This past year “Chip made this comment “ Despite what our critics say, transparency and quality outcomes for students have been and will always remain our North Star.”
As a current tenured 2U/EdX employee l can tell you this can’t be further than the truth. There is no transparency. 2U doesn’t lie, they omit. I have decided that I can not ethically work for this company anymore. 2Us North Star is profiting regardless of whether the student can afford the tuition or not. I was personally floored to learn university professors were not teaching many of the classes offered by top tier universities! This too was kept from admissions counselors in the degree side.
7 replies (most recent on top)
The reason @5rhc+1p70Z7cP (and the minions who follow suit behind this person's character) don't read/look deeply into messaging or words spoken to them is because the reality of the truth is too overwhelming for them!
So, instead, they skim - whether reading a post that is directed towards their deplorable characters and leadership or when words are spoken (if they are otherwise unable to shut the conversation down).
And the go-to resolution is to "just leave." After all, if that "solution" is good enough for the goose...
To: : @5rhc+1p70Z7cP If you read the statement it states they have already decided to leave 2U! So stop with the condescending message.
To the author of the thread. Leave the company. If you ethically cannot work at Company A, leave and go find company B.
@1cxq+1p70Z7cP
"Any applicant who said “this is my #1 choice for grad school” or “if I get accepted, I’m definitely enrolling” would automatically be marked NOT to receive any scholarship money."
I remember this sooooo clearly. I will never forget using money to sway folks into enrolling which I assume is totally illegal? I also remember managers encouraging us to call folks over and over which is also illegal... I don't know who at the CFPB needs to hear this, but I hope you come for every last dime this company has.
Former Admissions Counselor here. Anyone else’s programs have “merit scholarships” that were actually based on retention and nothing to do with an applicant’s merit? Any applicant who said “this is my #1 choice for grad school” or “if I get accepted, I’m definitely enrolling” would automatically be marked NOT to receive any scholarship money. But any applicant who was on the fence about enrolling would automatically be granted a pathetic $2000 “scholarship” to entice them to enroll immediately. They had nothing to do with helping students and everything to do with bringing in more money for 2U/the school. If I was a student in any of these overpriced programs and knew how this works, I would be pi---d.
If any applicants asked us about scholarships available, we were instructed to say “all admitted students are entered into a pool for consideration for a merit scholarship but the scholarships are only a few thousand dollars and should not be counted on to cover a significant portion of tuition.”
The truth is that your admissions counselor is waiting to ask you how likely it is that you’re going to enroll and if you have any hesitation, they notify their manager so you can be offered a pathetic “scholarship”. Literally had nothing to do with your competitiveness, grades, work experience, application, etc.
And can we talk about not publishing graduation outcomes? I taught 3 cohorts. I would say that MOST of the learners did not find a coding job directly out of the boot camp and those that did had most of the skills coming in, they were simply upskilling or needed a paper.
We were told in various ways NOT to hint to our learners that they may not find a job right away but it was painfully clear they would not.
And then there was the passing of students who could not do the work. Those people paid for a worthless certificate and thought they were ready to get a job. The whole thing is a sick.
To your point, the double talk/omit approach has steered the path in this org (perhaps from day one - unbeknownst to almost all).
When the halve truths became
too bulky, pivot the phrasing so that the lie is not as detectable . Bait and switch, and so on.
One of the more profound examples was the departmental deconstruction of how admissions was to mention applicant's admissions review process. For the longest time, it was one of the most central selling points when boasting to prospects/applicants that the admissions review process was not done @ the admissions level. We sold to them the process of faculty reviews being conducted.
, for each app, by faculty. But now, .we are required to use different language along the lines of "panel review?!" When asked who the panels would be comprised of, we were not told (nor could we answer if asked by the prospective student).
It's subtle shifts like this which seemed to be happening all along.