After reading, we invite you to continue the discussion in our LinkedIn group or follow HigherEd Careers on Twitter.
Andrew Hibel, HigherEdJobs: Mr. McCullough, you are currently the President and CEO of Career Education Corporation. Prior to joining the company, you served in leadership roles in traditional Fortune 500 companies. What prompted you to make the switch to the world of higher education?1
Gary E. McCullough, Career Education Corporation: When I was first approached about the CEO position at Career Education Corporation, I was skeptical about proprietary education. So I did some homework, which included my own “mystery shopping” of schools. I posed as a parent of a prospective student and had a very positive experience. That convinced me to leave the security of what I was doing and join Career Education. I appreciate the challenge of helping our company evolve as a true leader in postsecondary education. Most importantly, it’s tremendously rewarding to see how we’re changing lives through education.
Hibel: As mentioned in Career Education Corporation’s background statement on your website, over 40% of your students attend web-based virtual campuses.2 Why do you think it is so important to offer this option to students?
McCullough: It’s a challenging economy and most adults recognize the need to stay current, whether their field is accounting, information technology, health care, business or education. Today, for many people it is simply not an option to take a leave of absence or quit a job to complete a degree. People have commitments, whether at work or at home caring for children or other family members.
Online education provides busy people the convenience and flexibility of a 24/7 platform for learning. The majority of our students are working adults over 30 who have returned to school to get a degree to help advance or change their careers. They appreciate the opportunity to receive an education while balancing family and work. It is our responsibility to meet their needs by delivering high-quality education.
Hibel: According to a Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) survey, sponsored by the DETC3 (a distance education accreditation body), 95% of students attending a distance program reported they achieved their learning goals; 97% were satisfied overall with their studies; and 97% reported that they would recommend their alma mater to someone else to enroll. What are your thoughts on these impressive statistics?
McCullough: These are impressive statistics, certainly. It’s important to remember the distinction between online education and distance education. With both approaches, learning is conducted off-site. However, distance education may include correspondence studies, audio/visual material and local tutorials, as well as web-based content. Online education delivers course content using web-based technologies exclusively. For example, courses at the online campuses of American InterContinental University and Colorado Technical University use sophisticated, award-winning web technology that puts everything a student needs for study at his or her fingertips. We’re constantly looking for ways to innovate, using technology to meet students’ varying needs for learning.
Hibel: In the book, Online Learning Today: Strategies That Work,4 the author states “E-learning isn’t the next big thing- it’s the NOW big thing.” Do you think that the higher education community, both non-profit and for-profit, can agree with this concept?
McCullough: Absolutely. A 2009 study from the Department of Education5 concluded that students who took all or part of their classes online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. Students today demand options to fit their busy schedules and online learning offers the flexibility needed to attract and retain those students. More and more courses are delivered entirely or partially online. This is driven by student preferences for flexibility. And it’s clearly effective.
More traditional institutions are beginning to offer online programs, but proprietary institutions like ours have led the way. We invest in new technology, innovate rapidly and have the ability to quickly shift programs based on student demand and preferences.
In 2010, Colorado Technical University introduced My Unique Student Experience (M.U.S.E.TM) as part of its virtual campus. M.U.S.E. offers “freedom learning” for students, who can select from 11 different ways to interact with course material. Students pick the format that best suits their learning style. Among the choices, students can watch videos, read materials, listen to instructors, solve problems, take practice tests or explore related topics.
Hibel: Enrollment in online classes at universities has grown 20 percent annually over the last five years according to Bruce Chaloux, director of student access programs and services and the electronic campus for the Southern Regional Education Board in Texas.6 Despite this gain in enrollment numbers, there are still some challenges with online degrees, such as the perception by some people that they are of limited quality. What would you say in response to this?
McCullough: I think that perception continues to change. Evidence of student and employer acceptance of the value of online education is found in the growth statistics, as cited by Chaloux. While proprietary colleges and universities are at the forefront of online education, traditional four-year and community colleges are ramping up to include hybrid and all-online learning.
Why are the non-profit schools following our lead? First, we are a highly mobile, global community of adult learners who demand a flexible 24/7 platform that meets our learning goals and lifestyles. Second, high school students today and those who will follow are growing up online with virtual campuses, virtual classrooms and web communities. There is no going back. Online education has the power to transform the landscape of education. It’s not an evolution, it’s a revolution.
Hibel: In a book titled, New Players, Different Game, the authors present the for-profit model as “changing the rules of the game,” in regards to how higher education models operate. Would you briefly outline some of the major differences in how for-profit models work versus a traditional non-profit university?7
McCullough: Let’s first establish that we have one element in common — whether governed by a board of directors or board of trustees, students are always our top priority. Our collective mission is to ensure students receive the best education possible so that they can build meaningful careers, raise the quality of their lives, and help to stimulate the overall economy.
The rise in proprietary education occurred because an increased demand for higher education programs and degrees could not be met by traditional colleges and universities. The demand is market-driven. Employers need qualified employees to fill positions critical to economic growth. Employees want to remain current in their field and relevant to their employers. So our education institutions are market-driven in ways that benefit both students and employers. We know we’ve been successful when a student completes a program of study and finds employment, whether a new job or promotion, in his or her chosen field.
In this environment, we must be flexible and in step with the market — which drives innovation. Unlike traditional university bureaucracies, which are reliant on donors, alumni and state budget funds, proprietary institutions are more agile and can quickly invest in new programs as the demands of the job market change. We can scale up and down easily, while maintaining convenient course schedules and fostering new program development in the best interests of our students.
Even with exciting new technologies, faculty members remain the most important student-facing resource we have. But unlike at many traditional non-profit schools, teaching is the primary function of our faculty. Rather than investing in research, proprietary institutions like CEC invest in faculty development and resources for students.
Where non-profit universities are geared to full-time traditional students, we typically serve adult learners who require flexibility. There are no semesters or trimesters, and classes are scheduled year-round at times that are convenient for students busy juggling work and family responsibilities.
Proprietary institutions are often criticized for having profit motives. The fact is we’re innovating to meet the needs of today’s students. If we don’t deliver for our students, we fail. Only by keeping a keen focus on student success do we succeed as a business. Again, it’s all about changing lives through education.
Hibel: What do you see some of the major challenges as well as the major advantages that for-profit universities and colleges have compared to their traditional non-profit university counterparts?
McCullough: Non-profit universities are generally places filled with tradition. Having graduated from two non-profit universities, I appreciate the storied environment on campus. But for all they offer, those institutions can be slow to change. A large bureaucracy often requires many levels of review and approvals before program change can be made.
We’re different. Proprietary education providers can innovate more like the private sector. We can quickly identify and react to changing student and workplace needs, developing programs that provide the knowledge and skills students require.
So it should come as no surprise that private sector education companies like ours have led the way in developing online education tools that are transforming the way people learn now and into the future. Our focus on meeting student demands without undue constraints gives us the freedom to develop new educational programs now.
Hibel: The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Chapter 33), which went into effect August 1, 2009, enables delivery of new tuition, fees, and housing allowance benefits to eligible veterans.8 Have you seen any changes in military personnel taking advantage of the opportunity to further their education with these benefits? If so, why do you think this is occurring?
McCullough: As a former U.S. Army officer, I’m proud of the commitment our nation is making today educating our active military and veterans. The sacrifices our soldiers and their families are making today in places like Afghanistan are worthy of our reinvestment in them.
The intent of this new bill is to recognize the contributions of active military personnel and veterans serving on or after Sept. 11, 2001, and we have seen a number of changes since the bill’s passage in 2009.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill® improves upon the WWII-era GI Bill®. It increases funding for tuition and fees, extends the benefit period from 10 to 15 years and offers the option of transferring the education benefit to a spouse or child.
For the first time, veterans may attend their institution of choice, where “choice” is not wholly dependent on tuition rates. Prior to passage of the new bill, veterans and military students had to balance what they wanted in an education with what they could afford with the benefit pay-out. All too often a student’s first consideration was the cost of tuition and not school selection or the particular degree program.
Under the Post 9/11 GI Bill®, eligible veterans may receive education benefits based on the cost of tuition and fees at the most expensive in-state undergraduate institution of higher education in the state in which he or she is enrolled. A monthly housing allowance of about $1,400 per month also puts many veterans in a better position to complete their education. They can devote their time and energy to their studies, with less concern about making ends meet.
We’re also seeing parents use the opportunity to contribute to the education of their spouse or child through an education benefit transfer option. This is particularly important to military service members at the end of their careers with little interest in continuing their own education. Our staff meets frequently with parents at base education fairs to discuss degree and program options and outcomes for their children. My team finds working with military parents and their children extremely rewarding and believes the Post-9/11 GI Bill® has been of great help to those who have served our country.
Hibel: Proposed changes in regulation of for-profit institutions have been hot topics in the news lately. What are your thoughts on the recent press?
McCullough: There certainly has been a lot of press coverage on the proposed changes. We’re hopeful the result will be a fair and balanced approach to ensuring equal access to education for traditionally underserved ethnically and culturally diverse student populations.
Unfortunately, some of the proposed regulations – particularly one commonly referred to as “gainful employment” – would have the unintended consequences of limiting educational access so important to our students. The proposed rule would not be applied even-handedly across all of higher education, instead employing complicated and discriminatory debt-to-income ratios and student loan repayment rates targeted at private-sector institutions. These metrics are not in the best interests of students because they would force many quality programs to close. By impeding students’ access to and choice of quality programs currently available, the “gainful employment” rule threatens to undermine President Obama’s goal of 8 million more college graduates by 2020.
It’s interesting to note that if applied to non-profit schools, more than 500 traditional colleges or universities would fail the Department of Education’s “gainful employment” test.
We hope that sensible heads prevail on this issue.
Hibel: There are numerous opportunities today for instructors to teach online or through “e-learning” capabilities. What would your suggestions be to a potential faculty member who is looking to make the transition from a traditional on-campus teaching position to a position that is taught using distance education technology?
McCullough: The key to effective teaching, whether it is in a physical classroom or in a virtual classroom, is student engagement. As I mentioned, CEC’s course delivery system, M.U.S.E., allows students to engage with the content in a variety of ways, depending upon their learning style. Our online faculty is trained to establish student expectations about learning online, to be responsive to student inquiry, to provide timely and constructive feedback and to facilitate interaction among students.
My guidance to anyone interested in teaching online would be the same guidance I would provide to anyone interested in enrolling in online courses — it is not easier online. In fact, it may be more challenging. While online learning affords us the ability to be flexible as to when and where educational interaction occurs between students, faculty, peers and the content, the amount of time and level of effort are by no means diminished.
Hibel: In the book, For-Profit Colleges and Universities,9 it was suggested that “just as a desire for academic freedom determined how faculty work was constructed at traditional institutions, the curriculum determines academic work at proprietary institutions.” What is your response to this in regards to a potential faculty member who may be interested in working in a for-profit college or university?
McCullough: Faculty employed by traditional institutions of higher education have three responsibilities: research, service to the institution through participation in governance and teaching. This contrasts with the singular focus of the faculty member at proprietary institutions of higher education, which is to facilitate student learning.
Typically, proprietary institutions of higher education employ practitioners who are subject-matter experts with the appropriate credentials to teach. This provides students the opportunity to engage with experts who not only know their content, but who are personally familiar with the application of the content in the workplace. Learners are better able to understand concepts when the relevancy is made clear through examples of how it’s applied in the workplace. Practitioners as educators are able to contextualize their knowledge and share perspective. To me, that’s academic freedom.
As for curriculum, ours is developed by our subject matter experts — our faculty. We begin by identifying students’ desired career outcomes and then engage employers and consult industry standards to determine the knowledge, skills and competencies students need to develop through their program of study. To say the “curriculum determines the academic work at proprietary institutions” is not accurate. In fact, our faculty determine and continually revise the appropriate curricula.
Hibel: For someone looking to start a career as an administrator in higher education, specifically, at a for-profit institution, what is your advice to them?
McCullough: A career in higher education administration requires the candidate be ready, willing and able to serve a diverse student population and put the interests of students first. As a campus leader, you are the face and external voice of the institution at all times. And, whether you are a department chair, finance director or school president, you must be knowledgeable about governing practices and accrediting bodies. You must be prepared to engage in a process of continuous improvement that includes data collection, analysis, development of strategic plans, as well as evaluation of the impact of those plans. These are the minimum requirements of any administrative position.
In proprietary post-secondary education, we look for candidates who are flexible, creative, thrive on innovation, and are willing to quickly change direction to meet the needs of our students.