May 18, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for quality of online education

Many colleges bolstering quality of intake with assessments

May 9, 2011 By 1 Comment

A good sign has risen over the last year as many of the nations top for profit colleges make strides in improving their intake mechanisms.  Instead of the previous standard open door policy colleges are now working to ensure a better fit for both the colleges and students best interest.  Assessments are starting to surface as a way for both the students and colleges to learn more about what is best for them.

By taking simple assessments many colleges are learning which programs the students are most motivated to succeed in and thus more likely to graduate, which is the shared goal of the student and institution.  Others are using assessments as a means to uncover weakness areas which need additional support from student services and professors.

Bottom line is that the smarter long term players have understood that now is the time to re-build for the future, while the market is expecting a slowdown anyway.  The result will be long term sustainable growth with better outcomes for all!admissions assessments

Filed Under: For Profit Education Industry, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Huffington Post Article about Kaplans “Bad Practices”

December 22, 2010 By Leave a Comment

 

The Huffington post recently posted a strikingly negative article about Kaplan.  Link to article is below.  The industry is clearly headline material for tv, print and online articles all unfortunately negative, why cant the industry get some positive press?  Any of us who have actually been to a graduation at a forprofit school can attest to the lives that have been changed as well as the appreciation from the families and friends.   

At Kaplan University, ‘Guerilla Registration’ Leaves Students Deep In Debt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/kaplan-university-guerilla-registration_n_799741.html?page=1

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Edu Stocks continue to fluctuate

November 16, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Good news is the Republicans took the House, bad news Dems held the Senate.  EDU stocks continue to fluctuate due to uncertainty and fear.   Many arguments on both sides of the fence as to what will happen in 2011…  Happy to hear a lot more discussion and understanding about the positives the for profits bring to education.  About the outreach they provide to those ignored most by traditional academia.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Could the DOE finally be realizing the negative impacts of their proposed rule changes?

October 29, 2010 By 1 Comment

The Department of Education, seemed to respond to the heavy pressure from for-profit colleges and intelligent politicians (isn’t that an oxymoron), is softening the plan to require the colleges to seek federal approval of new programs.

This change is one of many concessions the DOE has made to colleges and financial-aid administrators in their package of final regulations that will be made public.

Under the newly revised rules, for-profit colleges would simply be required to notify the department when they create new programs, however a small percentage of those programs may be subject to formal approval.

On the call, Mr. Davis also rattled off the names of more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers who oppose the gainful-employment rule and said there was “deep concern” in the Democratic party about the effect the changes could have on low-income and minority students.  Duh…  How obvious is it that the for-profits are the only significant form of Educational out reach to the under served in this country.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Debate on Gainful employment from the linkedin group on forprofit education

October 7, 2010 By 1 Comment

 The following are some snipets from the linkedin group on forprofit education:

 Here is one company that in my opinion has put their money where their mouth is. Congrats to Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (CCi) for putting on the armor and marching onto the battlefield!

We can only impact this with hard work. Thank you for the letter (I heard it was 80k, 68k of which argued against).

  I admire Corinthian for taking a stand on this discriminatory DOE Gainful Employment ruling. The rhetorical question is why is this not being applied to non-profit colleges and universities also?

The full page ad and quarter page ads that Corinthian placed in last Sunday’s New York Times (September 19, 2010) should have been paid for by a coalition of for-profit schools. But, my hat is off to Corinthian to have the courage to do what others have not done. Recommend the web-site www.mycareercounts.org to everyone, please.

 • I agree — the Corinthian ad appeared in the Seattle Times as well. The fact that seems to get lost in the wash are the tens of thousands of grads who have started successful careers outside the ‘traditional’ public and ‘not for profit’ systems. Many who could not have been or would not have been successful anywhere else.
 • Next will be the campaign from CCA…
 I certainly think that these policies would have more legs if also applied to the traditionals or “not-for-profit”. The reality is that “not-for-profit” still profits in many ways that are overlooked. Take a look at the compensation of College Presidents and coaches. Take a look at the money they get both privately and publicly and how it is spent. In times when public universities are cutting classes at the expense of their students, they still continue to raise tuition and give the Regents and presidents large pension packages.
 • I had also heard that Kaplan University had placed a similar ad. I have not found a good source to view the text of the Corinthian ad or the Kaplan ad. I would appreciate it if one of you would be able to provide a link pointing me to site providing this.
• Good point,  They also do not contribute tax dollars, something America is quite short on…

 • You need to look at trends on a global basis -and over a long term.
After 40 years in industry, I’ve noticed that a lot of people worry about where thengs are heading; but inevitably, they end up going somewhere unpredicted….and as the decades roll past, this all happens faster & faster.
I decided 10 years ago to cut loose from “government accredited education” and make our business of education much simpler…. provide the best learning experience, charge a reasonable price, take on board students and staff who are like minded, and don’t worry about the things that keep complicating the rest of the industry. This formula works. Politicians are never light on their feet….but small businesses are. Politicians are never going to kill “for profit education” ….they can try, but it is not in their nature to have any capacity to do so.


 • If you want to review nearly everything that’s appeared on this topic, go to:

http://www.intered.com/for-profit-regulation 

  •  • – some really smart people said the same thing about the student loan industry as well. Politicians are professional manipulators (starting with the campaign/election process) and socializing sectors like education IS in their nature…and companies like Sallie Mae would certainly disagree with your assessment of their “capacity”. 

    I appreciate your point of the publics and not-for-profits not being tax paying entities. So true that the for-profits “re-invest” into the country’s tax pool.

• I think the politicians are influenced heavily by the kings of the non-profit world. For-profits are starting to eat their lunch and they are afraid. They might have to tap their endowments (profits).

 •  CCA should have expresed outrage over this months ago. I have no confidence in their ability to speak forcefully for the for-profit industry.
 • I am new to this thread but I find the discussion fascinating.  to your point: how is it feasible that the non-profits are not to be held to similar standards? The criteria for inclusion, as far as I can see, is not whether you are a for-profit educational institution, but whether your students are recipients of financial aid from the Federal Government. Obviously, if I am correct in this, then the “non-profits” are clearly to be held accountable to a similar standard. So, if my kid wants to study Latin at the University of Wisconsin, is the DOE going to force the college to explain the potential gainful employment my kid is likely (NOT) to receive as a result of such an education? Are there any public educators out there reviewing this discussion? I would love to see your comments to this along with the group’s active participants.
 •  – Public educators are not overly concerned. This is a one-sided attack…always has been. The attack is designed to help the public educators by eliminating the private sector competition. Public educators know they could never survive were they held to the standards for-profit schools are held to. So they stay out of the battle as they are secure being out of the line of fire. I have YET TO HERE the DOE make a cogent argument as to why these standards only apply to the for-profit sector. Please…ask them. Maybe they will provide you with an answer.

 • I have posted the question to the Linked In White House group as well as sending an email directly to: AskArne@ed.gov. I will keep this group posted when a response is received.

• Hi, this attack is geared specifically to the for-profit sector. As far as not being held to the same standards…For-Profits have a minimum standard for their completion rates, placement rates, and student default rates to maintain our accreditation and ability for Title IV funding. They are also starting to ding us if the student waives placement because they are GAINFULLY EMPLOYED in a field other than what they studied at your institution. How is that fair? The students waives placement and the institution gets dinged on their placement rates. When was the last time you heard publics being held to these standards. BTW, how much placement assistance did your son with his Latin degree receive upon graduation??? And thank you for posting the question to Arne.
 • Have governments got so much money to spare that they have to focus on damaging for profit education; -which in turn will increase their own cost of providing education.

• They think they can redirect the Title IV money to build a community college system.

 • He is right; the administration figures it will take two years to take out the for-profits, so they’ll be “stimulating” the community colleges in the meantime to expand to accomodate the influx of students. Ahhh, more students fot THEM to abuse.

 • I will withhold further comment on the government’s capacity to do what we do…
 • Many politicians operate with the notion that the best defense is an offense – any offense, regardless of how offensive. In my opinion, this attack on for-profit education is not so much an attack on “for-profit” as it is a defense to prevent an informed constituency from asking deeper, more meaningful questions about political leadership and education. Those deeper questions might be:
1. Where is our national education agenda?
2. Why is education still considered a local issue when it is so clearly a national issue?
3. Why are we still burning billions of education dollars on local level administration in the non-profit (public) education system when that model is so clearly broken?

And on and on and on.

 • Diversity is very important.
I always found as an employer, that the best work team is one made up of people who each have a very different education.
It is wrong to assume that there is one, single, best way of educating people.
Different people learn in different ways.
Everyone has differentr priorities in their lives at different times
Diversity in education breeds innovation in graduates.
All too often though, we try to find a “single framework” and exclude everything on the fringes -that is a big mistake if you want your country to continue to develop.

Isn’t it interesting that big, diverse countries, with less “national strategies” like India and China, are growing faster than America and Europe.

 
• I have received a prompt response from the Department of Education (POSTED BELOW). It raises some of the same questions:

1. Are non-profit (besides community colleges) educational institutions held to the same standards as for-profit institutions?

2. It appears that community colleges will be evaluated on the same playing field according to the response below? Correct?

Department of Education
to me

show details Oct 1 (3 days ago)

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it
within the next 14 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

Subject
—————————————————————
“Department on Track to Implement Gainful Employment Regulations”

Discussion Thread
—————————————————————
Response (Monica Bates) – 10/01/2010 03:44 PM
Dear Mr. XXX,

Thank you for contacting the United States Department of Education through AskArne@ed.gov.

The Department’s proposed regulations will hold programs accountable for preparing students for gainful employment and ensure program integrity in higher education.

As proposed, the graduation rate and job placement disclosure rule would require proprietary institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions to provide prospective students with each eligible program’s graduation and job placement rates, and that colleges provide the Department with information that will allow determination of student debt levels and incomes after program completion.

As proposed, the approval of additional programs rule would require institutions to provide: 5 year enrollment projections; documentation from employers not affiliated with the institution that the program’s curriculum aligns with recognized occupations at those employers’ businesses; and that there are projected job vacancies or expected demand for those occupations at those businesses before new programs can become eligible to participate in federal student aid.

Additional information on the Department’s planned public sessions will be released in the coming weeks.

Once again, thank you for contacting the United States Department of Education.

Sincerely,

Information Resource Center
Office of Communications and Outreach
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave, SW, LBJ
Washington, DC 20202-0498

Customer – 09/29/2010 11:56 PM
——————————————-
From:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:45:48 PM
To: Ask Arne
Auto forwarded by a Rule

“Department on Track to Implement Gainful Employment Regulations” (attached): I posted the following question today on the Linked-In For-Profit Education Industry Group:

I am new to this thread but I find the discussion fascinating. Sally, to your point: how is it feasible that the non-profits are not to be held to similar standards? The criteria for inclusion, as far as I can see, is not whether you are a for-profit educational institution, but whether your students are recipients of financial aid from the Federal Government. Obviously, if I am correct in this, then the “non-profits” are clearly to be held accountable to a similar standard. So, if my kid wants to study Latin at the University of Wisconsin, is the DOE going to force the college to explain the potential gainful employment my kid is likely (NOT) to receive as a result of such an education? Are there any public educators out there reviewing this discussion? I would love to see your comments
to this along with the group’s active participants.

I was challenged by a member of the group to directly ask our government how such an inequity is possible. I look forward to a response which I will forward to the group. Thank you.

 • Well, I finally took the time to find an article on the latest default rates. If you want to know the source, you can find it at

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/13/pf/college/student_loan_default_rate/index.htm

“Student loan default rate creeps higher”

The most important revelation in this article for me is found in this paragraph:

Graduates of public colleges defaulted at a rate of 6%, up from 5.9% a year earlier. Students coming from private schools had a 4% default rate, up from 3.7%. The default rate for borrowers at for-profit schools, however, rose to 11.6% from 11% a year earlier.

OK, people, what gives? Why is the rate of default so much higher for for-profit schools? A demographic group with fewer moms and dads able to help out in tough times?

 • – at the risk of sounding condescending, if you aren’t familiar with the different demographics served, you should do some homework. Working adults, unemployed adults, under-employed adults and a high percentage from economically-challenged families vs. 18-22 year old students predominately from middle to upper-middle class homes, and you ask what gives?
  •  –
When you preface a comment in such a way, then you can assume the reader understands your intent. I would recommend leaving your emotions and condescensions for the government and just try be a real and honest guy here. Just a thought.

Nonetheless, that is exactly what I assumed the rebuttal to be. As I sent you in an email, is there any rate of default that would shock anyone from this group (people in the for-profit space)? In other words, if the default rate were 50%, would that concern you? At what rate (or rate discrepancy) would we expect/want the DOE to step in?

When do we have another mortgage crisis developing versus when do we have an over-zealous government agency?

 • It has been required for many years that for-profit schools manage their default rates to maintain their eligibility to offer Title IV programs and understand that. I think the bigger issue is that often the demographic we serve is high risk. We provide accessibility to education which may not otherwise be available. We teach in a way that allows for our students to learn a practical skill in a short period of time to get an entry-level position in their chosen fields. Hopefully, this will in-turn decrease the dependency on some other public assistance programs while creating a stepping stone to continuing to further their education.

90/10 and gap, I won’t go any further on this topic but it is worthy of a mention in driving tuition rates. Again, not a standard that the traditionals are held to.

We have so many people who take advantage of social services offered by this country because it is easier and makes more sense for them to stay home and on these services then take the step to get off of them. We have generations of welfare families out there. For-profits are the ones that serve them. We get them in school, hold their hands, and strive very hard to get them not only to graduation but getting them employed.

Another trend that is not sitting well with me is that if a student is employed out of the field and waives placement, we are getting dinged for it; it doesn’t make any sense. Again, ask many who graduated from a traditional college with a liberal arts degree what they ended up doing with it…

•  – apologies for the comment if you feel I WAS being condescending, but I will not leave my “emotions” for the government. For people like myself (and various other) who have given upwards of 20 years of my life to this sector of higher education, this is an emotionally charged issue. MY government is unfairly and unduly attacking me and my friends, and threatening rules that would be devastating to this country, especially those financially less fortunate than most. Sorry, but you’d have to be a droid to not feel emotion on this one.
 • Having attended the APSCU Student Rally and immediately going to Senators Boxer’s and Feinstein’s office to discuss this rule, I can tell you it is extremely one-sided. Our initial talking point with staffers, most of which had already decided their recommendations, was to talk about equal treatment. Their response was that it indeed is equal since non-profits and publics have to have the same income-to-debt ratio for their certificate and diploma programs. When I countered with, equal would be for publics and non-profits to be held to the same standard for Associate, Bachelor, Masters and higher; the same as the for-profits are, I was met with silence. The party line was that Congress is held responsible to safeguard the taxpayer’s investment. I countered with the $220 billion in 2008 that was subsidizing publics and non-profits at both the state and federal levels that not a dime is returned or paid back to the government. Since non-profits make up 10% of higher education, let’s take 10% of the subsidies and split the $22 billion according to enrollment to bring down the tuition at the for-profits and I’m sure the debt-to-income ratios would be far greater than our counterparts. I also asked one staffer, why couldn’t subsidies be based on student need instead of flat across the board. They didn’t have the answers.
 • You are right
 • That’s the problem. Lack of knowledge results in reliance on “party line”. This is why I actually laughed out loud when Senators Harkin and Franken suggested that this was not a political issue.

Like so many issues in DC, this is partisan politics at its worst. Hardcore democrats are out to destroy for-profit schools and hardcore republicans are supportive of the for-profit schools. Our need is to influence the others, those who care enough to look at the facts…those that will consider what is at risk and who is at risk.

  • Having worked in career colleges, both FP and NP, and as a graduate of a public university, I continue to find these discussions interesting. I have opined in the past that the NP and FP operated basically the same – tuition driven, no direct assistance from government, student centric, outcomes of paramount importance to survival. One’s tax status doesn’t really matter.

The FPs will be able to meet these requirements and still survive, if only barely. They will eventually be forced to enroll fewer low socio-economic students, primarily minorities and single mothers. Yes, the repayment rates will rise, the default rates will drop, and we will create a permenant underclass that has very little chance to gain any semblence of the so called Amercian Dream. The DOE, media, President Obama, and Arne Duncan need to heed the old adage, “be careful for what you ask, you just might get it.”

 • Thank you,  – WELL SAID!!!!!

For more information and to see the complete debates join our linkedin group, link on top right of this site
Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Keiser University files civil suit against Florida State College at Jacksonville

October 7, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In a clear sign of the heightened tensions over proposed new federal regulations on for-profit colleges, Keiser University, a for-profit education system based in Florida, has sued a public-college president there, accusing him and a top administrator of smearing Keiser by communicating derogatory comments about the for-profit education industry to investors and others via e-mail. Keiser itself is not publicly traded, but its founder and chancellor, Art Keiser, has been an outspoken criitic of the proposed regulations. The civil suit was filed in state court against two officials at Florida State College at Jacksonville—its president, Steven R. Wallace, and its vice president for government relations, Susan M. Lehr.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,

Quinstreet’s s-1 interesting reading

January 11, 2010 By Leave a Comment

For those of you who like read, it may be worthwhile to ruffle through quinstreet’s s-1 filing.  Some interesting information on their firm, on their outlook of the industry and a nice peek into this company which has been closely held for many years now.  Interest to see % Devry’s represented of revenue. The company has been one of the leaders in EDU for some time and has made ground in Insurance & finance too.

I am very interested to see how the market will take to it.  Hopefully strong.

Link to s-1: http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/091222/QUINSTREET-INC_S-1.A/

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

What are the most important issues facing private equity firms interested investing in the for-profit education industry

December 22, 2009 By Leave a Comment

The following comes from the forprofit EDU group on linkedin.  If your not a member yet join using the link above.

I think it is finding those firms who understand the current postsecondary climate and have a plan for addressing the various concerns the sector faces as a whole.

More specifically, there are some serious issues with retention and completion initiatives across all postsecondary institutions.

Regarding the for-profit sector, the DOE is going to attempt to legislate stricter regulations if student loan default rates maintain current levels. There is a move afoot by the DOE to include a ‘gainful employment’ rule, which would force for-profits to adhere to a standard tying degrees earned to a result in employment that would ensure student loan payback. There is enough of a conundrum with retention issues and the DOE’s heavy handedness of the for-profits could be disastrous.

With regard to the public sector, the problems are just as serious. With tax revenues dropping, there are faculty layoffs and furloughs, courses being dropped, and students being turned away from schools. But alas, the Obama bucks will save the day! We’ve all heard about the American Graduate Initiative, where Obama and his administration are seeking to fund $12 billion to Community Colleges to graduate 5 million students over the next 10 years.

By the way, for-profits are noticeably absent from the mix, although they do a better job at graduating students. Is it possible the government is now trying to do away with for-profits by socializing education further?

So, I think there are opportunities that private equity firms should look for in the above relative to retention and degree completion. Too many students are heading back to school that are ill equipped and under-prepared in many ways. There are some firms out there addressing these issues. The key issue is to find those who have a pulse on the problem and who are in development of real solutions.

Happy holidays!

Paul

Bruce, over the last year I have had consultations with over 35 PE firms, some with indepth knowledge of the EDU industry most with no more than a big fund & surface industry information. I would say many PE firms should spend more time and bring in more experienced people to help them really learn about the EDU market, it’s been around for over 100 years and it changes rapidly. I also believe that many firms who are flushed with funds swing too fast with the wind and the flavors of the month, and do not take the time to plan a detailed strategy for the sector rather than just buying something to be in the game. I think that clearly some get it and are building profitable long term enterprises within segments of the sector but most move a little too fast. In addition I agree with what “the Doc” had said at the BMO conference about what scares him about the EDU industry being inexperienced & inadequate management being thrusted in power as the result of the frenzy in EDU and making headline type mistakes which may sour the milk for the rest of us.

 Hello Bruce: In my role as a broker for career colleges, I deal with PE firms every day. Many want to enter the Ed space. I think it is critical that they employ, pre-purchase or shortly after, an experienced operator of career colleges. I actually find that most PE firms are trying to be well informed and want their investment to be sound and successful. They have a healthy respect for default and 90-10 challenges facing the for-profit sector.

On the other hand, most want to exit the space in 5 years of so, thus they don’t have a tremendous amount of time to develop the company over a long period of time. An experienced operator will help them avoid making a critical mistake in the name of quick profits. It is that raised profit that will be important when they take their investment to market in the future, thus allowing them to “hit a home run.”

Also, more “home runs” experienced in the sector will shine the spotlight on the industry, and the numerous detractors will use the extraordinary profits and gains as a weapon against current operators. Sad, but true. The detractors (ex. Maxine Waters, et al) won’t let the facts get in the way of their pursuit.

The facts support continued support of the for-profit sector.

  

Hello Bruce,

Great question, thanks for posting.

I have consulted with several private equity groups that made an investment in the for-profit higher education industry. First, private equity groups with experience in for-profit education investment tend to do a better job with the following: 1. Selecting the right investment; 2. Conducting due diligence; 3. Hiring the right management team and 4.Understanding what questions to ask before, during and after the deal has closed. A private equity group that comes up short in its appreciation for the complexity and nuance of for-profit education may end up in a “money pit” (especially if it gets any combination of 1-4 wrong). That said I agree with Bruce and think we should expect stricter regulations from the US-DOE. Specifically, the 12-safe harbors are in potential trouble from the DOE’s Negotiated Rulemaking committees.

The profit motive in higher education can work quite effectively if managed with tight internal controls. For instance, the manner in which benchmarks and goals are established, communicated and managed makes a world of difference. Get this part right and you succeed or fail on your merits. Get it wrong and you create (as I mentioned above) your own money pit, or worse. I have concluded that private equity groups investing in for-profit higher education should be prepared for a more hands-on approach to understanding the business and monitoring its management team.
One critical issue facing new investment in for-profit education is the market itself. Shifting demographics over the next decade indicate a reduction in qualified students with the ability to pay and an enormous growth in academically and financially challenged students. The ability to deliver on alternative scheduling, delivery models and even alternative pedagogical models may distinguish those with the greatest market share. Increasing societal diversity, academic remediation, job placement and alignment between educational cost and salaried result (by program) are issues that will continue to rise and present challenges for new and existing institutions and investors.
Best of luck!

Join the group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1786509&trk=anet_ug_hm&goback=%2Eanh_1786509

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Milken-PennGSE Education Business Plan Competition

November 18, 2009 By Leave a Comment

UPenns has asked ForProfitEDU.com  to post the following:

In a knowledge economy, nothing is more important than people being able to maximize their potential.  And yet, collectively we have not figured out how to reach every person – regardless of where they are intellectually, emotionally, financially, and geographically – to help them realize their potential.  Effective learning is important for individual learners, their families, their employers, their communities and their countries.  There is an urgent need to find ways to reach and educate every person.

Education – from toddlers through baby boomers – is also big business in the United States. Depending on how one counts it, education mirrors healthcare in terms of spending or falls just below it. The United States is the largest exporter of education in the world, and education is our country’s fifth largest export.  By some accounts we have the most robust system of higher education in this country, a rich diversity of K-12 education, innovative pre-K and educational entertainment industries, and over 50% of adult Americans learning on the job on any given day.

Despite the size and import of learning, we have immense challenges; many hold out the hope of entrepreneurship to help solve some of these challenges. That said, until now there hasn’t been a single education business plan competition in the world and while entrepreneurship in bio tech, software, engineering and medicine is quite robust with clusters of start ups surrounding some of the world’s great universities, nothing similar exists in education.

To address this issue, the Milken Family Foundation and Penn have come together to be a joint catalyst for innovation in education, to help “create a space” for education entrepreneurs.  To begin this process, we have put together a business plan competition and we hope –if you have an idea to change the world, that you will enter the competition.

Why Penn? Since its founding by Ben Franklin, Penn has prided itself on its ability to combine theory and practice. We have the country’s first school of medicine and school of business.  At PennGSE, this spirit has manifested itself in a rich array of entrepreneurial activities all designed to foster change in education. Our faculty, staff, and students are all committed to the teleology of change and this competition is just one manifestation of a broad and aggressive agenda – framed by real world needs and sound theory and research.

Why Milken? The Milken family – who are Penn graduates – embody the Franklin spirit and through Knowledge Universe have demonstrated successful educational entrepreneurship – from pre-K services through college education for working adults. And in their philanthropic activities, the Milken family have made education – particularly innovation in education – a cornerstone of their work.

We hope that you will enter the competition, and look forward to hearing your ideas.

Visit: http://www.gse.upenn.edu/entrepreneurcomp/

Good luck!

Best,

Gregory Milken

Doug Lynch

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Professional Academic Society to Offer Graduate Credit by University of St. Thomas for Adjunct Faculty Certification Program

November 16, 2009 By Leave a Comment

CHICAGO, Ill., August 10, 2009 — SoCAFE, The Society of Certified Adjunct Faculty Educators, announced today that the organization’s certification program for part-time college and university faculty would now be available for graduate credit by the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN.

Completion of the certification course, entitled “Core Competencies of College Teaching” (CTED 672), will earn three graduate hours of credit and award the Certified Adjunct Faculty Educator (C.A.F.E.) designation.

“We’re gratified by the confidence St. Thomas University has shown in the quality of our certification program by offering it for graduate credit. This may be an excellent time for K-12 teachers to consider registering for this course, given the widespread lay-offs of public school teachers around the country,” said Dr. Rochelle Santopoalo, President of SoCAFE.

SoCAFE is the first organization in the United States to provide a portable, national credential for adjunct faculty in American colleges and universities.

Dr. Santopoalo also stated that “while the number of opportunities for K-12 teachers is currently in decline, according to the 2008-2009 edition of U.S. Department of Labor Handbook, the number of college and university teaching jobs is expected to grow by 23 percent between 2006 and 2016 – much faster than the average for all occupations.”

Founded in 1885, the University of St. Thomas is the largest private university in Minnesota. St. Thomas offers bachelor’s degrees in over 85 major fields of study and more than 45 graduate degree programs including master’s, education specialist, juris doctor and doctorates. (University of St. Thomas website: www.stthomas.edu/education/ce).

For more information on the organization visit: http://www.socafe.org.

All trademarks and service marks are the property of The Society of Certified Adjunct Faculty Educators.

Filed Under: Submit a Posting Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
208