THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX – AXIA COLLEGE
A STUDY OF “FIRST YEAR SEQUENCE” (FYS) AND ITS CONSEQUENCES…
In an attempt by the University of Phoenix to help increase student success and completion rates, the university developed the “First Year Sequence” (FYS) concept. The concept was based on the idea that new students entering into the university with less than 24 credits would need the assistance of a specialized curriculum, placed in a specific sequence, in order to increase the likelihood of academic success. The premise of these courses was to build a curriculum that had a relevant, “real world” significance that non-traditional students would be comfortable with. The university makes it clear that these classes were not considered part of a remedial design. Although, it was well known at the advisor level that these courses were suppose to be easier for the students to complete.
In February of 2010 the university rolled out FYS. Within days of implementation, myself and many other academic advisors, began to notice that transfer credits that traditionally would be applying to student’s degrees, were not being transferred in. I immediately presented my concerns to management. Unfortunately, management was not able to give me a logical explanation as to why these quality transfer credits were no longer being applied.
In an attempt to find out why many quality transfer credits were no longer being applied, I decided to research the methodology behind and implementation of FYS. Because I worked specifically with the associates programs (Axia Collee), my research will not address the impact on new students entering at the bachelor level. Although, please note that since the inception of Axia college, traditionally students with 23 or less credits would be directed to start at the associates level.
Also, my report will not address whether those students that have been properly placed in FYS have benefited from its curriculum design. Although, its generally understood at the advisor level that results have been minimal at best and retention rates remain stagnantly low.
The results of my research yielded what I believe are five fundamental flaws of FYS. The following report is an explanation of those results.
FIRST FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF FYS
Axia College Track A – Track B
In order to implement FYS, the University of Phoenix decided to split degree programs into two different “Tracks.” Track A would be used for students with 24 or more credits and Track B (FYS) would be used for students that have less then 24 credits. The difference in required courses is illustrated in Example 1 (bottom of page). In this example, I used Axia’s AAFBv13 program. Please note that this example could be used with the vast majority of associate programs offered at Axia College. When looking over Example 1, I want to draw attention to the words, “EQUIVALENT and NO EQUIVALENT.” You will note that Track B has very few classes that have equivalencies. The university has decided that no other college level course work meets the course content requirements for all the FYS courses. This is very important to understand because this is the reason that so many transfer credits are not accepted into Track B. These specialized courses also may prove difficult to transfer to other academic institutions.
In Track A an incoming student would have the ability to transfer in as many as 39 (42 in some instances) credits from an accredited institution. In Track B an incoming student would only have the ability to transfer 18 credits. The credit acceptability limitation of Track B is the basis for the first fundamental flaw of FYS. Furthermore, this flaw also brings into question how two vastly different course requirements can lead to the completion of the same degree program.
SECOND FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF FYS
In determining which track the student belongs in, the university decided to use the admission application as the sole factor for track placement. The student is required to report the amount of credits they believe they have earned at other schools and place them on the admission application. If the student puts 24 or more credits they will be placed in Track A. If the student puts 23 credits or less then the student will be placed in Track B. Below I have noted some of the concerns that arise by allowing the student to self-report their credit completion history.
1) Many students who are entering back into school have often been out of college for a very long time or have attended multiple colleges. This often leads students to recount an inaccurate estimate of their previous college credits.
2) Student are encouraged by enrollment counselors to get started as soon as possible. This urgency often does not allow students enough time to get their unofficial transcripts. In addition, enrollment counselors often neglect to even ask students for unofficial transcripts.
3) Students are often not informed by enrollment counselors of the critical importance of the number that they report on their admissions application. And more importantly, the potential consequences of an inaccurate number.
4) Enrollment counselors are also often confused about how FYS works and its potential cost to students. I believe this confusion is due to a lack of proper training and oversight. But, more importantly due to an inherently confusing and illogical policy design.
Whether it is one of the concerns just mentioned or a combination of many, students are overwhelmingly and consistently placing the wrong amount of credits on their admission application. This concern is noted in Examples 3.
Essentially, students are being placed in Track A or B based not on proven academic guideline but instead, what amounts to basically a guess by the student. This guess is resulting in students that belong in Track A being placed in Track B and vice versa.
THIRD FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF FYS
The third fundamental flaw addresses the policy guidelines for moving a student from Track B to A. At the beginning of FYS there was not a set or clear policy on moving students from Track B to A. Academic advisors were just told that we had to follow what was on the admissions application, even if that number was proven inaccurate with the student’s official transcripts. For example, if a student placed 18 credits on their admission application they would be placed into Track B. After the student was matriculated (official transcripts evaluated) it was found that the student received 12 credits in Track B. Upon further review it was also found that the student could receive an additional 12 credits if placed into Track A. Even though the student met the 24 credit threshold for Track A placement, we were not allowed to switch the track. Keeping in mind fundamental flaws 1 and 2, this type of scenario happened quite often and cost many students a considerable amount of credits, time and money.
The university eventually added to and amended the policy that stipulated the requirement for transferring a student from Track B to A. These stipulations were as follows:
1) Student may switch from Track B to A if the student had attended at least one course in the past at the University of Phoenix.
2) Student may switch from Track B to A if the student has matriculated 24 or more credits.
3) Student may switch form Track B to A if the student has attempted 24 or more credits.
4) Student may NOT be switched from Track B to A based on unofficial transcripts received after the student has submitted their admission application.
5) Student may NOT resubmit a new admission application for the purpose of switching from Track B to A.
These stipulations raise additional concerns that seem to undermine the general purpose of FYS.
Stipulation 1- For example, a student may have completed a course at the University of Phoenix in 2002 and received a D- and dropped out. This student upon returning to the University of Phoenix on or after February 1st 2010, would not be required to be enrolled in FYS. Yet, a student that went to another university with a 4.0 GPA (grade point average) and 23 transferrable credits would be required to be in FYS. Keeping in mind the purpose of FYS. One must ask themselves why a student with a D- and 3 college credits would be better prepared to succeed academically, than a student with 23 credits and a 4.0 GPA. These types of inconsistencies are evidenced throughout the FYS policy.
Stipulation 2 – This stipulation seems logical, although there are a couple of concerns. One issue is that students are often already enrolled in class and making attendance before the student completes matriculation. Because the university desires to enroll students in an expedited fashion, students routinely begin their courses before they are matriculated. So, when the students are finally mat