Comments on: Many new industry analysts fear the big name non-profits can take over the online space!

By: Ellen Blackmun

Ellen Blackmun — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:53:32 +0000

Having devoted most of my career to working in the for-profit sector, and the last ten years or so in online learning, I think one point is really important to remember. Community colleges have been major providers of online/distance learning for a very long time. And they are growing. It’s just not quite as simple as for-profit vs. non-profit (I hate even typing that). And, in recent years, all of postsecondary education has become noticeably more oriented toward career education, which was the arena of for-profits for decades. As the costs of all postsecondary educatioin continue to rise in all sectors, the payoff in terms of income to the student when compared to costs becomes all that much more important.

By: hans wilsdorf

hans wilsdorf — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:24:55 +0000

It’s in the blood of for-profits to make money while traditionals have many other “distractions” and politics to tend to. I guess it can be said that they “can” take over this space, but will they or is it their objective?

I also would not consider a for-profit school for myself and I don’t necessarily think I’d be incorrectly biased by preferring say a U of Arizona grad over a U of Phoenix grad. Not to start a war here, though the admin may get a kick out of it, but going to a for-profit like Phoenix is the easy way out. What % of the top 50% of graduating HS seniors prefer for-profits vs. non? What’s the avg. SAT/GMAT/GED score of a for-proft candidate vs. a traditional school candidate? What average experience and qualifications does a professor from a traditional school vs. for-profit obtain? What kind of academic, social, and cultural lessons can a for-profit provide compared to a traditional? Hmmm… Can they provide the almuni networking post graduation as say a Michigan or U of Florida? No, they cannot.

And why not just take the safe, more well-respected route of going traditional than going for-profit and “hoping” that employers don’t have a bias towards you, or wait a generation or two and hope that the bias is either reduced or completely vanished.

Do I sound too elitist or Republican? Or just realistic?

By: Glenn McInnes

Glenn McInnes — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:34:39 +0000

Can you not derive from your study a statement of the principles which govern the not-for-profit and for-profit space, and what the industry defacto standard ratios are? It would make a great discussion point.
Thanks

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:02:38 +0000

A mentor of mine, a school President of a for-profit school, once said that for-profit schools should be wary of the day the sleeping giant awakes. He meant the traditional 2 and 4 year State Colleges are well tooled if they so choose to commit to winning in the online world. I think he is right and the recent online initiatives launched at the University of Illinois and Colorado State University show that the market is beginning to change. They have the brand, the State support, the Employer credibility, lower tuition, etc.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:24:16 +0000

I think the biggest obstacle for the near term is the fact that traditionals are still largely faculty-focused as opposed to student focused. This isn’t as big a deal when you are an undergrad, but as a working professional looking for enhancement via a degree it can make a difference. As more for-profit grads go into management, then newer for-profit grads will benefit from their lack of bias regarding the school name. I agree with a few of the other comments however in the fact that if traditionals decide to outsource many of the marketing/admissions functions to those in for-profit areas, they could make great inroads.

By: eduexec

eduexec — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:46:58 +0000

I am at a large for-profit who 18 months ago offered marketing services to a mid-size traditional university. We now generate a third of their yearly student enrollments — and our students are all online. Believe me, the traditional schools could take the online market if they had the skills and the vision.

By: edumarketer

edumarketer — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:59:30 +0000

I would like to see your study too. Although I can probably guess what the traditional school was doing differently! I agree that the brand is a strong element, but when you are competing in the world of for-profit schools, you need to be a fierce marketer and have a strong response team.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:54:59 +0000

I would publish the study if I could… we were asked to conduct the study by the non-profit and thus they own it. However, what was learned was clear. Without question if I were to be selecting a school for myself I would go the route of the traditional vs. for-profit. I would shop around and choose what I believe to be the best choice for me. However, I do not represent the masses, in fact and with regard to the significant majority of the internet lead flow, the decision process is a quick one. The vast majority tend to swing to the schools that make the first “good” response and establish a relationship connection. Often, the non-profits are just way to slow in responding and create too many hurdles to enroll. Now to be clear, it is in their model to be selective and thus they tend to lack the “sales” aspect which helps to push the enrollment decision.

By: Heather Cornell

Heather Cornell — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:53:47 +0000

How about publishing the results of the study….
By the way, I’m working right now with two major traditional universities and their online initiatives. Let’s pose the question: If you could choose between a well known traditional university that had the processes down and UOP/Kaplan/DeVry/Career Ed/etc, which would you choose?

By: Joe Schmoke

Joe Schmoke — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:43:22 +0000

I am a former Wall Streeter and, since 1974, an entrepreneur. I have been involved in the for-profit education sector since 2001, and currently am CEO of Andrew Jackson University, so I see both sides of the street. I also speak to analysts quite frequently, and I am impressed by very few (Trace Urdan, for one, gets it). Their attitude re “who will control online” is similar to analysts’ guesses back in 1999 when their expert prognostications predicted that the big ad agencies would dominate web design, development, and programming. The big agencies missed the boat, mainly due to their culture. The same is happening with the big non-profits, in my opinion. The big non-profits, with the exception of the premier brands (Harvard, Stanford, etc.), are being “found out” as the media is blanketed with stories of high costs and low quality. I could go on and on, but time is too valuable to write more.