454 -That's a good point, actually. I wonder if that's why higher-ups at ECPO always bragged that ECPO was the most valuable of the Everest brand, and was most likely to thrive after the sale.
17 replies (most recent on top)
Correction 338. They have ECP, which is accredited through the Higher Learning Commission. That is a regionally accredited institution with all online programs and a branch campus. If they believe they are for real expansion into other states is a possibility.
338 - As currently constructed, Zenith/CCI will never get regional accreditation, unless thy buy a regionally accredited school.
When we talk about for-profit, non-profit or "real" colleges, what we are generally referring to is accreditation. There are for-profits with regional accreditation, but Zenith doesn't include any of those. People are getting much more savvy about accreditation levels and course transfers. I know the V.A. strongly discourage Chapter 30 students from attending schools with national accred. If Zenith wants to be a "real" school, and a true non-profit, they need to get regional accreditation. How in the hell are they going to do that?!?
018 and 054, both absolutely correct. In reality, most community colleges (at least in California, where I began teaching) are required by LAW to follow the 75/25 rule, but many simply do not. I don't know if the for-profit sector is held to those same standards, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't be. It's the same here in AZ. My current community college has 27% full timers and 73% adjuncts. When I left ECPO, I had been promoted to full-time faculty, but I know that at least 30 more people had been hired along with me. But, I also know that right before I left there were at least 105 adjuncts still teaching online. Maybe Everest was trying to make a last ditch effort to look as if they were following the rules. Ultimately it doesn't matter. As for ECMC being able to follow the model of real colleges, it simply will never happen when you combine open enrollment with a laughable "placement" test that does not appropriately determine what courses students should be taking to get a degree.
018- Your aspirations for this organization, while well-intended - are not likley to happen. Our identified student demographic will not successfuly "compete" for a curiculum that is "more on par with a college course, not a high school." We are geared toward those students who cannot/will not do well in a more traditional environment. As the economy improved from 2010 on, more of our potential students obtained and retained employment, reducing the pool of students likely to attend our school. By definition, those remaining students are less capabale, less motivated and less likely to succeed. Since the whole premise of for-profit education (ECMC will operate under the same principles, even with not for profit status) is to get and keep studens enrolled, the curriculum and attendance/participation requirement has been watered-down to laaughable, infantile proportions. I am not sure what the legal requirements are to be called a "college" but the lable does not fit CCI/ECMC or most for-profit career schools, and insults true colleges.
Most colleges and universities are going to more adjunct positions. You need to maintain a certain amount of FT instructors to be considered a 'real' institution. Although in the non profit game, they'll need to try to raise the bar of instructors to compete. But it's cheaper to have adjuncts. Low pay (and Everest is among the lowest paying adjuncts.) and no benefits. It's a whole new ball game in the non profit. Why pay such high tuition when state schools and community colleges are your direct competition. Even with a 20% cut, it's still really high tuition. Like private school high. And if Im personally paying for a private school, I expect an excellent reputation with some high profile professors (PhDs). I also expect that my fellow students can read and write not just adequately, but at a school that would be considered competitive. There needs to be real changes made, and not just for staffing. They need a quality of student that is relative to competition and tuition. They'll never be that. Also, the classes need to become more on par with a college course, not a high school. I've taught at many institutions, and this one needs game. It needs good students and good programs and not high tuition. It needs major change. At every level
Never, never, never count on them following the rules!!!!!You WILL get burned.
I think that the DOE requires them to have adjuncts. Most schools are required to have a percentage of each. (Not that they follow through, though.)
Yes. Full time. I think they keep some adjuncts to keep costs down. No?
Adjuncts don't get laid off. It's a contract position. Are you referring to FT instructors?
Yeah, makes sense. This new level of outreach won't help either. Most students -- especially those that just joined -- are irate and leaving. Doesn't bode well.
65880: I completely agree. I just heard from my PD of a degree program in our dept being discontinued for having career placement below 66%. There will inevitably be several of us let go.
What's option three again? Leave? Anyway, yeah this term should be fine, but most of us will be let go. This is just pure spectualtuon; however, given the current situation, it seems plausible
Correct. Time to get out.
I haven't heard of 1 student opting to stay; because Option 3 gives "certain" students the option to leave within 7 days, get their transcript and have their loans forgiven. This is a new start for certain students as it relates to their loans. When they leave within 7 days, Instructors teaching those classes will be laid off because their job has been eliminated.
For real?