I can only come to the same conclusion as One of Many: students are likely to get more out of the $99 online course than they are in the classroom. Adjuncts have confided to me that they prepare 15 minutes at most before class, avoid essay exams and papers in favor of true/false and multiple choice exams, and routinely let class out 10 or 15 minutes early or more. The administration here is under the misapprehension that they are saving money by hiring three or four adjuncts for the cost of one professor while ensuring high quality instruction in the classroom. But it is a stretch to say that the students are getting even $99 worth of instruction.

  • Remember how dual credit started
  • Posted by SH , Asst Professor of Developmental Education at DCCC on April 1, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • This is the way the dual-credit classes. Originally, dual-credit classes were established so that the best and brightest (supposedly only the top 10% in a large high school) would be able to start college classes and save money. These would be the students who would enroll in and pass AP classes if they were available.

    However, that is not how they have devolved. Instead, almost every high school offers dual-credit writing classes. In many cases, these have become the senior English class so that those who could not pass a regular composition class on a college campus, are now getting credit for college comp classes at the local high school. A college class taught in a high school setting still retains many elements of a high school class. So much for quality control.

    Do we really want to go down this path?

  • I commend StraighterLine!
  • Posted by Steve Cooper , Founder at Tech University of America on April 1, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I commend StraighterLine for it's innovation and for making higher educaiton afforable. Keep up the great work!

    Steve Cooper
    Founder
    www.TechUofA.com
    Steve@TechUofA.com

  • Posted by SK on April 1, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Hey SH --
    NC does StraightLiner one better -- FREE online Dual Enrollment for High School students!
    http://www.nclearnandearn.gov/

  • re: Steve Cooper, techuofa
  • Posted by Mitch on April 1, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • Wow, Steve. You've been at this whole online college "business" almost a year now, and offered your first course. . .um. . .last week! Congrats! You're quite the expert!

    I bet CEO Smith is thrilled with your endorsement! You're the kind of visionary educational leader he can relate to.

    Brilliant business model--free college credit! Why didn't all of those old fashioned dinosaur colleges with their silly professors and buildings and research programs think of that one first?

    And I love the high standards you have for recruiting your faculty: "Requirements: A graduate degree from a regionally accredited university with practical experience in the field of study." No bothersome national accreditation for you--no time, you have important work to do!
  • DETC Review of SL Courses
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/StraighterLine on April 2, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • As I mentioned earlier, regional accreditors don't review individual courses. That's why we work with regionally accredited partner colleges who have the ability to decide if our courses are credit worthy. However, some national accreditors will review individual courses. The Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), a federal Department of Education recognized accreditor, has announced today that SL courses meet or exceed its standards for online courses. DETC accredited schools will not need to ask DETC for approval to enroll their students in SL courses.

  • Extinction - The only alternative to change
  • Posted by APSuess on April 2, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Hats off to Provost Gould and Fort Hayes for taking a lead in answering the growing demand for online education. Shame on "...the students who argue that StraighterLine is devaluing their university and higher education in general." Change a couple of words and you have the very same narrow-minded outcry that was the headline of innumerable newspapers when desegregation was enforced in 1957.

    What I find most interesting in this article is the continual reference to what the faculty wants; I include Mr. Van Horn in this group by virtue of his being a graduate student. Is there any mention of what learners want? Is there even a single quote from a student who participated in one of StraighterLine's offering? Equally as important, where in the article or in any of the comments to it do you find the words "I have seen one of StraighterLine's offerings."

    I have been in the Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and Distance Learning field for 20+ years. During that time my involvement has been on both sides of the computer monitor; Developer, Facilitator and Student. I have personally seen and reviewed StraighterLines offerings and would stake my reputation on both their quality and rigor. I would have no hesitation to put them side-by-side in comparison with any course developed by any institution, anywhere. No, I did not "drink the kool-aide," but took the time to investigate both sides of the issue.

    Student's today want and demand flexibility in their educational pursuits. This flexibility includes the ability to participate anywhere at any time. These student's are working folk who don't have the privilege of attending a class at 9:00AM. They are business people who's responsibilities take them on the road too often to consistently attend an on-campus course. They are also the Service men and women who are never stationed at one location long enough to complete a degree at a single college or are deployed to some forsaken country where a shower is considered a luxury.

    According to this article, however, these student's can't pursue a higher education unless it is in the form that has burdened them, and society, for over 100 years simply because some faculty member has not even reviewed a StraighterLine offering yet feels informed enough to condem them. It is precisely this type of "we've always done it this way and always will" thinking that will eventually turn an institution into a ghost town.

    StraighterLine is offering a "product" that institutions temselves can ill afford to develop. A quality online course takes many, many hours to develop and equally as many to analyze, evaluate, and improve. The DIY model is simply not an option in today's cash-strapped institutions as time spend in development of an online course is time away from the students. In addition, few faculty members possess the instructional design skills necessary to produce a quality online course. The end result is nothing more than uploaded Word documents and PowerPoints in a vane attempt at duplicating the face-to-face experience. The end result of such efforts is a bad experience for the student and the instructor alike.

    Nowhere in the article did I read that any of Fort Hay's students are being forced to participate in any StraighterLine course. There is no mention of any coercion or threats to the student body that they must take an online course. If these student's feel they need the discipline of regularly scheduled class sessions, then let them have them. If they feel they need to participate in fraternities and sororities, so be it. If they believe that "Home coming" is a life defining moment, go for it. They need to understand and accept that there is a segment of society that cares nothing for such things and whose focus is solely on the learning.

    I feel sad for Mr. Van Horn. A graduate student in education who demonstrates, even before he officially joins the community of professional educators, that he is unwilling to accept any form of learning that doesn't involve a lecturer, whiteboard, and overhead projector. If he is to succeed upon graduation, he will certainly have to change his "tune" during the job interview for his first teaching position.

    "Would I get on an airplane if [I] knew the pilot became qualified by a correspondence school?" Absolutely not. The task of successfully flying a real airplane with real passengers cannot be taught online, by StraighterLine or anyone else. The more intelligent question is: "Would you get on an airplane if you knew the pilot passed English Composition I through a correspondence school."

    Fort Hays is a fully accredited college. They had to have gone through the process of a "substantive change" in order to accept, for credit, StraighterLine's offerings. So if Fort Hays is to be condemned than logically one must condemn all schools accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

    Resistance to StraighterLine's offerings, or any others, is reminiscent of the protests of Gas Station Attendents upon the installation of the first self-service pump. "Only I am capable of checking your oil." "Only I am capable of filling your gas tank." So apparently then only degreed faculty are capable of teaching? I don't think so....

    Before condeming the efforts of StraighterLine, and other to come I'm certain, take the time to do what professional educator have an inherent responsibility to do; investigate all sides. Take the time to "work the numbers" and you will quickly discover that they are truly on to something here.

  • To APSuess
  • Posted by Unemployed Academic on April 2, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • It is not the students who really demand the flexibility of which you speak. Rather, the capitalist bosses who consume as much of their employees' days as possible, despite evidence that this lowers productivity, force students to complete coursework in the wee hours of the morning when only the computers and adjuncts named "Ralph" half a world away in Bangalore respond. The solution is not to enable corporate abuse of our bleary-eyed citizens with online "learning" but to fight for a restoration of a sane balance between the interests of the wealthy few and the rest. Then, students wouldn't need educations that deprive them of complex and sophisticated interactions with recognized experts.

    In addition, while it is true that one might not need a degree to be able to teach, society needs a suitably licensed expert in order to ward off the abuses inherent in the profit motive's impulse to slap the facade of accreditation on dross.

  • To Unemployed Academic
  • Posted by APSuess on April 4, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • I have searched through 6 years of research at EDUCAUSE, SLOAN-C, Horizon Reports, DOE, and can find nothing to support your statement that "It is not the students who really demand the flexibility of which you speak."

    No "academic" would ever consider publicly posting such an argument with it being supported by peer-reviewed research.

  • Brains... Give me brains.... [moan]
  • Posted by Unemployed Academic on April 6, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • APSuess, I do not know what sort of publications you produce, but I find it exceedingly difficult to create a real argument in a forum of this sort. I view it as more a chance to exchange viewpoints and raise questions.

    Regarding whence comes the demand for online courses, I suggested that the demand really stems from capitalist bosses' manipulation of their employees' lives to their own benefit. Give people a reasonable amount of vacation and reasonable work hours, and there will be little need for gaining access to a tutor at midnight over a datastream. For the last thirty years, however, employers have been increasing Americans' work hours, decreasing vacation time and generally putting more pressure on working people (as has been amply documented by such scholars as Juliet Schor, though she does have her critics). Not all of this is, of course, out in the open. Corporations are stupendously gifted at manipulating stats for their own benefit. Take, for example, the rise in underemployment and part-time employment, both of which increase commute times for employees relative to work hours, while socializing the cost of healthcare and other benefits in an effort to get them off the corporate books. As anyone trying to make a living as an adjunct on mutliple campuses can tell you, the work hours ostensibly remain the same, while the hours needed to work increase as commuting time increases. This is then exacerbated by successful corporate efforts to defund what little public transportation there is in many communities, and we end up with Americans snarled unproductively in traffic for hours on end -- a cost that is borne primarily by workers, at least in the initial accounting. It is also not most employees' desire to switch careers many times in their lives, necessitating multiple returns to higher education for retraining. Employers get to show a short-term profit by firing expensive older workers and hiring cheaper younger ones or piling more work on remaining employees, while the unproductive down-time necessary for retraining is often a cost borne by the former employees. It is true that Americans might seem to choose this system by agreeing to work more hours, but as has been argued by some scholars (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFD-42Y15VC-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8bd25616a2892ac6c46da450fc11ff07), this is more a function of the wage inequality built into the viciously unequal rewards system in the US. The more pertinent question concerns why Americans sat on their collective hands while corporate conservatives like our last several presidents, especially Reagan, gutted the economy and ruined the country.

    With regard to the data cited by proponents of online learning, I - and I would wager many academics - do not agree with the fundamental architecture of the studies that I have seen cited by such proponents. The increasing push toward a nationalized educational assessment system is the product of the corporate colonization of higher ed, which seeks easy, short-term metrics for measuring success; seeks to remove power from the hands of the faculty; and is committed to teaching Americans to conform rather than think independently. The time-scale for these studies is "all-out-of-whack" with what higher education ought to be measuring, but that is because the top administrators need to be able to claim that they have produced some sort of progress in the three years that they typically spend at each institution. Thus, we are left with educational assessments that measure factual and technical-skills training, and a population of employees, who can be discarded when their narrow training becomes "outdated" according to the dominant managerial fad of the moment.

    My suggested solution: 1) push for allowing average Americans to keep more of the wealth they produce, 2) mandate that employers compete in a structure that gives more vacation time to employees, 3) shift the funding of education back to state and federal spending and away from tuition subsidies and loans, which put students at the mercy of private lenders, 4) hire more tenure-line faculty to spread the administrative duties around -- they cost less than administrators, 5) to ensure a high level of teaching effectiveness, build rewards for complementary teaching and research into the system, and 6) reward faculty with regular pay raises so that they are not forced to seek employment elsewhere in order to get a raise, thereby breaking institutional continuity and long-term efforts to improve teaching.

    Really, it's not brain surgery, and it ought not to be alchemy. The real challenge will be to break the corporate stranglehold on the formulation of the definition of success.

  • administrator end-run
  • Posted on April 10, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • AP Suess says: "Fort Hays is a fully accredited college. They had to have gone through the process of a "substantive change" in order to accept, for credit, StraighterLine's offerings. So if Fort Hays is to be condemned than logically one must condemn all schools accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools."

    Indeed some institutions do offer online course brokering, but there is due diligence. Had this been done at Fort Hays, this article would not even be here. Faculty would have been involved in a preparing a substantive change application. What more likely occurred is a provost and president thought  that their job titles qualified them to decide how to teach a subject and gave them permission to do an end run around their accreditors. Dr, Suess needs to learn to do the necessary homework.

  • Burn the witch!
  • Posted by Jonathan on September 5, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • Wow, someone figured out a way to get a student through Chem 101 for a tiny fraction of what we all paid. I guess there's only one thing to do: find every reason we can to discredit it. Because if we don't, then we all got freaking scammed by our universities.

    Also, the internet will never kill newspapers, because we love the way they smell. Right? Right...?

  • To add to Jonathan
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • "Wow, someone figured out a way to get a student through Chem 101 for a tiny fraction of what we all paid. I guess there's only one thing to do: find every reason we can to discredit it. Because if we don't, then we all got freaking scammed by our universities."

    Classic, and to add to this, I know I always have the time in between 2 jobs and 2 kids to take that 10 am required class that they can't seem to schedule at any other time that is actually convenient for people.