I honestly can't tell which are worse. Both tend to be incompetent blow-hards who micromanage faculty over nit-picky B.S. policy that has zero relation to actual student outcomes or retention (e.x. weekly announcements that copy and paste the learning objectives from the syllabus and weekly modules). This place continues to be, and will continue on to be, run exactly the same as CCi.
After a year of new ownership, if you're hoping the ship to get righted and us become a respectable college - it's time to look at the actual facts and environment around us. This "school" remains a scam for it's students. ECMC has zero interest in changing this as they're reaping profits from student loan debt (their primary line of business). But still, I wonder: are the program directors of yester year worse, better, or essentially the same as our new ASSistant deans?
And, YES, I am very actively looking to replace this job with a better one. Unfortunately this is never a quick process, though...