The
Cons of Virtual Universities
By Ian Bourgoine
Despite the hype,
virtual universities are not the panacea they were supposed to be for higher
education. The University of Phoenix
recently laid off 900 employees due to a significant drop in enrollment. Corinthian
College, which had a significant online program, closed the same year.
(Gillespie, 2015). Even Southern New
Hampshire University, which is doing well in terms of enrollment, boasts a 50%
graduation rate within six (6) years (Kahn, 2015). Unfortunately, virtual
academic programs, for all their promise, are just not effective springboards for
non-traditional students to break into the middle class.
Virtual universities were created in the mid-1990s to help expand
educational access to non-traditional students who could not attend college
campuses due largely to regular work schedules (Epper & Garn 2004). The experiment did not go well. Virtual
universities forgot about the importance of business plans. The technology was
not good. The projected investment models were wrong. And the faculty was not
ready (Oblinger & Hawkins 2005).
Springboard to 2017, and the virtual university situation is not
much better. As Pollack and Cornford (2000) observed in their UK study, “…the
actual model of a virtual university…works well in theory but not in practice”
(para. 3). And the problems with virtual
universities go deeper than simply the financial woes of its institutions.
There are several core issues with online instruction:
·
Student-learner
isolation; and
·
Student-learner
confusion and frustration; and
·
Higher student
attrition rates; and
·
Lack of basic skill
building, including writing skills
(Smart & Cappel 2006,
page 203). Another, more in-depth study
found even more problems with virtual universities:
·
Failure at teaching
practical skills; and
·
Lack of rapid
feedback; and
·
Expectations from
students are often not clear; and
·
Lack of attention to
the needs of specific students; and
·
Virtual interaction
does not reflect reality; and
(Ashrafzadeh 2010, p. 34). Given these foundational problems, it is hard
to believe the larger financial problems of virtual universities will improve
anytime soon. And what is worse for virtual universities is that these
foundation problems do not appear to be susceptible to correction through
improved technology, finances, or faculty training. Virtual universities, by
their very nature, are “prone to failure” (Pollack & Cornford 2000).
When institutions are able to successfully operate a virtual
university or at least a large core of online courses, it is often because the learning
process has been standardized to such an extent that many important aspects of
teaching and learning are lost (Pollack & Cornford 2000).
Thus, when we think of the success of the University of Southern
New Hampshire, for example, we also should think about how the institution
labels its students “customers” and standardizes its online courses to such an
extent that it squeezes the spontaneity and creativity out of the learning
process. With these issues in mind, it is hard to call Southern New Hampshire
an academic success because it throws out important aspects of learning in
order to keep its customer-count high and its accounts full. Accordingly, Southern
New Hampshire is a successful business, not a successful online academic
institution.
