What kind of numbers are there at the DeVry campuses? ED reports are two years old.
10 replies (most recent on top)
It's starting to make sense now. DeVry is keeping the campuses at least in part to dilute outcomes data. When less than 10 student complete a program, there's no data report required out of "privacy" concerns. Perfect cover to keep the fraud going.
"I do not blame Devry for milking the ignorant. Every corporation does that."
This works if you have no conscience and simply tune the fraudulent behavior out. It's a bit like selling bottled water that came from your garden hose. What are you supposed to do if you actually care? If you don't care, what are you doing there besides earning a paycheck?
The latest evaluation include a metric that penalize faculty if a student withdraws from the course.
What is important to management is the weekly pulse check. If student is happy or not?
It is becoming a very expensive show business. Make the students happy who cares if they learn.
I do not blame Devry for milking the ignorant. Every corporation does that.
I blame the federal government for providing loans to people that do not deserve it.
Banks have a credit score to check before you qualify for a loan.
I am not sure why there is not a simple SAT score required to qualify for a college loan?
I guess politicians realized it is cheaper to give student loans than to deal with the lazy segment of the population that do not want put any efforts to improve themselves.
@dhra: welcome to my life!
At the core of DeVry's business model is the necessity to recruit unqualified students and then put the onus on instructors to either provide remedial education or if that does not work then simply pass the unqualified students through using unethical grading practices. It is a no-win situation for instructors. In this type of learning context student frustration is a given, regardless of the grades they receive because the students simply cannot learn at the required level and therefore do not gain anything from the experience. It is a giant fraud being perpetrated on ignorant people who think they can get an education without possessing the skills and abilities to learn, and the company is hiding behind instructors who can be used as scapegoats when necessary due to poor student evaluations.
Campuses serve a purpose to recruit and maintain va students. If our VA students attend at least 1 course on-site they are eligible for a maximum housing allowance.
5rop: I wrote the previous post and fully agree with your subsequent comment. This point you added highlights a serious flaw in the current business model and environment, and we know it. We really do have very good teachers, processes and infrastructure worthy of a serious university, but at some point abandoned any reasonable selectivity in recruitment. Some of the students are excellent, but also in the mix are people woefully underprepared for this level of study. The problem ultimately winds up being laid at the feet of the professor to attempt to bring along the remedial cases with the rest of the class, manage the misplaced expectations, try to apply a modicum of ethics to grading, and meet persistence thresholds, all while being scored through over-emphasized student evaluations inevitably laced with acrimony. And then we’re challenged as to why the MCE fell below 3.6. It’s OK; most of us just need to hold on for a couple more years, if possible.
When I worked there I was often surprised by the number of students who enrolled without reliable access to the internet. They'd sign up, then fall immediately behind because they weren't logging on, perhaps trying to use a cell phone or someone else's computer, if at all. I couldn't help asking if we screened these students. It seemed like it was sc-aping the bottom of the barrel just to meet enrollment.
There is something to this comment, and I get the implied point 2bri makes about the reality of how the OnLive model actually plays out in most classrooms as opposed to the official CTE patter we hear, but there’s a bit more to the larger story. I have seen a small minority of students who do prefer or are required to attend onsite classes in the physical classrooms (though just not during the current semester due to the covid-driven hiatus across academia). This number is so small, though, that I’m not sure it’s worth all of the complex and painful hoops we jump through to merge the online and onsite students into these ‘oil-and-water’ OnLive class sections. Also, the original poster’s question about campus numbers feels like it’s coming from a naive outsider’s viewpoint. The university is very different from what it was twenty years ago when the ‘big box’ model reigned and everyone thought in terms of campuses. The student zeitgeist now seems to seek more independent, flexible learning. Not every student, perhaps, but the majority I’ve seen within our niche. I’m not saying all of these students are highly suited to online learning, but they want it (or so they think), but that’s another discussion. DVU has been evolving to meet this need for a long time by reducing the campus footprint while continually improving the online systems infrastructure. The interesting irony over the past few months is how many nonprofit traditional colleges so loved by Dahn, that for years looked down their noses at online courses, are now scrambling to figure out true online delivery rather than reactively ‘dragging and dropping’ their classroom-designed courses into a kluged pseudo-online version. What now remains of the DVU campuses is a vestige of a bygone era and primarily provides presence in assorted markets. I would just as soon see us leverage our systems to go all online. Unlike many others out there, we built our online capacity a long time ago and are pretty good at it. Just IMHO, campuses are so 1985.
The campuses are a facade. They are for marketing purposes only. "Look we have campuses" says the website. Meanwhile exactly zero students actually attend them, even for the "on site" class sections. Anyone observe anything different?