Any thoughts that the edugrift at 2U has damaged people's lives? Sure there may be anecdotes of successes that provide comfort. Any these folks were adults. But was there any deception of others, self-deception?
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2024/02/the-student-loan-mess-next-chapters.html
It's not who was selling the degrees and certificates, it was the value of these credentials. At what point did you realize you were selling something less than what consumers expected? And what did you do when you found out you were selling something less?
In the short time I’ve worked here, I’ve noticed 2U has required the disclosure of the partnership change multiple times. When I first got here, my manager told me to mention it but not really mention it, because they want it to sound like we’re with the university but not at the university. It was like walking a tight rope. After a few articles came out shortly after the USC lawsuit and some articles about how misleading 3rd party for profit education companies can be when partnered with universities, they started requiring the disclosure that we were with edX, still not 2U, that’s buried in the email signature. I also suspect there has been a difference between how degree side works compared to boot camps. And yes, I hate enrolling people for this company because the future seems so uncertain, it’s overpriced, reviews are bad, and who knows what will happen to their tuition responsibility if 2U goes under. On the one hand, due diligence is on the buyer and I highly encourage this when talking to them, on the other, I think it’s hard to do that research if the relationship is still obfuscated.
@1eyt+1r0ypoEk I was actually written up for mistakingly using the wrong email address; you are correct that we were threatened with termination if we disclosed we were working for an outside org. I have a few stories about that seeing as I worked in Tech with ALL of the institutions, and it was nearly impossible to juggle email addresses, etc. so as to remain annoymous with regard to where I was employed. In fact, I used to have to look up the weather for (insert university name here) so that if a student or professor happened to mention the weather, I could pretend to be in their location. I finally started using the phrase "I work in a satallite offce" so I could just roll with a conversation naturally and not have to jump on google to pretend I was on a campus.
Post ID: @1skm+1r0ypoEk, what a LAME "argument" you make. OF COURSE prospects and students care(d) about whether or not their first levels of communication @ whichever prestigious university admissions was facing for was an Actual Employee of the prestigious institution!!!
One of the key reasons why prospects/students are interested in a given prestigious institution is because they expect a first generation experience from the trusted and highly regarded institution and therefore do not expect to have to deal with second generation, watered down, not as knowledgeable or committed to the excellence that the prestigious institution's reputation was built on!
As well, do people really expect their ssa/student advising to come from those who are not actually employed by the prestigious institution?
Many, if not all, of the more prestigious institutions require their employees to hold at least a bachelor's degree before employing.
2u, the ultimate posers that they are, say/said that employees were required to hold a bachelors degree as a condition of employment , but yet they couldn't seem to be bothered to actually require verification of an employee's degree. Tons of employees could have lied, to the point of possibly not even having completed high school - because whose going to verify it?!
If you're paying Top, Top, Top dollars to have your new home built, and the builders are known for their reputation, certain elements of subcontracting would not be acceptable-- and you would demand full transparency @ what the company was having done by subcontractors --- because you're after the products and reputation that the prestigious company was built on!
It's not a hard concept!! It's 2u's problem from the start-- lack of transparency ( and as a result, some underhanded "business" practices ensued).
Post ID: @2bzd+1r0ypoEk, the statement that 2u never took a position pertaining to being upfront with students about their admissions reps & ssa's Not being employees of the actual schools that they were representing is Absolutely false!
It wasn't just "some schools demanded {the deceptive practice} while other schools did not."
2u leadership absolutely PROHIBITED their student facing employees from volunteering as well as divulging this central fact! And if doing so, your job was in jeopardy!
Your assessment otherwise either reveals your "youth" ( by way of not being @ 2u when leadership was clearly stating these rules - to the point where someone seemingly like yourself - who wasn't an employee during that time-did not hear it, because it no longer needed to be said as it had been a woven in standard) or "ignorance" ( by way of you purposely stating falsehoods) ... or possibly both ?!!
It was certain universities who insisted people working on their programs never mentioned 2U to students. Other universities didn’t care or preferred transparency. So there was never a central 2U leadership point of view on this.
Tuition is not set by 2u and in fact the co regularly pushes programs to cut it - including USC
From Adam Looney..."It is an outrage that our lending programs encourage schools like USC to charge $107,484 (and students to blithely enroll) for a master’s degree in social work (220 percent more than the equivalent course at UCLA) in a field where the median wage is $47,980. It’s no wonder many borrowers feel their student loans led to economic catastrophe."
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-better-way-to-provide-relief-to-student-loan-borrowers/
2Tor was preceded with JK bribing USC with an endowed chair. And 2U made money (but never a profit) from cutting corners academically. Those MSW and ED degrees did not have the same value as real degrees from USC.
@1skm+1r0ypoEk Management is here in full force I see. It makes all the difference in the world to many students, prospective or current, to understand that there is a company and NOT a university who stands to make a lot of money on their admittance and continuing education. It's deceitful to allude otherwise. Not to worry because I have a hunch there won't be anyone left to lie for brass soon.
Considering that 2u affiliated admissions staff has always worked in daily communication with university staff and all information used in admissions was approved by the university - what, other than hiring and firing - makes a 2u affiliate admissions counselor any different than an on campus admissions counselor? It’s not like they are allowed to break industry rules that on campus staff is not (ie all of admissions gets the same yearly raises regardless of enrollments brought in to align with federal regulations) and overall the programs were always noted as partnered with 2u on their websites. After the fact speculation from anyone that it even would have made a difference in enrollments real time if there had been across the board disclosure - is Monday morning quarterbacking just trying to find issues to point to. Since proactive disclosure started in email signatures and on calls, it’s not like there has been some giant shift in program applications due specifically to 2u affiliation of admissions counselors. IF there was a historical policy decision to avoid disclosure at all costs- that was d-mb (and universities played a role in that). But acting like admissions advisors specifically not proactively disclosing somehow made programs less than in any way is silly and misinformed as to 2u’s role in the admissions and program development/support.
Theres a silly rumor swirling around that HQ has gone ballistic over this "anonymous" forum and that legal has supposedly subpoenaed this websites logs. Remember when names were being dropped? Supposedly it was an inside job to give the company a reason to subpoena logs. Rumors are so silly.
Any manager whether they still work there or not should be personally held liable for enforcing such a deceptive and dishonest policy. They know why the company was hiding this. Ask the students with usc and morehouse who should probably be litigiously active.
I’m not saying you weren’t told that. I’m saying it’s not been the case on programs I personally have worked with. And I’m saying that if there was such a policy it was determined under Gab’s leadership and only may have existed in pockets after. I can absolutely say under oath that admissions leadership post Gab was never directed by Dobbs or HR that this was a dept wide policy, let alone a fireable offense. Sorry if for some reason it was still treated as such by your program leadership. Pockets like this are one of the reasons it’s now very clear, mandated, policy that disclosure MUST happen.
1qtq+1r0ypoEk You are lying out your a**. I’ll go on record, in front of a jury, to state that I was told disciplinary actions would be taken against anyone working for 2u that disclosed they worked for 2u when speaking with students. Will you go on record liar?
Well- I’ve worked at the company for 6 years and have never see this be the case on programs I was on. In particularly and more specifically, after Gab was removed as head of admissions. Any pockets left there after his departure was not due to an Admissions high level leadership push. And again, see changes recently with Admissions identification for all teams - to make sure there are no teams or team members any longer even ABLE to hint at lack of affiliation with 2u.
When I worked at 2u the company was adamantly opposed to ever disclosing that you worked for 2u. In fact they threatened disciplinary action if they caught someone saying this to a student. You were for all intent and purposes to make the student believe you were affiliated with the university.
Re usc - all faculty were hired by USC, not 2u. All placements sites/ supervisors had to be approved by USC (2u just does the legwork of finding them and submitting for approval). And, while there are varying stories about whether the work for 2u vs directly for USC was “hidden” (a simple linked in look up would provide the employee connection and all programs were advertised as partnering with 2u) - all degree program Admissions personnel employed by 2u now state that explicitly in their calls and email signatures.
Obviously the edX elite university certificates are scammy. But for those who continue to deny the damage on the degree side, listen to Erica Gallagher. I have to wonder if the workers had pushed back (in solidarity) about some of the practices, whether 2U would be where they are now.
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2023/03/erica-gallagher-speaks-out-about-2us.html
@1qon+1r0ypoEk - thank you for the post. Its easy to see many of the things that are wrong just by reading this board. There are some very smart people who want to work hard and help the company turn around, and there are a lot of people who bi--h and whine and act entitled and love collecting a paycheck while they talk about how much they hate their employer. Chip tried turning the company into some kind of socialist utopia with keg parties, massive amounts of PTO, remote work, DEI nonsense, while the stock price cratered and the money started running out. Paul couldnt care less about any of that stuff, all he wants to do is see the company become profitable. If you work hard and help in that effort you will be rewarded, if you dont want to it probably wont work out for you at 2u, and it you dont want to come to the office someone in South Africa will do the job for a fraction of your pay. It may not be warm and fuzzy but its whats needed for the company to survive and thrive going forward.
Frankly, there's enough guilt to be distributed amongst all "higher" education institutions. Thirty to forty percent of a degree is now nothing more than government mandated worthless woke BS. More companies are steering away from graduates because they find better value in people who haven't been programmed with DEI divisionary propaganda. The world is waking up.
Or maybe some of us just care that our work not be misrepresented by folks like Dahn. Nah- couldn’t possibly be THAT simple (insert eye roll)
Is it just me or does the last week of threads have a ton of sudden love for 2U with huge paragraphs justifying how cr-ppy they are?
Execs and HR must be very active here to sway the message for outside lookers who visit.
No because we are not a for profit college and all of our degree programs have curriculum developed and taught by faculty at regionally accredited universities of high caliber, and support those programs and students via daily collaboration with on-campus staff. And, despite what you like to imply regularly - ALL admissions decisions are made 100% by the universities- and we bend over backwards to ensure all is done ethically and legally in recruitment and program delivery. In my role I have a daily close up view of this on a variety of programs- I’m not out here throwing out talking points.
As for whether our Alt cred side of the house (all based on companies acquired when Chip was CEO) - more attention has been needed and will be provided- based on the structure that was only able to be put in place after Chip’s ouster. Any lack of deep dive into quality and operational practices here was due to Chip pushing all execs to execute (and monetize) the “platform strategy” overnight without ever having tasked anyone with truly understanding the day to day functioning of these new product lines that are were not built by 2u from the ground up like our degree programs. Moves lately putting high caliber execs with degree operational experience into the alt cred world more directly will tell the tale about what the work there is to do.
The renewed focus of a number of execs JUST on degree without Alt cred/“platform strategy” distractions is already showing a great deal of promise - getting back to what we are best at and having leadership that will make decisions that are best for degree and focused on serving partners and students above all.
If workers at Starbucks and McDonalds can work with greater dignity, why not 2U?
P.S. Harvard workers are fighting for workplace democracy.
https://harvardacademicworkers.org/faq/
https://twitter.com/haworkers?lang=en
Folks do care. They just don't comment. Got a number of whistleblowers to come forward over the last dozen years--at Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, EDMC, University of Phoenix, Ashford University, and yes 2U. Are there any people left at 2U with a conscience? I would say there are--and that they are suffering. Are there any people willing to fight for a union? My guess is that there are. Whether that's enough to win the struggle is hard to say.
Go back to posting in the Harvard thread. The interaction you get there represents the number of people who actually care about what you have to say.