Complaint Review: AXIA College Of University Of Phoenix - Phoenix Arizona

I am a student at UOP/Axia College about to be on my 4th semester working towards my Associate's Degree in Business then my Bachelor's in Public Administration. I am a married professional who works over 40 hours per week for a non-profit organization and have two children. I could never afford the time or gas money to commute to a college. I live in the burbs and would have to commute through Austin to go to another college (which if you currently live in Austin, you will understand my need to avoid driving through the area). I am not only saving gas & time but gas exhaust and UOP is virtually paperless - so I'm saving trees. It's an environmental win-win situation. I am very pleased with the circulium at UOP/Axia College. I am so grateful to have the opportunity to FINALLY go back to college to get an education. If I took two classes at a time at the local Community College which would be cheaper initially, it would take me almost three times as long to earn my associate's. I would be almost have my Associates at the Community College when I have will have my Bachelor's at UOP. So, the extra money that I'm paying at UOP is well-worth it! I have seen evidence of what this University can do for someone. My mother is an UOP alumni. She got her Bachelors of Science in Nursing (was a RN for over 20 years and went back to school to get Bachelors). Shortly after getting her Bachelor's from UOP, her life totally changed. She was able to quit her nursing job that paid her poor wages and got a great, more challenging job working for a company called Innovex (who contracts through pharmaceutical companies). She nearly quadrupled her income! She was able to pay off her schooling within the first year of her new job easily. I am proud to be a student at UOP. I have already learned so much. I have enjoyed every class except my Critical Thinking course, which was mostly due to the fact that my professor was mediocre. The rest of my courses have been very educational, informative, and beneficial in my current job position. I wanted to post this comment since so many of you feel the need to rip apart this University for your bitterness with the world.

I am the person with the ten-foot-pole that will touch this complaint.Dude- you are a crazy person! Your own paranoid delusions are feeding your negative experiences in probabaly everything you do. If a failue of a computer server gives you a nervous breakdown, maybe you should abstain from using the computer so much. I am only writing this because you mention having a young son. If your illness is as severe as you claim, you should not be caring for this child. Please give him up to someone that can raise them in a stable environment. As for Axia College, I have not had one negative experience to report since I enrolled in June of 2008. I am currently in my fourth set of classes and I am well on my way to earning my degree. Please keep in mind that you are a delusional mental case before you assume that everyone is out to get you. A college like Axia is a godsend for people, and it is sad that a few individuals like yourself continue to try and portray them as a bad and evil thing. Michael P February 25, 2009

We can debate the issues and be civil, no? You're arguing the UOP won't be found liable under the false claims act lawsuit which is currently in the works. As authority, you use a memo written by a UOP paid lawyer or PR person, posted on the Apollo group website? The fact that the US Dept of Justice (USDOJ) is supporting the current lawsuit brought by what UOP says are "disgruntled employees", should be an additional sign to consumers that UOP's position is just not as safe as your post asserts. (USDOJ legal argument can be found at kroplaw/dot/com.) Indeed, in UOP's failed attempt to stop the current lawsuit, arguing to the US Supreme Court, the school said an adverse result in the suit could BANKRUPT the school. Whatever happens in the future, it will be interesting to see what a jury of fellow taxpayers thinks about UOP's recruiting practices and use of federal student loan money....

Hi all. I'd like to join the accreditation conversation on here. BusinessWeek just published their top B-school list, and if you look at the 64 they listed for Distance MBA programs, only 43 of the 64 schools are AACSB accredited. Of the other 21; 17 are not accredited by any business program approved by the CHEA, and the other 4 are accredited by the ACBSP. That AACSB accreditation isn't everything - unless someone wants to tell BusinessWeek that their list is too junky for Intel.

It'll be harder for interested consumers to follow the discussions if we engage in personal attacks, don't you think? WHile the issues you claim frustration over are quite relevant in discussions here, we can look at another topic if you like. This issue was posted regarding the UOP on another board by a gal named Kamila. Please read her concerns then read the pasted portion of the US Department of Education review on UOP recruiting practices... The issue Kamila is raising, posted in June 07 sounds familiar to the Department of Educations description of recruiting practices... "Kamila Mt. Prospect, Illinois U.S.A. UOP - Apollo Group - letter I sent yet no response I had recently been a victim of fraud by one of your employees (Bret Erixcon). He was advised to find out how much assistance I would be able to receive in financial aid, but at no point and time was given permission to pull out loans from the government. He was advised against it on numerous occasions and assured me that there will NOT be any loans pulled out to fund my schooling; furthermore I was advised that the courses would be covered by a grant. I had made the staff at Apollo aware that I was not to be enrolled until they had a definite answer for me. He had my pin number so I'm not sure what kind of adjustments he had made, when I asked him in regards to the loans he told me to disregard them and they are not being used. I contacted Wells Fargo (who had sent me a letter) and was told that these are loans I will have to repay. I contacted Bret at the Apollo Group and was given a response of 'well you're enrolled now so I have nothing to do with it' I'm assuming the counselors are paid by the number of students that sign up for your school, so Bret had not only lied but fraudulently opened a loan after he was advised not to. I had dropped the courses he had enrolled me in (after 3 weeks) and was told I now owe $1900 and that will be taken out of a Pell grant. Even though I was ultimately enrolled at Axia College, I was assured by Bret Erixcon that I could drop the courses without penalty if I did not receive the full amount of grants or if I had to pay out of pocket. No loans were discussed at this time either. I would like to review the phone and email correspondence that was being monitored. I was advised by Wells Fargo to contact the UOP finance department to refund the money, and if that was not taken care of to pursue UOP in court. This seems like a lot of hassle for a university to deal with and everyone else involved. I have been mislead by the advisors employed at your company, and was a victim of fraudulent behavior by your staff. This issue requires immediate assistance I'm not responsible for the loan that was pulled out or the tuition incurred, your assistance is imperative. Here's the relevant section from the USDOE report....(google DOE UOP for report) "A number of recruiters at the On Line Campus were aware of instances where other recruiters had forged or "cut and pasted" student signatures electronically onto master promissory notes and other enrollment documents in order to get the application or enrollment credit by announced deadlines. Employees recounted that one recruiter was so good at forging student signatures, that he was dubbed "The Doctor." One manager expected his recruiters to compete paperwork that the student is required to complete. He went so far as to train new recruiters how to complete or modify a student's paperwork in order to expedite the credit of an enrollment."

Source for the following article: apollogrplegalinfo.com/hendowCaseFull.html United States of America ex rel. Hendow v. University of Phoenix Summary This False Claims Act ("FCA")* action against the University of Phoenix ("UOP") was filed in 2003 in the federal District Court for the Eastern District of California by two former UOP enrollment counselors. The lawsuit alleges that UOP improperly obtained federal student financial aid funding from the U.S. Department of Education ("ED"), arguing it received this funding while in alleged violation of requirements set forth in Title IV of the Higher Education Act regarding the manner in which recruiters may be compensated. Importantly, the Department of Justice declined to intervene in, or take over, prosecution of the lawsuit. As described below, UOP strongly believes that the lawsuit is without merit. Status As a preliminary matter, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the district court. The relators appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit. UOP has asked the United States Supreme Court to review what we believe to be an erroneous decision of the Ninth Circuit, one that dramatically expands the scope of the FCA. UOP believes that the lawsuit was properly dismissed and is hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. If, however, the Court does not review the case and reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision, and the case goes forward, UOP is confident that the relators will not be able to meet their legal burden to prove that UOP's enrollment counselor compensation system was contrary to law. Arguments The reasons for UOP's confidence are many. UOP's compensation system was and is fully compliant with all legal requirements -- Among other things, when viewed in light of the appropriate legal standard, it is clear, from both UOP's contemporaneous records, and the testimony and analyses already performed by both UOP and its hostile adversaries, that UOP's compensation system was and is fully compliant with all legal requirements. Simply put, UOP did not violate the law, and plaintiffs will not be able to prove otherwise. The legal standard set by ED makes absolutely clear that Title IV does not prohibit the payment to recruiters of merit-based salaries as long as they are not based solely on the number of students enrolled -- Perhaps the single most significant challenge facing the relators is the legal standard set by ED with regard to the payment of merit-based salaries. In "Safe Harbor" regulations, published by ED in November 2002 to clarify the ways in which educational institutions can compensate recruiters without running afoul of the Title IV restrictions, ED made absolutely clear that Title IV does not prohibit the payment to recruiters of merit-based salaries and that such merit-based salaries are proper provided that the salaries are not based solely on the number of students recruited, admitted, enrolled or awarded financial aid. Through the regulatory notice and comment process, ED confirmed that its use of the word "solely" was intentional and intended to be interpreted consistent with "its dictionary definition;" that is, "singly," "alone," "exclusively" or "to the exclusion of other things." ED also recognized that "by the very job description, a recruiter's job is to recruit." Thus, in order to prevail in their lawsuit, relators will have to prove that UOP set and adjusted the salaries paid to its enrollment counselors based "solely" on the number of enrollments and that no other, non-enrollment factors were considered or used by UOP in setting and adjusting the salaries of its enrollment counselors. In other words, if UOP can show that any other, non-enrollment factors were considered to any extent whatsoever (even a very small extent), relators lose. It will be very easy for UOP to demonstrate and establish that non-enrollment factors were considered as part of the evaluation and salary adjustment process for its enrollments counselors -- In evaluating the performance of its enrollment counselors and in setting and adjusting their salary levels, UOP considered, in addition to the number of enrollments achieved by the enrollment counselor, a whole host of quantitative and qualitative non-enrollment factors including tenure, judgment, communications and working relationships. In addition to the extensive contemporaneous documentation relating to the manner in which it evaluated and compensated its enrollment counselors, UOP will be able to put forward literally hundreds of current and former enrollment counselors who will testify that non-enrollment factors were considered in the evaluation process and did, in fact, impact the salary adjustment that they received. All of this testimony and documentation presented by UOP will be in stark and significant contrast to the handful of disgruntled and self-interested former enrollment counselors who will say that, notwithstanding all of the evidence to the contrary, they believed that enrollments were all that mattered in the evaluation and salary adjustment process. Moreover, every statistical analysis that has been performed of UOP's compensation system, by both UOP and its adversaries , confirms UOP's belief that its compensation plan was and is compliant and clearly demonstrates that UOP's system was not based "solely" on the number of enrollments. Specifically, a prominent national accounting firm and a prominent national consulting firm have independently performed statistical analyses of UOP's compensation plan which demonstrate that salary adjustments were not based solely on enrollments. The relators' contention that these other, non-enrollment factors were mere "smoke and mirrors" employed by UOP to mask its allegedly illegal compensation system is also unsupported by the record. In addition to being completely undermined by the manner in which compensation decisions actually took place, it is also inconsistent with the testimony that has been developed. The bottom line is that it will be very easy for UOP to demonstrate and establish that non-enrollment factors were considered as part of the evaluation and salary adjustment process. Relators' overheated rhetoric is legally irrelevant. In order to establish FCA liability, relators would have to demonstrate that UOP's system resulted in the enrollment of unqualified students and there is absolutely no evidence of this -- Even if relators could somehow establish that UOP's compensation plan was not compliant which for all the reasons set forth above they cannot do in order to establish FCA liability, we believe that relators would also have to demonstrate that UOP's system resulted in the enrollment of unqualified students by UOP. The simple fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that UOP directed, encouraged, or permitted the recruitment of unqualified students. In fact, all of the available evidence is to the contrary. First, we are not aware of a single enrollment counselor, including those hostile to UOP, who will testify that he or she enrolled unqualified students. Second, all of the statistical evidence suggests that UOP enrollment counselors enrolled students who could and did benefit from the education they obtained at UOP. For the time period relevant to the lawsuit, UOP's average cohort default rate on student loans was 5.8 percent, well below the national average of 7.4 percent for comparable for-profit schools and very close to the national average of 5.4 percent for traditional colleges. Moreover, UOP's graduation rate was between 50 to 60 percent the same rate found among traditional colleges. These default and graduation rates are widely-accepted measures of quality. Because relators will not be able to establish any wrongful conduct or liability on the part of UOP, there will be no damages -- Finally, the constant refrain from relators' counsel that damages in this case will be in the billions of dollars is just plain wrong. Obviously, because we believe, for all of the reasons set forth above, that relators will not be able to establish any wrongful conduct or liability on the part of UOP, there will be no damages. Moreover, even if relators were able to establish liability which we are confident they cannot do we still believe that there would be little or no damages as a result of the alleged conduct. There are at least three primary reasons for this belief. First, the proper measure of damages will not be the amount of Title IV funds received by UOP students. There is simply no legal, factual or policy-based rationale for that theory put forward by the relators' counsel. Rather, in order to establish damages, relators will have to demonstrate that the government was actually damaged by UOP's alleged conduct in other words, that there is a causal link between the alleged false statement by UOP and the harm the government has suffered. We believe that the court will require relators to establish, on a case-by-case basis, that UOP's alleged violation resulted in the enrollment of poorly qualified students who were unlikely to benefit from further education or to pay back student loans. In light of the evidence discussed above, including the UOP low default and high graduation rates, the relators will have a very difficult time overcoming this burden and proving damages. Moreover, just like the "Safe Harbor" regulations, the relators simply ignore a critical and highly relevant October 2002 policy memorandum issued the Deputy Secretary of ED which sets forth ED policy with regard to incentive compensation compliance and enforcement. In this policy statement, ED makes quite clear that a violation of the incentive compensation rules does not cause damage to the government and that "[i]mproper recruiting does not render a recruited student ineligible to receive student aid funds for attendance at the institution on whose behalf the recruiting was conducted." Rather, the proper recourse for an alleged violation would be an administrative penalty of some sort. Thus, based on this policy alone, we believe that the relators will be hard pressed to prove that the government suffered any damage as a result of the alleged conduct. In addition, consistent with this policy, UOP and ED have already resolved virtually identical allegations relating to the manner in which UOP compensated its enrollment counselors and,in that settlement, ED affirmatively and expressly stated that it would not impose any further penalty or limitation on UOP. Indeed, we believe that the settlement agreement between ED and UOP raises a number of additional significant factual and legal challenges for the relators in this lawsuit. For example, as part of the process that resulted in the settlement agreement, ED did not require, as part of the settlement, any changes to UOP's compensation plan or any other corrective or disciplinary action by UOP. Conclusion For all of the reasons set forth above, we believe that the lawsuit is completely without merit and that, even if it is permitted to go forward to discovery and trial, UOP will prevail and relators will recover nothing. * The False Claims Act is a statute designed to remedy false or fraudulent claims for payment submitted to the federal government. The statute includes a legal device called a qui tam provision, which allows a private person, known as a relator, to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States.

If you notice, the same three articles keep being recycled. NYT, Intel and this MBA lite. Come on, if focused as much time to being successful in school as you do to this website, you probably wouldn't be on this website in the first place. So one dude writes a critical agenda-motivated article and it's the truth? But 600,000 UOP alumni all got duped? You sound like a freakin' robot..... AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....

If you notice, the same three articles keep being recycled. NYT, Intel and this MBA lite. Come on, if focused as much time to being successful in school as you do to this website, you probably wouldn't be on this website in the first place. So one dude writes a critical agenda-motivated article and it's the truth? But 600,000 UOP alumni all got duped? You sound like a freakin' robot..... AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....

If you notice, the same three articles keep being recycled. NYT, Intel and this MBA lite. Come on, if focused as much time to being successful in school as you do to this website, you probably wouldn't be on this website in the first place. So one dude writes a critical agenda-motivated article and it's the truth? But 600,000 UOP alumni all got duped? You sound like a freakin' robot..... AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....AACSB...AACSB...INTEL, INTEL...AACSB...INTEL...New York Times....

Just noticed she's not a UOP employee. She must be one of the millions of Americans fascinated by business school accreditation? Whatever type of accreditation UOP is claiming, they don't have AACSB accreditation. According to available sources, Proctor and Gamble Corporation, and Intel won't hire students who come from programs without AACSB accreditation. Here's what one expert says about the UOP MBA, which lacks AACSB accreditation, Their business degree is an M.B.A. Lite, said Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University. I've looked at their course materials. It's a very low level of instruction. The New York Times says that UOP has regional accreditation, but that"....it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. And the President of the AACSB says this about UOP, They're smart enough to understand their chances of approval would be low, Mr. Fernandes said. They have a lot of come-and-go faculty. We like institutions where the faculty is stable and can ensure that students are being educated by somebody who knows what they're doing.

Thanks for pointing that it was a typo David. In fact, I had two in there. Yes, Gary I know about the Intel situation, however, no where in the article does it say that Intel does not consider the ACBSP good enough. UOP wasn't even accredited by the ACBSP in February when the article was written. And the piece stating Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business was inserted by the author Intel did not say that. And of course UOP's chances of AACSB accreditation being low, as the AACSB has minimum FTE requirements for faculty staff, and UOP's policy focuses on instructors that work in the actual field to facilitate classes. But the article doesn't explain all of that. If someone doesn't go and do their homework and hold that article as the gospel of Phoenix, then they are the ones that are being mislead. The ACBSP standards are more accurately aligned UOP's vision and goals. Who can fault them for that? I am more on the side of the focus on student learning myself rather than a professor holding my hand. In the world outside of academia it is beneficial to be able to learn and teach yourself material constantly. The level of faculty instruction to me is personally a non-issue. And as one of only two organizations recognized by the CHEA for business, I do not think UOP is trying to deceive their consumers by letting them know who they are accredited by. And as my peer-reviewed article states, the largest majority of all accredited business schools are accredited by the same institution that accredits UOP. And thank you David for all your defending comments. The only news heard is bad news, and I realize this is a site to complain so naturally the complaints are going to ring louder than the praises.

She meant to say ACBSP. I'm sure it was just a typo. Hopefully this will clear things up: What is the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)? ACBSP is one of two major internationally active organizations which accredits business schools and programs. It is also one of only two business program accreditation organizations recognized by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CHEA is the organization that accredits the accrediting groups. ACBSP was the first major business program accreditation organization recognized by CHEA, and this recognition has been in place since 2001. Are there other organizations that accredit business programs at colleges and universities? There are only two major organizations that accredit business programs nationally and internationally. One is ACBSP that accredits the business programs at University of Phoenix. The other is AACSB, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International. Each of these accredits business programs at approximately the same number of colleges and universities. Is there a difference between the two business program accrediting organizations? ACBSP standards for academic excellence are designed to align with the mission of teaching institutions with an emphasis on student learning, supported by continuous quality improvement and faculty scholarship. This is an excellent match with the mission and focus of University of Phoenix. The AACSB standards for academic excellence are designed to align with the mission of research institutions with an emphasis on faculty scholarship and research while recognizing the value of teaching and continuous quality improvement. These do not match as well with University of Phoenix's mission and focus on student learning and teaching. Source: http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/accreditation/accreditation.aspx

You say, "UOP was accredited through AACBS in May, and has been going through the accreditation procedure for a long time before that." AACBS sounds like AACSB, look at them again.....see, just two letters are changed, confusing eh? This could lead consumers into obtaining the mistaken idea UOP is accredited by AACSB! Do you know Intel won't educate its employees at UOP because it does not have AACSB accreditation? The following is a quote from the New York Times, from the president of the AACSB (not the AACBS, big difference) regarding UOP's chances of obtaining AACSB accreditation, "John J. Fernandes, the association's president, said the university had never applied. They're smart enough to understand their chances of approval would be low, Mr. Fernandes said. They have a lot of come-and-go faculty. We like institutions where the faculty is stable and can ensure that students are being educated by somebody who knows what they're doing. Oh, and sent a copy of your post to the AACSB public relations, just to see what they think....

Please do your homework before posting comments that make little or no sense. That New York Times article that has somehow become the bible of UOP was written in February of 2007. UOP was accredited through AACBS in May, and has been going through the accreditation procedure for a long time before that. There are three major recognized organizations that accredit business programs, the American Assembly of Collegiate Business Schools (AACBS); the Association for Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP); and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE). The AACBS, founded in 1916, and is the oldest business accrediting agency in the U.S. is considered the premier business school accreditation agency. However it is not the only one, and as competition heats up, more and more schools will probably bypass the AACBS and get accredited by the organization that best suits their needs. Until 1988, the AACBS has received competition from the newly formed ACBSP and later from the IACBE - founded in 1998. A 2003 study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Education for Business showed that 43.4% of business school enrollees were attending classes in a non-traditional environment 24% of the schools did not have specialized business accreditation; and 30% of these schools were not in the process of being accredited by any agency 13.5% were accredited by the AACBS 33.9% were accredited by the ACBSP 27.9% were accredited by the IACBE Reference: Roller, R., Andrews, B., & Bovee, S. (2003, March). Specialized Accreditation of Business Schools: A Comparison of Alternative Costs, Benefits, and Motivations. Journal of Education for Business, 78(4), 197. Retrieved July 28, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database. The study also discussed how each school's need are different. The ACBSP focuses on smaller, private schools exactly what UOP is. The AACBS would only be more costly and time consuming to attain, and not really meet their needs. Tuition would go up even higher, and both students and investors would surely complain. UOP is a standard, accredited school. 33.9% of all business schools (the highest percentage) are accredited by the AACBS, so the accreditation should just be a non issue. Who cares what Intel has to say? They also knocked 99 other schools off their list, and many prestigious organizations including Yale University pay their employees to attend UOP.

I am an ex-employee of Axia College (I was an enrollment counselor) and we did not earn "commission" per say. Yes we did have quota's as far as how many students we were required to enroll each month but the enrollments did not dictate our pay. They (enrollment counselors) start out at $15.86hr and their pay increases over time just as any job would.(6 month reviews) If you do not meet your quota within the first 6 months of employment you are then put on a "probation period" for an additional month and if you fail to meet your goal while on probation you are terminated. Just wanted to clear that up. Oh! I worked in the Phoenix office btw. :)

Hate to dissapoint once again Dave, but you said, "There is no beneficial reason or point for counselors just to get people enrolled because students are not even factored unless they are successful. Wouldn't it then make sense for me to only enroll students that I feel would be successful in their program?" Here's what the U.S. Dept of Education says on this point, from their report on UOP recruiting (google "UOP DOE") under section 5.3.2 entitled "Focus on Obtaining Credit for Enrollment, Not Completing Education" "From its monthly commisionable sales reports, to its admissions counselor policy guide, to its repeated reminders from managers, UOP reinforces to recruiters that UOP evaluates and pays them solely on the basis of how many students they enroll." Next, they explain the criteria for recruiters getting PAID "specifically, that the students must attend three nights of the first five-week course of a bachelors' program..." Dave, your word won't be worth much if you so blantantly contradict readily available sources on the internet....

You said, "the statement that 'recruiters' could her $750.00 per student enrolled is a pure lie." Really Dave? That information came from the Nation Online, who took the information from a U.S. Department of Education program review of UOP recruiting. You would ask us to trust the word of an anonymous UOP employee over this government agency? They interviewed 60 recruiters for the review, and its down right scathing about UOP recruiting methods. It seems obvious why the UOP would hate this information. YOu also said, "It means that the University of Phoenix has met the highest, internationally recognized standards of academic excellence in business education." Really? Here's what one expert says about your MBA, Their business degree is an M.B.A. Lite, said Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University. I've looked at their course materials. It's a very low level of instruction. And, here's what the President of the aacsb(the kind of accreditation the UOP lacks) thinks about UOP's chances of getting aacsb accreditation, They're smart enough to understand their chances of approval would be low, Mr. Fernandes said. We like institutions where the faculty is stable and can ensure that students are being educated by somebody who knows what they're doing. Again, trusting the word of an anonymous UOP employee vs President of aacsb? Here's how Intel described it's decision to no longer educate its' employees at the UOP. "Intel is raising the standards in its tuition reimbursement program in a bid to create what Fisher calls a world-class program.... Competition is stiff for promotions and new jobs at Intel. Plus, the company only recruits recent college graduates from first-rate, traditional universities. We would be wasting their time and wasting our money if we didn't make sure that the education that they are getting can be used at Intel," he said." So if I had a UOP MBA, and I was searching for work, I wonder who's opinion would be more important me, yours or a major US corporation like Intel?

First of all, the statement that "recruiters" could her $750.00 per student enrolled is a pure lie. I mean come on, even if I communicated with potential students only through e-mail and never picked up the phone, I'd be making nearly $10,000 per month if that were the case. Only thirty percent or so of an enrollment counselor's semi-annual review is based on retained students. These are students who successfully complete their entire first semester and continue two weeks into their second semester. There is no beneficial reason or point for counselors just to get people enrolled because students are not even factored unless they are successful. Wouldn't it then make sense for me to only enroll students that I feel would be successful in their program? Secondly, and I guess this is me giving the bird to Sam Dillon, the author the NYT article... The Associate of Arts in Business, Associate of Arts in Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business, Master of Business Administration, Executive Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, Doctor of Management and Doctor of Business Administration programs are now accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.... ....is the leading specialized accreditation association for business education supporting, celebrating, and rewarding teaching excellence. Since only about one in four business schools have programmatic accreditation, this means that the University of Phoenix now joins an elite group in the higher education community which serves business students. It means that the University of Phoenix has met the highest, internationally recognized standards of academic excellence in business education. It means that the value of University of Phoenix business degrees is higher in the marketplace. Our business degrees are more prestigious than degrees awarded from non-programmatically accredited business schools. It means that, unlike business programmatic accreditation awarded from other organizations, ACBSP programmatic accreditation applies to ALL of our business programs (Associate degrees to Doctoral degrees). For additional information, visit acbsp.

First of all, the statement that "recruiters" could her $750.00 per student enrolled is a pure lie. I mean come on, even if I communicated with potential students only through e-mail and never picked up the phone, I'd be making nearly $10,000 per month if that were the case. Only thirty percent or so of an enrollment counselor's semi-annual review is based on retained students. These are students who successfully complete their entire first semester and continue two weeks into their second semester. There is no beneficial reason or point for counselors just to get people enrolled because students are not even factored unless they are successful. Wouldn't it then make sense for me to only enroll students that I feel would be successful in their program? Secondly, and I guess this is me giving the bird to Sam Dillon, the author the NYT article... The Associate of Arts in Business, Associate of Arts in Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business, Master of Business Administration, Executive Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, Doctor of Management and Doctor of Business Administration programs are now accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.... ....is the leading specialized accreditation association for business education supporting, celebrating, and rewarding teaching excellence. Since only about one in four business schools have programmatic accreditation, this means that the University of Phoenix now joins an elite group in the higher education community which serves business students. It means that the University of Phoenix has met the highest, internationally recognized standards of academic excellence in business education. It means that the value of University of Phoenix business degrees is higher in the marketplace. Our business degrees are more prestigious than degrees awarded from non-programmatically accredited business schools. It means that, unlike business programmatic accreditation awarded from other organizations, ACBSP programmatic accreditation applies to ALL of our business programs (Associate degrees to Doctoral degrees). For additional information, visit acbsp.

First of all, the statement that "recruiters" could her $750.00 per student enrolled is a pure lie. I mean come on, even if I communicated with potential students only through e-mail and never picked up the phone, I'd be making nearly $10,000 per month if that were the case. Only thirty percent or so of an enrollment counselor's semi-annual review is based on retained students. These are students who successfully complete their entire first semester and continue two weeks into their second semester. There is no beneficial reason or point for counselors just to get people enrolled because students are not even factored unless they are successful. Wouldn't it then make sense for me to only enroll students that I feel would be successful in their program? Secondly, and I guess this is me giving the bird to Sam Dillon, the author the NYT article... The Associate of Arts in Business, Associate of Arts in Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business, Master of Business Administration, Executive Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, Doctor of Management and Doctor of Business Administration programs are now accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.... ....is the leading specialized accreditation association for business education supporting, celebrating, and rewarding teaching excellence. Since only about one in four business schools have programmatic accreditation, this means that the University of Phoenix now joins an elite group in the higher education community which serves business students. It means that the University of Phoenix has met the highest, internationally recognized standards of academic excellence in business education. It means that the value of University of Phoenix business degrees is higher in the marketplace. Our business degrees are more prestigious than degrees awarded from non-programmatically accredited business schools. It means that, unlike business programmatic accreditation awarded from other organizations, ACBSP programmatic accreditation applies to ALL of our business programs (Associate degrees to Doctoral degrees). For additional information, visit acbsp.

First of all, the statement that "recruiters" could her $750.00 per student enrolled is a pure lie. I mean come on, even if I communicated with potential students only through e-mail and never picked up the phone, I'd be making nearly $10,000 per month if that were the case. Only thirty percent or so of an enrollment counselor's semi-annual review is based on retained students. These are students who successfully complete their entire first semester and continue two weeks into their second semester. There is no beneficial reason or point for counselors just to get people enrolled because students are not even factored unless they are successful. Wouldn't it then make sense for me to only enroll students that I feel would be successful in their program? Secondly, and I guess this is me giving the bird to Sam Dillon, the author the NYT article... The Associate of Arts in Business, Associate of Arts in Accounting, Bachelor of Science in Business, Master of Business Administration, Executive Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, Doctor of Management and Doctor of Business Administration programs are now accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.... ....is the leading specialized accreditation association for business education supporting, celebrating, and rewarding teaching excellence. Since only about one in four business schools have programmatic accreditation, this means that the University of Phoenix now joins an elite group in the higher education community which serves business students. It means that the University of Phoenix has met the highest, internationally recognized standards of academic excellence in business education. It means that the value of University of Phoenix business degrees is higher in the marketplace. Our business degrees are more prestigious than degrees awarded from non-programmatically accredited business schools. It means that, unlike business programmatic accreditation awarded from other organizations, ACBSP programmatic accreditation applies to ALL of our business programs (Associate degrees to Doctoral degrees). For additional information, visit acbsp.

like this..... "University of Phoenix is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association, one of six U.S. regional accrediting bodies considered to be the gold standard of accreditation." A recent article in the New York Times says this on the issue, "Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business." Here's what they say about the MBA, Their business degree is an M.B.A. Lite, said Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University. I've looked at their course materials. It's a very low level of instruction. And you say this Dave, "* University of Phoenix is the most examined university in higher education. Since its regional accreditation in 1978, University of Phoenix has participated in more than:" And its a good thing too, as the U.S. Department of Education found this kind of stuff going on, described in a 2006 online edition of the "The Nation," "A recruiter could earn $750 for each student enrolled. Management pressured employees to enroll as many students as possible, and to do 'whatever it takes.' If a prospective student could find a better or cheaper option at a local community college, recruiters kept it to themselves. Employees told investigators they learned that only one thing mattered at Phoenix: getting 'asses in classes.' Federal law, however, mandates that college enrollment counselors not be paid a bounty per student, to insure that counselors do what is best for the student, rather than for themselves or the company.'

First of all, you restate incorrect "facts" which your clearly got from this website. If you were researching medication options to treat depression by going to GlaxoKlineSmith's website, you would come to the conclusion that Wellbutrin is the best. Here some facts: * The 16 percent graduation rate cited by the New York Times applies to only 7 percent of University of Phoenix's total student population. The federal standard used to calculate this rate requires universities to report only those students with no prior college experience. The vast majority of students attending University of Phoenix enrolled with a significant level of prior college course work as well as professional experience and therefore cannot be reported into the federal database. * University of Phoenix is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association, one of six U.S. regional accrediting bodies considered to be the gold standard of accreditation. * University of Phoenix is the most examined university in higher education. Since its regional accreditation in 1978, University of Phoenix has participated in more than: * 30 accreditation visits by regional accrediting bodies * 35 evaluations by state education agencies * 10 program reviews by the U.S. Department of Education Source: http://phoenix.edu/about_us/the_facts/the_facts.aspx (copy and paste into web address bar) As far as Intel goes, see this website from a University of Phoenix instructor CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

While Intel never said it would no longer hire UOP grads, they did implement a policy of no longer paying for employee educations at the school. Here is a quote regarding the Intel decision to cut tuition reimbursement for certain schools, including the UOP, in an atricle by Dawn Gilbertson of the Arizona Republic. 'Intel is raising the standards in its tuition reimbursement program in a bid to create what Fisher calls a world-class program. Intel noticed higher-than-normal attrition among employees who had taken classes on the company's dime and set out to find out why. A big finding: Some workers left or were planning to leave because their new degree didn't help them advance at Intel, Fisher said. 'We would be wasting their time and wasting our money if we didn't make sure that the education that they are getting can be used at Intel,' he said. ' This Intel exec says folks would be "wasting their time" if the education they are getting can't be used at Intel....So why invest in an MBA or any other degree if employers believe your education isn't up to snuff?

The Intel decision was not to no longer hire UOP graduates. The Intel decision was about tuition reimbursement and what schools they would pay for their employees. Read the article and you will see that there is no mention about Intel not hiring UOP graduates. Please keep the facts straight.

SO if UOP or Axia is so very devoted to their students and it is such a higher education why is it that the graduation percentage is a very low 16% ? Any why is it that Intel corp is no longer Hiring graduates from the UOP because they feel they are not competent in there knowledge? Just a few questions and by the way congrats on completing your first block thats really great that you found it to be just a wonderful learning experience. I made straight A's for one academic year with this school and felt I didn't learn anything i didn't already know and when i withdrew was told by a manager that the courses are designed to cathc students up because most of them are not up to par and ready for regular colleges courses!

I am an Enrollment Counselor for the AXIA College of the University of Phoenix. I have been an employee for six months now and I must say that I am shocked at some of the accusations that have been stated within this comment. I had a student simular to this student. She was ADA which she mentioned often, I enconcouraged her to take the class as she said that with her inability her doctor had suggested her attending school. I like my co-workers walked her every step of the way from teaching her how to use a computer, how to cut and paste, how to make folders, save work ect. She was very apprehensive at first but I assured her I would be with her all the way through the enrollment process up to the completion of the first block. I spent many, many hours with this ADA student with the encouragement of managment to do the same. After walking this student to class and everyday and sometimes twice a day assisting this student she got into the third week and was falling behing on her work and then all of a suddent, she could not do it, the work was to hard, she did not have enough time, her child was sick, the instructors where not working with her. This went on for a week and I tried to tell her that if she did not at least complete the block she would owe her federal grant money. Then she said the University ripped her off. I went beyond the call of duty with this student only at the end to have her send me an email after not hearing from her for a week, she asked me not to contact her anymore or she would report me to the authorities. I was in total shock as I had put so much time in with this student. The way of the UOP is in training new Enrollment Counselors is that our job is " graduating students" we as enrollment counselors cannot dwell on a students ability or disability it is not our job to do, but we "MUST" file a report with the ADA worker if any indication of a disability exist. UOP strives to give a top notch education and there is no refuting this. As the UOP is growing so fast there may be some inconsistancy in the Enrollment Counselors treatment of students. Trust me when I say that the student is top prioriy with the University and we are told to spend as much time with our students as is needed for their success, although a good group of students think that because it is online learning it is going to be easy. I tell them in the beginning UOP is a University of higher learning and you will learn if you apply yourself. I have had the awesome experience of completing my first course of two classes over a period of 9 weeks which is a block. It is true the instructors are not to sympathetic to our problems as they are instructors not doctors or counselors they have one purpose to give us the tools to complete their course. The online experience was one of the most challenging{ I had not attended school in over 20 years)and gratifying experiences of my life. It is an awesome way to get your degree.