Drive thru U? Colleges outsourcing classes to private companies
Filed under: Economy
For a long time, colleges have been searching for ways to lower costs and bring in more students. Recently, Kansas' Fort Hays State University took the next step in blurring the line between higher education and big business when it announced that it will essentially subcontract part of its core curriculum to an online company. Under this arrangement, a company named StraighterLine would administer courses and grade students. Fort Hays, in turn, would list the classes on its transcripts, essentially giving its imprimatur to the company.This move, while radical, is not unexpected. Numerous universities are exploring ways to lower costs by subcontracting core curriculum classes. Companies like StraighterLine and Higher Ed Holdings enable schools to attract students with low-cost offerings, while saving money on instructor salaries.
Historically, higher education was designed to provide students with a wide array of general knowledge and the ability to produce independent thought. Over time, however, another goal grew to eclipse these primary aims: college became a place where students were prepared for the job market, a sort of higher-level vocational center, from which graduates would receive a degree that would pronounce them ready to work in corporate America.
After World War II, as the vocational aspect of education became more entrenched, college degrees became a prerequisite for many jobs that previously had gone to high school graduates. In the process, general knowledge and the ability to think became less prominent as collegiate goals. After all, as millions of students have endlessly moaned, a knowledge of Shakespeare's major plays is not an obvious necessity for a doctor, a programmer, or a hedge-fund manager. The same, arguably, could be said of numerous other core curricula, including geography, composition, art, music appreciation, and political science. In fact, in light of the recent financial meltdown, it's worth wondering if a knowledge of history and an understanding of basic arithmetic haven't become something of a liability for people looking for a job on Wall Street.
This vocational reworking of education has resulted in a decidedly goal-oriented perspective among students and administrators. Students are interested in getting high grades, which will presumably help them get jobs after graduation. Administrators, meanwhile, are interested in enrolling as many students as possible, and realizing the largest possible profit margin from their tuition. On the one hand, this results in students who are eager to parrot their teachers in the quest for high grades; on the other end, it results in universities that are more focused on moving students through the system than in what they gain along the way.
In this environment, ideologues thrive. After all, dogma is easy to parrot and, while students may gripe about being indoctrinated, teachers are rarely punished for promoting politically correct perspectives in their classrooms. Unfortunately, however, dogma is pretty much the opposite of independent thought, and ideologically-driven course lists often fly in the face of any concept of general knowledge. The upshot is that, at many schools, a college education no longer indicates the critical and intellectual vigor that it once did.
One solution has been to introduce standardized education at the department level. Many schools have begun requiring that all professors use a standard text, a move that guarantees a standard curriculum and promises huge financial rewards for administrators and publishers. At Virginia Tech, where I used to teach, the $90 department-authored freshman composition text (with enclosed writing guide) was required for all freshman classes. In some years, the impressive proceeds from the sale went to student scholarships and small department grants; in other years, the revenue distribution was far less transparent.
For faculty members, the great threat was that many core classes would be subcontracted altogether. Thus, instead of a 25-seat freshman composition class, in which each student would have to produce 20 pages of graded work, there would be 300-seat classes, in which the grading would be offshored to India. While Fort Hays' move isn't quite so dire, it seems to represent a first step down the road to a factory-style education model, in which dispensing diplomas becomes the sole goal of colleges.
The sad secret underlying all of this is that, for many students, the most substantive education is on-the-job training. Even students in vocational majors like engineering or computer programming often find that their work requires a great deal of further education. Further, for many professions, it isn't clear that a college degree really makes much of a difference after the hiring period. In the long run, colleges and the job market need to radically reconsider their goals and their needs, asking whether students who aren't really interested in higher ed need to be forced to submit to it.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-29-2009 @ 11:00PM
Ryan said...
This statement, that Fort Hays will "essentially subcontract part of its core curriculum to an online company" is misleading. Fort Hays University does not use StraighterLine to deliver courses to current Fort Hay's students. Rather, it admits students who take courses FROM StraighterLine and allows them to earn credit at Fort Hays State University.
That's an important difference to make--StraighterLine finds students, delivers the course, and Fort Hays awards the credit. Not to much difference between that and programs like CLEP or AP credit.
StraighterLine is helping introduce FHSU to students who might never have heard of them or considered attending them.
Reply
5-30-2009 @ 12:04PM
Bruce Watson said...
Ryan-
While I understand that StraighterLine is bringing students to Fort Hays, ultimately this is a matter of semantics. Bottom line, Fort Hays is extending its accredited university status to a non-accredited online education company. This represents a serious compromise of values on the part of the university.
Reply
5-30-2009 @ 2:05PM
Ryan said...
Hi Bruce,
I disagree that this argument boils down to semantics--those formats are different and mean different things. Since you bring in the argument that faculty jobs might be threatened...it is important to note this difference...if StraighterLine is introducing new students to FHSU--it is potentially sending more opportunities for work to the faculty!
Further--your statement that this is a "serious compromise of values" really begs that question: what about CLEP and AP tests? Both represent common forms of alternative credit and are held in high regard by high school teachers, counselors, parents, and universities--are they a compromise in the values of a university?
These types of programs allow for that sort of "extension of accredited university status", but I see no opposition against the College Board.
Accreditation is not a rule book that a university must follow--smartly, it is an approval that the philosophies and practices of an administration are deemed of sound judgment...essentially, accreditation means that an objective organization has faith that the leaders of an institution will make good decisions.
FHSU has stated that they know more about what happens in a StraighterLine course than they know about other alternative credit programs--knowing this, they have confidence...and by extension, so do the accreditors.
It also important to note that the DETC (a well-known accreditor, http://www.detc.org/) has conducted a review of StraighterLine's courses and found that "StraighterLine Meets Or Exceeds DETC Standards For Online Courses"--here's a link to that press release http://www.prlog.org/10210270-straighterline-meets-or-exceeds-detc-standards-for-online-courses.html).
It is quite sensational to call something a compromise of values without including more of the relevant facts that surround a situation.
Thanks!
Reply
5-31-2009 @ 1:12AM
Bruce Watson said...
Ryan-
To begin with, I'm afraid that you misunderstand key aspects of accreditation. While the sound judgment of administrators may be an intangible aspect of it, there are several tangible metrics that are factored into accreditation, including class size, teacher training, and so forth. At least, this was the case at Virginia Tech, the accredited university where I taught for a decade.
Second, you speak of universal education as if it is a fundamental good. Frankly, I'm not sure that this is the case. Having taught dozens of students who weren't ready for higher education, I don't think that everyone should go to college, just as I don't think that everyone should be a doctor or a fighter pilot, or a ship's captain. Some people are intellectually and emotionally prepared for college and others are not. Some students need to take a few years off before going for a degree; for others, college simply isn't -- and never will be -- the right way to go.
As for those who are finding a different route to a degree, the community college system does a great job of helping non-traditional students work their way into the system. I'm not entirely sure why it needs to be augmented by a private company.
Regarding a compromise of values, I would argue that the materials in introductory classes -- particularly small-section, foundational classes like freshman composition -- should be closely regulated and carefully developed by the university. These are the classes that bring divergent majors together, which means that they are central to developing a sense of community identity. Moreover, the material that they cover provides a basis for most of the college career. Farming them out to an independent contractor is irresponsible, and begs the question of why a student would want to pay for a college degree.
Regarding AP credit, transfer credit, and so forth, it's worth noting that AP students have to take a nationally-administered and graded test, while transfer credit is usually only taken from known, accredited institutions. While this system may seem a little elitist, it exists for a reason: it ensures, on paper at least, that the credit-granting institution is motivated by education first and lucre second. This, incidentally, is yet another place where accreditation comes in.
There are places where private industry can certainly take a fair role in education. Basically, any job where creative, individualistic thought and general knowledge are secondary skills is perfect for vocational ed.
I'm sure that your company is great and that you have the best intentions. However, Fort Hays' decision to use StraighterLine represents the first step on a very disturbing road that leads to some fundamental compromises in the university system. If higher ed is serious about maintaining its credibility, it would be better off ensuring that, as much as possible, education remains within the accredited educational system.
Thanks for writing back!
Reply
6-03-2009 @ 3:50PM
Ryan said...
Hi Bruce,
You are correct that the accreditation process reviews the standards and practices of an institution--but that is not the point. Accreditation exists to help students and organizations feel confident in the work being done by the institution. There is no misunderstanding.
I agree that the community colleges do serve many and serve many of well--but CCs do not serve all and there are many reasons that they cannot be everything to everyone. www.StraighterLine.com and and community colleges can happily and co-exist.
You definitely make this discussion moot by suggesting that not all people should have educational opportunities--I'm sorry that you feel that way--that is a remarkable statement.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 11:16AM
Bruce Watson said...
Ryan-
On a fundamental level, a general trust in an institution and a requirement that it follow specific guidelines are incompatible. On a promotional level, you are right: accreditation helps provide consumer confidence. However, the real point is to maintain an industry standard. In this context, it is more like the Director's Guild than the MPAA.
It seems like you misunderstood my comments on universal education. I did not say, and did not mean, that some people should not have access to higher education. What I said -- and meant -- is that not everyone should have a college degree. Universal ACCESS to higher education is a vital and meaningful goal. However, while we're ensuring that everyone has access to a degree, we need to ensure that the degrees they aspire to are meaningful.
By pushing a goal of universal education, companies like StraighterEdge are, effectively, pushing for devalued education. By seeking to educate everyone, these companies companies will, eventually, educate no one.
As I said earlier, not everyone is ready for higher education. Some won't ever be ready. This is a simple fact, and the attempt to ignore it underlies grade inflation, reduced expectations, lowered standards, and many of the other problems currently facing the educational system.
Reply