Free Market Education

In a retention study a couple of years ago, I discovered quite convincingly that many students at the institution didn't understand the product they were buying: the highest risk group was low social capital (typically first generation) who had chosen the institution as their first choice. A couple of months later, most of those students had changed their minds about whether it really had been their first choice. Most of the details are unpublished, but you can find a bit here.

If we generalize this, we reach a conclusion that's not too far-fetched, viz. that the population of students that is most vulnerable is also at the greatest risk of failure because they are uninformed. Vulnerabilities include not understanding how higher education works because they are not sophisticated consumers of the product. In the case of the retention study, students probably relied more on local reputation and geographical proximity than a real survey of options. Other vulnerabilities include financial naivete and barriers to admittance in traditional four-year schools because of low grades and test scores. All of these tend to go together in a bundle of misery. There are ditches on either side of the road to enlightenment: one is simply giving up in the face of the complexity of it, and the other is being taken advantage of by unethical operators. This article is about the latter.

In "Survival Strategies" I mused about a discount behemoth that joins the economies of scale of Walmart with the online commercialization of education of University of Phoenix. I imagined that for-profit institutions would use their competitive advantage to drive costs down. I haven't found evidence of that outside the open education movement. On the contrary, the for-profits seem to want to milk every last cent out of the subsidized education market, in some cases preying on those students with limited options or limited horizons.

In the unfortunately titled article "A Neo-Liberal Arts Education," Danny Weil writes about Alta Colleges Inc., which is a story like we've heard before: buy an existing institution and "flip" it to for-profit, go massively online and rake in subsidy dollars [Edit: I showed my own ignorance here--I didn't know what neoliberalism was. See the comments]. I described this in "Survival Strategies" as a way to quickly get the accreditation status needed to attain status and eligibility for state and federal aid. In the case of Alta College Inc., they were content with national accreditation rather than regional. How many applicants know the difference? How many applicants from the population I described earlier would know that national accreditation is nearly worthless?

Weil makes a case that deregulation fanned the flames:

In 2002, for example, around the time Alta Colleges, Inc. saw tremendous growth and soaring profits, Sally Stroup, the top lobbyist for the University of Phoenix, was appointed the Department of Education's assistant secretary for post-secondary education. During her tenure, which ended in 2006, the Department of Education softened rules that prevented the career colleges from obtaining more than 90 per cent of their income from federal aid.

I must note that this article appears on a political e-zine, and the title seems to make a bizarre charge that fraud is the same as "new liberal education." This is particularly odd since blame is placed squarely on the Bush administration. Maybe I'm too dumb to figure it out, but the color of politics detracts from an otherwise fascinating article. You can read it and judge for yourself; I'll try to stick to what can be verified elsewhere. For example, students of Westwood College, owned by Alta College Inc., have filed a class-action suit claiming:

Respondents engaged in deceptive and illegal trade practices continuously throughout the course of a student’s interactions with the colleges. From the moment of initial contact, Westwood specializes in a high-pressure, sales-oriented recruiting program with a solitary goal of increasing student enrollments. Admissions Representatives intentionally mislead or lie to students regarding the actual costs and fees associated with enrollment, job placement opportunities and statistics, credit transferability, and the value of the school’s accreditation.

There are other charges, including the detail that the cost of three years' education at Westwood is between $69,000 and $81,000. This is far more than average cost at a low or mid tier private liberal arts school per year (take nominal tuition and discount by about 40%). According to the complaint, this cost was not transparent to students. The brief also accuses admissions representatives of purposefully misleading students "into assuming that the national
accreditation is of equal value and reputation as regional accreditation and omit any explanation of the various forms of accreditation," noting that:

It is common industry knowledge that nationally-accredited institutions regularly accept credits from both regionally- and nationally-accredited institutions, but that regionally-accredited institutions generally will not accept credits from nationally-accredited institutions. [...] By way of example, one Admissions Representative promised a potential student that Westwood credits would be transferable to the University of Florida or Florida State University if the student ultimately got an offer from a “classier, shinier school”, as long as the course descriptions were the same. Representatives from both Florida colleges said they would not accept credits from Westwood College under any circumstance because Westwood is not regionally-accredited.

There is also some insight into how to flip a college: use call center agents to provide counseling, advising, registration, class selection, enrollment, and financial aid services. It's a sales pitch from beginning to end. These "admissions representatives" have quotas to keep their jobs, the suit states.

The Westwood College website is well-designed, and completely focused on admissions. The website set up by the James Hoyer Law firm called westwoodscammed.me is less formal, but has its own appeal.

In a post called "Virtual Loans", I noted that colleges could benefit from running their own loan programs, but I never imagined how badly that could turn out. It seems that Alta Inc. isn't content with PELL grants and subsidized loans. Weil writes that they "loaned" money to students themselves--without even telling students they were doing so--through an "Apex loan program." I found some corrabating information in an Associated Press article:

One for-profit school, Colorado-based Westwood College, has been hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing it of fraud and arguing that its lending program violates state banking laws. Westwood charges a relatively high 18 percent interest but doesn't call its lending student loans. [...]

Jessica Rosales was 17 when she enrolled at Westwood's Inland Empire campus near Los Angeles. She dropped out after one term and was later told she owed Westwood around $18,000 — nearly half in interest and collection fees. Rosales said that the school misled her about the source of her aid and that she never signed a loan from the school.

Because "virtual loans" are just deferred tuition payments, I can see how you could play semantic games with it, and turn "interest rate" into a "finance charge." It's pretty ugly.

Weils ends his article with a non-sequitur, linking an increase in PELL grant money to debt. I'm not sure what the logic is there, but because this is part of Obama's stimulus package, I suppose that is the link to "neo-liberal" nonsense. It's obviously the wrong conclusion to reach from the evidence presented.

How widespread is this kind of mischief? InsideHigherEd.com posted "Ferreting Out Financial Aid Fraud" this week. The gao.gov site is down right now (!) so I can't access the actual report, but article centers on as many as a million students who did not graduate from high school nevertheless getting federal aid for college . Presumably most of these are at for-profits, community colleges, or tech schools. Such applicants are supposed to take an Ability-to-Benefit test. You can read about it on a college website here. Unsurprisingly, test results get spoofed (Zog's Lemma again).

A GAO representative is quoted in the article as saying:

[E]arly findings [...] have revealed evidence that student aid funds are being disbursed to ineligible students in online programs or to students who have dropped out of these programs.

In summary, students get defrauded and taxpayers get defrauded. I see more regulation in the industry's future. The question is can it be regulated? If not, it's another nail in the coffin of the current order of things.

Speaking of regulation, there was an attempt to weaken transfer policies nationally through the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The actual text of the thing is nearly unreadable, so I'm relying on this nice summary at Council on Law in Higher Education. Quote:

Transfer-of-credit policies were the subject of much debate during the most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (“HEA”). Postsecondary institutions that are accredited by national accreditors complained that institutions that are accredited by regional accreditors unfairly deny students’ requests to transfer credit solely because the credit was earned at an institution that is not regionally accredited.

At times during the reauthorization process, proposed legislation included language that would have prohibited institutions to refuse to consider transfer requests based solely on the accredited status of an institution as long as the accreditor was recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

This isn't hard to figure out. For-profits make lots of money, but are stymied by restrictive transfer problems, so they hire lobbyists to try to force high quality schools to take their credits. We probably have passed the worst risk to the system falling into anarchy--the conditions were perfect for the for-profits during the construction of the HEOA: an administration bent on deregulation and rivers of for-profit money available to buy influence. For now, that time seems to be over, but the fundamental issues remain. For-profit, not-for-profit, and open education will evolve and find market niches. Massive discount online education hasn't arrived yet, but the potential is there. It's going to be a wild ride for those of us in the industry.

Farming Credits and Your Next Million $

One of the more frequented posts of mine is this one on the fear and uncertainty about the Higher Education Opportunity Act's language about ascertaining a student's identity. In the post I noted that "the requirement is for accreditors, not schools, meaning that this requirement will likely become part of the accreditation list of to-dos next time it rolls around." This appears to be happening. The last time I talked to a SACS VP, a few weeks ago, she went out of her way to tell me that this authentication issue was coming around the bend. There were no specifics. She also mentioned, by the way, that it will soon not be possible to reject transfer credits merely because they come from an unaccredited institution. This seems bizarre to me, but I haven't followed up on that yet.

The problem of authentication stems from the easy anonymity of the internet. If a student signs up for and takes online courses, how can you be sure that it actually is the registered student doing the work? How easy would it be to hire someone else out to do it?

With face to face interactions, this is still possible, but seems to me would be pretty rare. You'd essentially have to hire someone to become your alter ego, interacting in the classroom with students and faculty. It would take a peculiar sort of person to be willing to do that (are you listening, Mr. Ripley?). But with a purely online environment, an unscrupulous student could conceivably hire different stand-ins for each class. It becomes much easier to hide one's identity in general.

Interestingly, this happens in online games already. Massively multi-player online games like World of Warcraft have their own virtual currency. A player who doesn't want to grind through the lower levels, suffering the pains of an entry-level character, can simply buy a powerful avatar with cash by converting US dollars to World of Warcraft gold. There are plenty of so-called farmers out there who specialize in creating this product (as well as others). Because the internet is ubiquitous, the farmer can live in China. This June 30 article from GossipGamers states that:

According to a survey in 2008 by Richard Heeks, he estimates 80-85% of the gold farmers are based in China and the virtual currency market generates between $200 million and $1 billion annually.

This trade, however, is to be banned by the Chinese government. I suspect it will go on anyway, but the larger point is what else can they farm? College credits, maybe? Language would probably be a problem in China, but perhaps less so in India. And home-grown credit farms are not unlikely either. I remember from my SIU days that there was a guy who made a living just doing math tutoring, with his posters all over campus: Vince makes Sense! I wonder if Vince is still in business. How much harder would it be for a financially-strapped grad student, say, to spoof a couple of online sections of Math 101 for cash? Don't you think that's already happening?

I've heard rumors about devices coming to market that would provide some level of cheat-proofing. Imagine a USB-plug-in gizmo that monitors audio and video around your computer as you take an online test at home. In my opinion this will never work. That's must my gut feeling as an IT guy. Even that could relatively easily be gotten around by a clever student. Think how hard it is to prevent cheating when the instructor is actually in the room walking around...

This is a hard problem. I foresee a large market for identity-spoof-proof products. (There's a brand name for you: go pay $10 for spoof-proof.com--you won't be sorry!). It's an interesting line of thought to imagine what is it about YOU that ties you to a particular product: a writing, homework, test, interaction... Really, the only thing that cannot be spoofed is the connection that it comes from your mind and body. So, for example, a type-sensor that notes how you use the keyboard when typing would be very hard to imitate. Potentially, another person could learn the pauses and fits and starts that characterize your particular style of keyboarding, but this I imagine to be so time-consuming that the cost would become prohibitive. In a different vein, deep patterns of style in vocabulary and grammar would be invisible to the spoofer, but could be perhaps detected with pattern-recognition tools like latent semantic analysis.

So there, dear reader: I've presented you with a latent demand for a new product, two solutions, and a brand name. When you make your next million, please make out the thank-you check to:

Stanislav Zaa
Gmail, Com

Alternatively, should you turn to the dark side, please hire me as a consultant and we'll see how we can get around those pesky keyboard and semantics limitations. (Just kidding. Really. No, Really.)

FUD

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt--the bread and butter of consultants, charlatans, and news organizations. There's plenty to go around in the new Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008. A colleague got my attention by forwarding an email flier from this group, which sells online seminars on higher ed. From the flier:

The buzz is that the HEOA requires very costly and very complex changes to online programs, and that it’s going to create major challenges for the people who run them.

In this case, the buzz is absolutely correct.

The HEOA is going to wreak havoc in online learning, particularly in the areas of academic integrity and student authentication.

Online courses are not a big part of our business currently at my home institutions, but we should probably think about summer classes delivered through distance learning. That project has been in the back of my mind, so I furrowed my brow at the language in the flier. Before shelling out $229 to see what this group has to say, I thought I'd see what the HEOA actually says. Here's the part about student authentication.

[T]he agency or association requires an institution that offers distance education or correspondence education to have processes through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the program and receives the academic credit. [Section 496]

So what kind of process is required to establish identity? I figured that Educause might be a good source for information on this. Indeed, they've written about it already here. I took the title of this article from their reference to "FUD" surrounding this issue. Apparently, some wild misconceptions were spawned by no less than the Chronicle. Educause quotes their article:

Tucked away in a 1,200-page bill now in Congress is a small paragraph that could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students' homes.

This references the paragraph in the HEOA quoted above. As the Educause article explains, however there are two rather large considerations that obviate the more drastic assumptions being made, and hardly merit beating the drums for. First, the requirement is for accreditors, not schools, meaning that this requirement will likely become part of the accreditation list of 'to-do's next time it rolls around. More importantly, a conference report from the HEOA actually spells out what authentication means: currently it means having a unique ID and password. That's it. The North Central Association (accrediting agency) endorses that line here (pg 8-9)

The Joint Conference Committee of Congress and the U.S. Department of Education have confirmed that initially institutions may use simple efforts already in use at most institutions to verify the identity of their students. Such efforts may include the use of IDs and passwords. This amended policy reflects this current understanding; however, as time progresses, better processes for verifying the identify of students come into existence, and final regulations develop, this policy may need to be updated. The Commission hopes that the Department will follow closely to the language of the statute in its final regulation thus presumably allowing agencies and institutions some latitude in determining what method of verification best suits an institution’s mission and purposes. In the meantime, institutions should be examining more sophisticated approaches to verifying the identity of their students and making plans to incorporate such approaches in their distance and correspondence education.

You can find more analysis and opinion on this blog.

The larger lesson, I think, is to beware of the FUD. It's like stress for an individual. A little can loosen the bonds of established practice and prompt higher productivity. Too much can lock the system up and send you out shopping for snake oil.

Update: See this more recent post.