Complaint Review: University Of Phoenix - Nationwide

One other thing how makes sure UOP follows government relulations as a consumer I do not know. The government is to big and how is to say that grant money does not sit in an bank account collecting interest. Make them prove it.

One other thing how makes sure UOP follows government relulations as a consumer I do not know. The government is to big and how is to say that grant money does not sit in an bank account collecting interest. Make them prove it.

One other thing how makes sure UOP follows government relulations as a consumer I do not know. The government is to big and how is to say that grant money does not sit in an bank account collecting interest. Make them prove it.

One other thing how makes sure UOP follows government relulations as a consumer I do not know. The government is to big and how is to say that grant money does not sit in an bank account collecting interest. Make them prove it.

Today was a good day I quite UOP, but the war is not over yet. They lie and create people with tax payers money. Never again!

It's not "University of Donald/Dave," right? I'm no UOP supporter, but you make a mistake directing your anger at D/D or other UOP employees. After all, most folks are working because they need the job, and jobs aren't always easy to come by. Remember, this is a huge corporation which has conducted REALLY bad business, which doesn't happen from the acts of rank and file employees. If your angry, tell people, write letters to influential people, that is how things change. My point, cut D/D some slack, they're probably nice fellas!

How much does this POS company pay you to come on here and spew the same BS after someone files a report about the largest ripoff in the world when it comes to "education," ( I use that term lightly). You must seriously be the biggest losers that human kind could ever possibly produce. You must have no life at all since all you seem to be able to do is come here and attempt to refute every report with the same UOP rhetoric. If UOP is so perfect, and you are in fact employees, why don't you attempt to help these people? Face it, UOP is a ripoff, and now that people are starting to realize that the degree they got from that POS "school" is worth nothing. I pray every night that those former employees win that lawsuit so that UOP will be bankrupt. You can try to spin it as UOP higher-ups wish you to do, but eventually the truth will prevail and UOP will shut its doors forever. When this happens, the employees that defended this disgusting business, will be out on the street. Until then, I'll carry on with my lawsuit against UOP and report back to all the people that have been royally screwed by this company, so that they may take legal action and begin to restore their lives that the "University" of Phoenix has destroyed.

Here's what the president of the AACSB, the premier business school accreditation organization thinks of the UOP, 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. Or this, 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.

Don't think it's fair to impune all online, or for-profit companies due to the practices of some. I've never been able to find problems in scope or size on any of the other companies you name, just UOP. For example, the other schools you name likely never paid a 9.8 million dollar settlement with the US Dept of Education(USDOE), which according to them is the largest of its kind. That settlement was, according to USDOE, the product of UOP's subverting government regulations and then attempting a coverup when the USDOE came to inspect. The following are quotes from the USDOE review, which you can find in its entirety by googling "UOP DOE." "One of the On Line recruiters said that her manager called her and one of her teammates aside when it was learned that the Department was reviewing the incentive compensation issue. The manager coached them to say that salaries were based on a number of factors, not just enrollments. The manager futher instructed them that they were not to speak to any former employees about what goes on at UOP." "UOP's behavior during the program review process further substantiates the ethical concerns expressed by both current and former employees." "At both the On Ground and On Line campuses, a number of recruiters stated that the allocaton of fresh leads and floor time was both an intimidation and reward tool to manipulate them into more aggressive and/or UNETHICAL tactics." "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. One manager expected his recruiters to complete 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."

You are better off attending a local college that offers online courses. I have heard nothing but bad stuff about UOP, Kaplan and I have nothing good to say about Strayer since I was a student there. First point is they over charge like crazy and second you wont be able to qualify for state aid. I have since started attending a school locally and for what I am paying at this school I save over $5,000. At strayer I was paying upwards of $6000 for 9 credits. At the current school with state and federal aid I am paying $894 a semester for 16 credits. So save yourself some money and go with a real school. Stay away from these online schools. It will just dig a huge hole in your pocket.

You are better off attending a local college that offers online courses. I have heard nothing but bad stuff about UOP, Kaplan and I have nothing good to say about Strayer since I was a student there. First point is they over charge like crazy and second you wont be able to qualify for state aid. I have since started attending a school locally and for what I am paying at this school I save over $5,000. At strayer I was paying upwards of $6000 for 9 credits. At the current school with state and federal aid I am paying $894 a semester for 16 credits. So save yourself some money and go with a real school. Stay away from these online schools. It will just dig a huge hole in your pocket.

You are better off attending a local college that offers online courses. I have heard nothing but bad stuff about UOP, Kaplan and I have nothing good to say about Strayer since I was a student there. First point is they over charge like crazy and second you wont be able to qualify for state aid. I have since started attending a school locally and for what I am paying at this school I save over $5,000. At strayer I was paying upwards of $6000 for 9 credits. At the current school with state and federal aid I am paying $894 a semester for 16 credits. So save yourself some money and go with a real school. Stay away from these online schools. It will just dig a huge hole in your pocket.

You are better off attending a local college that offers online courses. I have heard nothing but bad stuff about UOP, Kaplan and I have nothing good to say about Strayer since I was a student there. First point is they over charge like crazy and second you wont be able to qualify for state aid. I have since started attending a school locally and for what I am paying at this school I save over $5,000. At strayer I was paying upwards of $6000 for 9 credits. At the current school with state and federal aid I am paying $894 a semester for 16 credits. So save yourself some money and go with a real school. Stay away from these online schools. It will just dig a huge hole in your pocket.

STOP ATTENDING ALL THESE JUNK ON LINE SCHOOLS AND YOUR PROBLEMS WILL BE SOLVED All brick & morter colleges and community colleges offer on line classes now at reasonable state tuition rates. If everyone would just stop this Bull$#*& of attending these rip off places of higher education, you would not be getting yourselves in a financial bind, or having these rip off companies trying to ruin your credit. Then UOP, AXIA, STRAYER, CAPELLA, and who ever else Jon Doe for profit schools will close up shop and be gone for good! These on line schools are a 100% rip off. I have taken a few on line classes through one of my local community college's and I am satisfied to know that its 100% accredited and transferable to any 4 year university, no questions asked. Please everyone, stop giving yourself a heartache

You said, "I believe I raised valid points in my argument as to the quantity of enrollment counselors who were polled." The US Department of Education (USDOE) program review was not a "poll," but a "spot inspection." The UOP was given several days notice of the program review, but not which campuses or what substantive areas it would cover. ON the day the review began the UOP learned the review would cover the following, Apollo headquarters, the Phoenix campus, the On-line campus, and five campuses in Northern California, covering admissions practices and recruiters compensation. The review lasted four days and included USDOE staff reviewing documents and speaking to relevant personell. Here are some findings, (google UOP DOE for full report) "UOP's behavior during the program review process further substantiates the ethical concerns expressed by both current and former employees." "Recruiters also told reviewers that whenever "visitors" (government visitors, accreditation visitors) were expected, recruiters are coached by managers on what to say." "Literally every current UOP employee who has worked longer a year, expressed anxiety over possible retaliation by UOP." "One of the On Line recruiters said that her manager called her and one of her teammates aside when it was learned that the Department was reviewing the incentive compensation issue.....The manager coached them to say that salaries were based on a number of factors, not just enrollments. The manager futher instructed them that they were not to speak to any former employees about what goes on at UOP." "After the announcement of the program review, UOP informed its recruiters that if they were contacted by someone from the Department for an interview, they were first to inform management prior to speaking with him or her. Recruiters uniformly stated that they felt intimidated by UOP due to this pronouncement." Interpreted in the light of these findings, the UOP Corporate Director of Enrollments comments about "smoke and mirrors" and "flying under the radar" (of the USDOE) makes more sense. One is left with the impression thats just what was going on, and that's what US Department of Education found.

To make an persuasive argument you have to do a bit more than just rehash the same quotes over and over again. You have led this conversation completely astray from the original poster's problem and I find that is disrespectful to the true spirit of his complaint. I believe I raised valid points in my argument as to the quantity of enrollment counselors who were polled. Judging from your style of writing, it seems that you enjoy your dependence on redundant arguments that go nowhere and have no value in formal debate. Just because one leader may or may not have said something that is controversial does not make it a broad company policy. As far as being paid based on enrollments, the matrix I discussed in my previous post addresses that. (please Google 'UOP DOE Donald') I'm sure there are some managers with few scruples and ethics who subject themselves to this level of corruption. I highly doubt that this is common behaviour. The survey taken should have been more broad and included a certain percentage of employees who do not work in the Enrollment division as well. This survey was a lazy approach taken that was tailored to bash the school. 7% interviewed and only some of those they spoke to conveyed negative feelings about the enrollment practices at UOP? That is like polling a handful of shoppers on Rodeo Drive as to their feelings on immigration and taxes. Why not take a more recent and broader poll to see how well they do? Why bother you'll say? They already have the answer they want, right? Students still make current posts about their misgivings on attending our school but this is also largely due to the misconception that those types of reports are completely accurate. The high majority of those issues deal with financial aid or emotional pleas contending that UOP hates people with disabilities, which speaking as a disabled individual is simply not true. Other complaints come from service members who feel that their military service dejects their importance in the eyes of UOP, which again, speaking as a veteran I can say is simply not true. No one could possibly question the DOE or NYT on their research could they? Well, maybe they should to get a current view on the state of things as they are today.

You said, "Additionally, how many campuses did those reviews poll?" A fair question, how many different campuses did UOP's Corporate Director of Enrollment tell recruiters the UOP's payment scheme to recruiters was "smoke and mirrors" so the school could "fly under the radar" of the U.S. Department of Education and its' regulations(as detailed in the USDOE report)? Could it be that he only made these comments at the schools the USDOE happened to pick for a review? (remember, the UOP was informed which campuses the review would take place on the first day it actually started).. Or, perhaps the UOP was trying out a new "smoke and mirrors" campaign, again, at the very schools the USDOE picked to review? When a LEADER openely speaks about subverting a government agency perhaps its wise to conclude there are "ethical issues" at that company. How suprised should we be then when consumers come here to complain about being misled by the UOP? (please google the USDOE report, type "UOP DOE") And you said, "The available 'evidence' in print is still subject to scrutiny since it represents the statements from a few individuals at the company which may or may not have been quoted out of context." The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) review paints a picture not of a few "disgruntled employees," as the UOP is so fond of painting its workers, but of a company which feels free to ignore and subvert USDOE regulations in an effort to make profits (aka, "smoke and mirrors"). That report found UOP recruiting "systematically operates in a duplicitous manner," meaning the UOP had a plan to be deliberately deceptive. And yet the UOP continually berates its poor employees for its own corporate practices....Creepy! That report speaks of issues like managers coaching employees to say the UOP payment scheme was consistent with DOE regulations. It talks of managers encouraging employees to enroll unqualified students, and openely telling employees that they are paid based on the number of enrollments, which jives nicely with this quote from the Nation, online. "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."

The available "evidence" in print is still subject to scrutiny since it represents the statements from a few individuals at the company which may or may not have been quoted out of context. Additionally, how many campuses did those reviews poll? They interviewed 60 counselors? From one campus? How many campuses did they actually poll? They only polled two states? Do you realize that at the average ground campus there are as many as 15-20 enrollment counselors? There are 12 campuses in AZ and 43 in CA. So out of 55 campuses and upwards of 825 employees who specifically work in the enrollment division they interviewed about 7% and all from the same region? Do you really think that that type of poll is indicative of the way a school that operates in over 35 states? Even of that 7% that were interviewed, as you quoted "a number of recruiters stated..." which means that not all of them agreed. Why did they not specifically state how many said that and whether or not the survey took into account for those 60, who was successful and who was disgruntled? Students that post here typically have the same complaint with financial aid. This is not to say that it is not a vaild concern, but one can readily assess that there seems to be a failure in communication when a student takes out a Stafford loan to pay for school. I don't see students here complaining after their company paid for them to go to UOP. I do not see complaints about students who use military tuition assistance to pay for school? Why is that? Surveys and statistics can be easily manufactured as long as your forum for feedback is limited. As far as giving you my opinion, it is just that, my opinion as a Finance counselor, who has worked at both Online and Ground. The opinion of a Finance counselor who started in Enrollment and then moved on to Finance. On a daily basis I work with files that use financial aid. As such, I beleive I can offer a bit more insight into that part of the system than you or any reporter can since I deal with that aspect of the business on a daily basis. When I worked in Enrollment and even today, I can without a doubt say that an enrollment counselor does not earn $750 per student. This is simply not true and whoever printed that should check their facts and confirm their source. The compensation for an enrollment counselor is based on a matrix of standards which dictate and project where an enrollment counselor should be in respect to their enrollment quotas. The failure or success to meet those quotas is what determines the counselor's salary. In addition to having sufficient enrollments, the counselor is also graded on their retention rate and enrollment consistency. For instance, if a counselor enrolls 10,10,8,9,6,10 during a six month period, then they are considered to be consistent. If they have 10,10,10,2,15,10 during a six month period then their grade for consistency drops even though they enrolled more students in the latter example. This measure of consistency is used to help deter counselors who push as many students as they can in one month and focuses them on maintaining an average amount of students that can be properly serviced. As far as retention goes, this figure also plays a part into compensation as a counselor who simply enrolls everything they can but does not provide consistent customer service is more likely to lose their students during their first class. The retention rate is used to hold a counselor accountable for the customer service and expectations that they provide to students.

You said the following, "Some people may feel as if they have been misled but I find that in many cases, one of two things happen: a) The enrollment counselor urged the student to read the documents before signing, but the student ignored the counselor and signed anyway. b) The enrollment counselor rushed through the application and brushed off the importance of understanding the financial aid documents." You are giving us your opinion, but it's not consistent with available evidence in print, all due respect. Students repeatedly come here enraged after dealing with enrollment counselors, and it's not hard to figure out why after reading quotes like this, from a 2006 online edition of "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." Or, from the US Dept of Education Program review of UOP recruiting, where investagators interviewed about 60 recruiters at UOP schools in CA and AZ, "....a number of recruiters stated that the allocation of fresh leads and floor time was both an intimidation and reward tool to manipulate them into more aggressive and/or UNETHICAL tactics." (Emphasis added) Or this, "Recruiters told reviewers that during the program review, prior to interviews with recruiters, some managers coached their employees to say that their evaluations and salary are based on the qualitative factors, not just enrollments. One of these managers said that it was all "just smoke and mirrors"...." The "smoke and mirrors" line has shown up here before, as a quote from the UOP Corporate Director of Enrollment. So it trickles its way down to a manager, wonder if it stopped there?

Enrique, Why would you attempt to devalue the importance of the original poster's message by as you put it "try to make another point"? You can repeat all you want about those reviews but if there were any real meat to that argument, then UOP would not still be operating. Don't you think it would be helpful to offer advice that is tailored towards the original poster's predicament? Some people may feel as if they have been misled but I find that in many cases, one of two things happen: a) The enrollment counselor urged the student to read the documents before signing, but the student ignored the counselor and signed anyway. b) The enrollment counselor rushed through the application and brushed off the importance of understanding the financial aid documents. I can't really say which situation is more prevalent but I will say that I catch quite a few students in the latter whom I force to read the documents and then I go back and explain the meaning behind the fine print. I have also found that there are many other financial counselors that do the same thing in an effort to curtail misunderstandings. The Enrollment department may not like that, but the company does as we filter out students who are truly not ready to go back to school; at least with us anyway. To put it bluntly, there is no point from a business sense to enroll a student for one class and set them up for failure. To address the issue of students with disabilties, there is a specific department that is tasked with handling accomodations for students in this respect. All a student has to do is mention that they have a disability to any counselor. The counselor then files a referral notice to the ADA officer who gets in contact with the student. The counselor does not make any notes or references to what was disclosed by the student in their record for their privacy. The ADA officer will contact the student within 24 hours of the referral notice. The student will need to fill out some paperwork and have a note signed by their doctor, confirming the student is affected by the disability and any recommendations that need to be made to accomodate that student. Otherwise the ADA officer will discuss acomodations with the student to determine the best course of action. Many people can claim they have disabilties but until they show documented proof, then UOP, like any other school, cannot give acomodations to that student. I remember back in '97 I attended Saddleback College in CA and I asked for acommodations for the disability I incurred from military service. Although it was quite obvious, I still needed to provide a signed letter from my doctor. As far as the original poster goes, to address his specific issue I would think more details would be necessarry to validate his comments.

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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.

Don, I wasn't attempting to address your message, but make another point. Employees can come here and say whatever they wish, claiming the UOP is different. But how can students be assured with the track record or behavior of the school today. You said, "rather than make generalizations based on 'evidence' that is out of date." I believe you are referring to the USDOE program review? For potential students, I believe such evidence is HIGHLY relevant when considering where to pursue an education. It paints the picture of leaders who believe they can do whatever they like in the pursuit of profits, including subversion of government regulations which are meant to protect students. When two employees spill the beans about UOP's recruiting activities, much of which is detailed in the USDOE report, how does UOP respond? Saying they are "disgruntled." They are disgruntled even though many of the issues brought to light are agonizingly detailed in the USDOE investigation, for which the UOP paid a settlement of 9.8 million dollars? Furthermore, UOP's response to a February 2007 New York Times article is also telling. A person claiming to be a UOP employee comes here and says the article was retracted (false) and the author was fired (false). She says her leaders told her these "facts." There appears to be a pattern here. When unfavorable news comes out, avoid the facts at all costs and attempt to divert attention, confuse the issue, attack the messenger etc. Indeed, review a recent message thread here regarding UOP accreditation and a UOP employee named David. Does that appear to you to be an effort to accurately inform students about reality, or to confuse them?

Enrique, Your response in no way addresses the points that I made. Like many of the UOP naysayers, it seems you prefer to ride the bandwagon using that old review. Yes many things have changed. I challenge you to address the specific concerns brought forth by the original poster and myself rather than make generalizations based on "evidence" that is out of date. Just to let you know, it was Todd Nelson who made those statements about "smoke and mirrors" and "flying under the radar". He resigned almost 2 years ago. A great deal of his philosophies, mandates and directives were removed after he left because the Apollo Leadership felt he created a stifling atmosphere and a work environment that was easily subject to low morale.

Don, you work in finance and are saying your department follows DOE regulations as it pertains to grant money? Can you say the same for the recruitment department, that they follow US Dept of Education regulations? According to a U.S. Department of Education review, the then Director of Enrollment said to a meeting of employees that UOPs payment scheme for recruiters was 'smoke and mirrors' so the school could 'fly under the radar' of the U.S. Department of Education. The UOP paid a 9.8 million settlement with the U.S. Dept of Education after they completed this program review, which also found that UOP managers encouraged recruiters to sign up unqualified students, and that the sales philosophy and practice is designed around evasion and uses euphemisms to avoid detection by the U.S. Dept of Education. (google UOP DOE for full report) So have things changed at UOP Don?

Could you be a bit more specific as to how UOP holds grant money? There is a process that is common among all schools that use financial aid, to receive the money, apply it towards outstanding or projected charges for the semester and refund the student the difference. How is UOP any different when it comes to that process? I work in Finance at a UOP ground campus and see this happen every day for students as per DOE regulations. I fail to see how UOP is holding out or otherwise taking advantage of students with disabilities. As a disabled veteran myself, I have seen many accomodations UOP has made for myself as an employee and a student. You mentioned that the grant money is used to help people stay in school. This is an over generalization. The grant and the loan money is used to pay for educational costs, first and foremost. Anything that is left over CAN be used for accomodations at your discretion. But you have to ensure that your bills (i.e. tuition, books) are paid as well to be able to qualify for that money.