Translator

Posts Tagged ‘web’

University of Phoenix is Not a Good College

In this current economic recession, many laid off workers are going back to college to learn new job skills, as the twenty-five percent increase of enrollments from last year suggests (Keen). It makes good sense to desire to improve your skills and qualifications in an increasingly competitive job market, but “would be” college students need to understand that all colleges and the skills and qualification they provide, are not created equal. Choosing the right college could mean the difference between landing a secure job or maintaining your position in the unemployment line. A laid off worker has little income and requires an affordable college that gives them the biggest bang for their buck. In addition, a laid off worker needs a degree from a college that is respected by employers and helps them stand out from the crowd. Also Laid off works need  a college that is designed for on campus classes, that foster live one on one interactions and that build relationships that may prove beneficial in landing a future career. The University of Phoenix is not affordable, is not highly regarded, and does not foster personal interactions between students and is not a good choice for laid off workers because of it.



According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average cost of tuition and room and board for a public university from 2007 through 2008 was $11,578 and the average cost of tuition and room and board for a two year public college was $6,966 (United States Table 331). Traditionally, students who wish to save money will attend a two year college and then transfer over to a four year university in order to cut down on cost. Most  universities allow a student to transfer more than just two years worth of credits. This allows them to stay an attentional year at a two year college and save them even more money. The savings that attending a traditional two year college and then transferring to a four year university brings, makes attending traditional college a very safe and good investment for a laid off worker who doesn’t have a pot of gold hidden under their mattress.

In contrast, The University of Phoenix’s tuition was on average $12,000, which is higher than both a public university or a two year college ( Miley sec. 80.29). That number might not seem so bad when you look at the average price of public universities, but when you consider that the University of Phoenix’s average doesn’t include room and board, most public universities are actually far cheaper, especially if the student attends a two year college first. The University of Phoenix also has hidden cost according to a class action lawsuit that was filed against the University of Phoenix by three students in the U.S. District Court of Little Rock, Arkansas. According to the  lawsuit, “…the university ‘effectively pays off’ the loans of students who withdraw from the institution, then demands repayment from those students under terms more onerous than those of the original federally guaranteed loans.” (Blumenstyk sec. 55.20) If that is the case, then on top of costing more in tuition, there are some hidden cost associated with the University of Phoenix, making it not affordable and certainly not a good college for workers who were recently laid off.

What laid off workers are looking for is a college that is at least regarded as a good college by employers, which effectively gives them a step up in terms of job market competition. What college you choose is almost as important as what degree you choose, in terms of what an employer looks for. A peer reviewed study released in The American Journal of Distance Education found, of candidates that employers would hire with identical credentials,  85% of respondents, “…indicated they had reservations with doctoral degrees earned online, and only 4% indicated that the type of institution where the degree was earned was of no importance and that when “…considering an applicant with 50% of their coursework earned online, 15% indicated that the type of institution was of no importance, 53% had reservations, and 32% had ‘other considerations,’ which were provided as qualitative explanations” (Adams 78). Obviously not everyone goes to Harvard or Yale, but it is obvious that employers put more worth in a degree that was earned on campus, rather than one that was earn while wearing pajamas in front of a computer.

The university of Phoenix may even be less regarded than other primarily online institutions. Any college that has to advertise itself as much as Burger King cheapens itself to the point where fast food restaurants can become a metaphor for said college, fast, cheap, and unhealthy. According to an Advertising Age article “The University Phoenix spent $134 million on measured media…“ in 2008 (Miley sec. 80.29) . When was the last time you saw an ad on TV for a public university?  Seeing the University of Phoenix’s ads on websites, on build-boards, on buses, on TV, and  hearing them in telemarketing calls, doesn’t make us think we are getting an education. It makes them think that are ordering fries and a coke, which might just be what you end up selling if you get a degree from them. Even the US. News and World Report’s Best Colleges of 2010 has the University of Phoenix listed as an “Unranked School,” yet other primarily online colleges are ranked (“University of Phoenix.”). If you were an employer checking out a prospects credentials and you found that the applicant’s school was “Unranked” you might have second thoughts about hiring them. The lack of regard for the University of Phoenix’s graduates is one of the reasons why it is not a good college for people who were recently laid off, or maybe anyone for that matter.

Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, Peter Drucker once said, “More business decisions occur over lunch and dinner than at any other time, yet no MBA courses are given on the subject.” That’s true, but traditional universities do foster student interactions.  When people attend a university in person they build relationships with other students, teachers, and club members. The student you are sitting next to, or your dorm roommate, or the guy you helped cheat on his math exam, you never know what they will turn out to be in the future. They can become doctors, business owners, lawyers, actors, senators, real estate kings, heads of non profit organizations, or even president of the united states. We never know what opportunities our current relationships might bring us in the future. I mean, if you are the guy that the President of the United States cheated off of in an economics class, you can probably use that information to get a job recommendation. Its the same with all professions. If a person knows that their college buddy is a reliable smart person that they can trust and count on, they are sure to trust working with or vouching for that person. That is why the relationships you develop at a college or university determines how good of a university it is for laid off workers looking to improve their job security.

The university of Phoenix is a primarily online university and the students interact through social media, email, forums, and live chats. It doesn’t matter how many times you chat with another student online, you will never develop the same personal relationships that you do with a traditional college or university. Face-book is great an all, but you can’t count on a face-book friend to be there in an hour of need, like you can with someone you actually know. This is why the University of Phoenix does not meet the required criteria to be considered a good college for laid off workers.

Some people might argue that a primarily online college, like the University of Phoenix, has something that the traditional universities don’t, and that is that the students can take classes around their work schedule. Also, the students who are lucky enough to live near a University of Phoenix campus could always take a class in person. Supporters would say, “colleges like the University of Phoenix are exactly the thing a person who was laid off and perhaps looking for another job needs, because it provides them a flexible schedule that won’t effect any job prospects.”

While it is true that an online format is very flexible, the social interactions between students is so important that the these types of workers or students would actually be better off if they just planned a good schedule at a traditional college. It isn’t as if public universities don’t  have online classes that students can fit around their schedules, but there are many courses that have lab work or classes that are in your specific field that would be better to attend at a college designed for real classes and not a campus that promotes online interactions.

In Conclusion, I believe that the University Of Phoenix is not a good college for people who were recently laid off. There are far cheaper alternative colleges to attend, and when times are rough, we need every dollar we can spend. In addition, Employers don’t consider the University of Phoenix a good college and when considering the whole point of laid off people going back to school is to better their chances of landing a job, attending the University of Phoenix could be a waist of money and time . Finally, the University of Phoenix’s online interactions do not foster relationship building with college peers that one day may be essential to landing a more secure job. In these trying economic times, a person looking for a job needs every slightest edge over other job competitors. In this current market, the University of Phoenix does not meet the criteria necessary to give you that edge and is therefor not a good college for our recently laid off workers to attend.

What do you think. Is University of Phoenix a good college? Let me know in the comments.

Works Cited

Adams, Jonathan, and Margaret H. DeFleur. “The Acceptability of a Doctoral Degree Earned Online as a Credential for Obtaining a Faculty Position.” THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 19.2 (2005): 71-85. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Feb. 2010.

Blumenstyk, Goldie. “Suit Accuses U. of Phoenix of Improper Loan Tactics.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 55.20 (2009). Academic OneFile. Web. 25 Feb. 2010

Keen, Judy. “After layoffs, many workers go back to school for a fresh start.” USA Today 08 Apr. 2009. USA Today. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.

Miley, Marissa. “A LOT OF BRANDING BUT NOT MUCH UNDERSTANDING; University of Phoenix spends $100 million annually on advertising, but misconceptions linger about the school.” Advertising Age 80.29 (2009): 3. Academic OneFile. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.

United States. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 – Table 331. Web. 26 Feb. 2010.

“University of Phoenix.” Education – Best Graduate Schools. US News and World Report, 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2010.

I’m only lovable if

As a man, the word lovable is unacceptable. We are not allowed to be lovable. Loveable is a term used to describe women or hamsters. The cute little hamster can be lovable, but a man must be hansom or strong.  It doesn’t matter that Merriam Websters online dictionary says that lovable means “having qualities that attract affection,” because men don’t need affection in our society. I wish that was truly the case. We do need affection but in our society’s culturalization of men, a man must embrace his stereotype or he is not a man.

Our culturalization even influences what we would think would be required for us to be “lovable.” We can only be lovable, if we have lots of money, or if we have an ungodly expensive car, or because we have a terrific sense of humor, or because we can lift an automobile above our heads. These are the things that we are supposed to believe make us lovable. That brings us to what is required for me to be lovable. I’m only lovable if I can ignore the idea that men being lovable is unacceptable.

What is it that you think makes you lovable? Please leave your answer in the comments below.

Wal-Mart is Turning the American Dream Into a Nightmare

At one time, many towns in the United States looked like the tranquilly that Norman Rockwell used to capture in his paintings. These towns were places were a the local man could open a store and compete with his neighbor’s businesses. Those stores would employ local families and sell goods made by similar families in an American Factory. They were not the run down boarded up shops of a below the poverty line town with a single Wal-Mart. They were not the kinds of places that would send the wealth of America over to a communist country that enslaved its people. They were the kinds of towns that existed before Wal-Mart and other big box stores moved in. Some researchers argue that, “Wal-Mart has had a substantial positive impact on America’s economy” (Hansen 4). I say that Wal-Mart severely hurts the overall economy of the United States, because Wal-Mart uses unfair business practices, keeps its employees below the poverty line, and sends America’s wealth overseas.

If you own a retail store in a town with a Wal-Mart, then you don’t need anyone to tell you that Wal-Mart uses unfair methods to destroy local businesses and eliminate all fair competition. Most small businesses start from the ground up, slowly growing their business’s over time without the use of government subsidies and are at the mercy of American job providing and prevailing wage paying factories. On the other hand, Wal-Mart received over one billion dollars nationwide in government subsidies (Greenwald). These subsidies help build roads and provide the utilities for a new Wal-mart store. These are benefits that the existing stores in an area never get from their local or state governments. Local businesses have to foot all the bills themselves, but Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart do not have to. These subsidies, along with having to compete with Wal-Mart’s overseas factories, make it impossible for the local business person to compete with the lower costing items sold at a Wal-Mart Store. In Stacy Michell’s book Big-Box Swindle:The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses, she contends that “…the economic structure that mega-retailers are propagating represents a modern variation on the old European colonial system, which was designed not to build economically viable and self-reliant communities, but extract their wealth and resources” (xiv) In short, Wal-Mart destroys the ideals of the free market and makes us dependent or enslaves us to them.

Another reason small business can’t compete with big box stores like Wal-Mart is, Wal-Mart keeps its employees below the poverty line and relies on government programs to off-set their employees cost of healthcare and food. The average Wal-Mart clerk earns below what the federal government considers the poverty line (Hansen 5). Wal-Mart actually encourages their employees to go on programs like Medicaid and Welfare and their employees cost taxpayers over one billion dollars (Greenwald). That’s right, I said one billion dollars and there is barely over three hundred million people living in the United States according to the United States Census Bureau. Keep in mind that Wal-Mart has over a million employees and is the world’s largest employer (Hansen 2). Go ahead and add in your share of the Wal-Mart tax burden the next time you are buying one of their ultra cheap products. Now let me clarify; first we subsidize the building of a Wal-Mart store with taxpayer dollars, then we subsidize their healthcare program and their employee’s wages, and local businesses are supposed to compete with them in a free market. No wonder Wal-Mart is so profitable.

The worst part is, the money spent on Wal-Mart’s merchandise doesn’t even stay in the United State’s economy, it is sent to one of fifteen counties including Communist China, a country that treats its citizens like slaves. Wal-Mart “imported more Chinese products (12 billion) than any other retailer” (Hasen 20). I’ve personally walked around a Wal-Mart trying to find a single product made in the United States and failed to do so. According to Stacy Mitchell’s book Big-Box Swindle:The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses, “aside from their local payroll, which typically accounts for less than ten cents of every dollar spent at a big-box store, chains return very little of the revenue they take in back to the local economy” (40; ch. 1.2) Wal-Mart thirteen of the countries that Wal-Mart does business in have booming economies and have had over a four percent annual growth since Wal-Mart arrived (Wilkerson). If that doesn’t show where our dwindling economy is going, I don’t know what does. Maybe I wouldn’t feel so bad about it, if they were not exploiting what I generously define as indentured servants. In Robert Greenwald’s documentary Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Price, A girl employed by a Wal-Mart factory in China is forced to live in a run down dorm, she works seven days a week, over twelve hours a day, and she does all of that for three dollars a day. Go ahead local hardware store owners, try to compete with three dollars a day with no overtime.

Supporters of Wal-Mart argue that Wal-Mart has had a substantial positive impact on America’s economy (Hansen 4), that they have wrung inefficiencies out of the supply chain saving consumers money. (Hansen 2), that they are merely giving the customer what they want (Hansen 6), that low prices help bolster the nation’s economy (Hansen 4), and that property-tax revenue generated by big box stores far outweigh any detrimental impacts (Hansen 9). Wal-Mart itself has said, “Saving money is a means to helping our customers live better. By offering the best possible prices on the products our customers need, we can help them afford something a little extra” (About Us). That’s nice but when my taxes are paying for the labor and construction of a Wal-Mart, I just don’t see how I’m saving any money. I also find the idea that Wal-Mart is putting more money in consumers pockets by selling them a Chinese made pair of toenail clippers for less money than an American factory would illogical. If you are unemployed because you can’t find a factory job making toenail clippers, then you can’t afford to buy ones made in China no matter how low they sell it for. Despite what the supporters of Wal-Mart say, I have yet to hear an excuse worthy of justifying the killing of small businesses, the paying of slave wages, and the exporting of America’s wealth.

There is hope and it comes in the form of voters and city ordinances. In Rhode Island, Exeter’s Town Council voted four to zero to amend zoning so that retail stores couldn’t be larger that forty thousand Square Feet (Naylor). This effectively keeps out stores like Home Depot and lets the smaller stores thrive. “Dozens of other communities have capped retail store sizes, including Boxborough, Mass. (25,000 sq.ft.); Ashland, Ore. (45,000); Flagstaff, Ariz. (70,000); Taos, N.M. (80,000); and Stoughton, Wis (110,000)” (Hansen 8). From the year 2000 to 2005 ordinary citizens halted around 200 big-box store development projects (Mitchell x). Three hundred and fifty businesses in Austin have formed an alliance that promotes buying from local businesses (Mitchell x). If more and more towns and more and more voters follow this trend, then maybe we can take our jobs back from China and keep some of our tax dollars in our communities. On paper, the simplest thing that people can do is spread the word and not do business with big-box stores like Wal-Mart. I said simple not easy. Stopping ourselves from shopping at big-box stores might be the hardest thing for us instant gratification junky Americans to do. It is time for American shoppers to prove they care more about their country, their neighbors, and their children’s future, than they do about the convenience of shopping for everything under one roof. If you and I stop shopping at big-box stores like Wal-Mart then we support ourselves as much as we do each other. Join me in my boycott of Wal-Mart and similar big-box stores.

Works Cited
“About Us.” Walmartstores.com. Wal-Mart, 2001. Web. 22 Nov. 2009.
Greenwald, Robert, dir. Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Price. Brave New Films, 2005. DVD.
Hasen, B. “Big-Box Stores.” CQ Researcher. 10 Sept. 2004. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.
Mitchell, Stacy. Big-Box Swindle The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses. New York: Beacon, 2006. Print.
Naylor, Donita. “Council Rejects Big-Box Stores.” The Providence Journal. 08 Apr. 2008. Web. 21 Nov. 2009.
“US & World Population Clock.” Census Bureau Home Page. United States Census Bureau. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.
Wilkerson, Michael. “Thewal-Mart effect.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale, Nov. & dec. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.