- Report: #239706
Complaint Review: University Of Phoenix - Phoenix Arizona
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
University Of Phoenix
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
University Of Phoenix Recruiting problems Ripoff Phoenix Arizona
Like many similar here, I was not provided critical admissions information by my counselor. I guess he thought it would be more fun as a surprise. Instead, it has caused my unecessary time and expense.
Thankfully, I am no longer attached to UOP, but have done a little research which will I hope prevent others from following my footsteps. Information printed below is from a U.S. Department of Education report on the UOP, and gives the appropriate context to how the UOP conducts business. Also, check out the NYT piece, 11 Feb 2007. Thanks, and you can find this stuff by googling it. Happy REading...
The DOE review was conducted in the summer of 03 to determine UOP's compliance with the Higher Education Act...One of the requirements makes it against the law for educational institutions like the UOP to pay enrollment counselors compensation based solely on obtaining enrollments. In summarizing the UOP's compensation system the report states, The actions of UOP and the system it has established cultivates and maintains a corporate culture of defiance of UOP's fiduciary duty. UOP has created an environment that pits the strong motivation of individual gain against its fiduciary duty to the Department. It is one that flaunts the Departments regulations and the prohibition against incentive compensation based on enrollments.
The DOE begins its report asserting that when the UOP is hiring recruiters, they promise substantial income opportunities, and could "double or triple thier salary in three to six months."
The report explains new trainees quickly learn income potential is specifically tied to number of enrollments achieved. Recruiters learn a system called matrix, which supposedly supplies numerous factors in determining a recruiters compensation. However, "The matrix sets forth the rating ("meets," etc.) associated with the number of enrollments, and it is these criteria that supercede all others and actually determine salary." Indeed one recruiter recalls the Director of Enrollment saying "we're flying under the radar of the Department," believes that the "matrix is a way to deceive the Department." (Department refers to DOE)
The DOE describes daily morning meetings where managers "...serve to motivate or humiliate the recruiters based on their activities." Managers use large boards to post statistics for each employee, "Except when "visitors" are expected, UOP managers prominently post the board..." "UOP used these frequent meetings to drive home the message that a recruiters success in securing enrollments would equate to success.." in reaching salary goals. "One enrollment manager puts a spreadsheet on her recruiters' computer desktops that shows how many enrollments each recruiter needs to reach the next salary level."
The report describes intimidation tactics used by managers. One admissions director tells students who are not meeting required enrollment they are, ""stealing from Brian Mueller" (CEO of UOP on line.)"
The "red room" was a place reserved for punishment for those not meeting required sales figures. The room was a glassed in enclosure so those outside could look in. Tables were placed in the middle where recruits were made to sit and make calls, while fellow co-workers looked on. Those sent to this room had to report immeadiatly and would be closely monitered by management. THis practice was eliminated in 2002.
SOme recruiters point out management would become intimidating when enrollment numbers were down, saying their "heads would be on a chopping block" if numbers weren't reached. One recruiter recalls explaining she may need to fly home to attend here grandmas funeral and was told by her manager, "YOu can't afford the time away..." and ..."if you go, you have to prove that you went to the funeral and that she is dead."
As to recruiter evaluations, the report describes, "More than 70% of the recruiters reported that they were unaware of any basis for compensation other than enrollment numbers and recruiting activities. It is remarkable that the only recruiters who said that their salary also included qualitative factors, such as customer service, were recruiters chosen by UOP to be interviewed by the reviewers. Literally every recruiter interviewed randomly or outside of the work premises said that the number of enrollments determined their salary." One manager when asked by a recruiter about compensation stated its enrollments. You know its enrollments. It will always be enrollments.
From its monthly commissionable 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 the report concludes.
The report asserts, The sales philosophy at UOP and practice is designed around evasion and relies upon euphemisms to avoid detection by the Department. UOP systematically established terminology and procedures to hide the fact that UOP pays distinct and significant financial incentives solely based on recruiters' success in securing enrollments. To avoid detection, the UOP uses euphemisms to describe enrollments, such as activities or level one student information cards.
The report goes on to describe how recruiters with the highest enrollments get massive pay raises. It describes managements pressure to recruit unqualified students. That recruiters are coached when officials from government or accrediting agencies were visiting. And in response to DOE questions, Literally every current UOP employee who has worked longer than a year, expressed anxiety over possible retaliation by the UOP.
The report goes on to describe a cover up during the DOE review, UOP's behavior during the program review process further substantiates the ethical concerns expressed by both current and former employees. When one manager knew of the review, she coached two employees what to say, that salaries were based on numerous factors, not just enrollments. She further instructed they were not to speak to former UOP employees about what goes on at the UOP.
Recruiters were told if they were contacted by DOE personell, they were first to report this to management before participating in an interview. Recruiters uniformly said they felt intimidated by this practice.
After managers were told the DOE review would be conducted as schools in Northern California and Phoenix, UOP management told some recruiters at the California locations they should take leave. When interviewed, these recruiters indicated they were absent as they had reputations for being honest and frank.
M
SLC, Utah
U.S.A.
Thankfully, I am no longer attached to UOP, but have done a little research which will I hope prevent others from following my footsteps. Information printed below is from a U.S. Department of Education report on the UOP, and gives the appropriate context to how the UOP conducts business. Also, check out the NYT piece, 11 Feb 2007. Thanks, and you can find this stuff by googling it. Happy REading...
The DOE review was conducted in the summer of 03 to determine UOP's compliance with the Higher Education Act...One of the requirements makes it against the law for educational institutions like the UOP to pay enrollment counselors compensation based solely on obtaining enrollments. In summarizing the UOP's compensation system the report states, The actions of UOP and the system it has established cultivates and maintains a corporate culture of defiance of UOP's fiduciary duty. UOP has created an environment that pits the strong motivation of individual gain against its fiduciary duty to the Department. It is one that flaunts the Departments regulations and the prohibition against incentive compensation based on enrollments.
The DOE begins its report asserting that when the UOP is hiring recruiters, they promise substantial income opportunities, and could "double or triple thier salary in three to six months."
The report explains new trainees quickly learn income potential is specifically tied to number of enrollments achieved. Recruiters learn a system called matrix, which supposedly supplies numerous factors in determining a recruiters compensation. However, "The matrix sets forth the rating ("meets," etc.) associated with the number of enrollments, and it is these criteria that supercede all others and actually determine salary." Indeed one recruiter recalls the Director of Enrollment saying "we're flying under the radar of the Department," believes that the "matrix is a way to deceive the Department." (Department refers to DOE)
The DOE describes daily morning meetings where managers "...serve to motivate or humiliate the recruiters based on their activities." Managers use large boards to post statistics for each employee, "Except when "visitors" are expected, UOP managers prominently post the board..." "UOP used these frequent meetings to drive home the message that a recruiters success in securing enrollments would equate to success.." in reaching salary goals. "One enrollment manager puts a spreadsheet on her recruiters' computer desktops that shows how many enrollments each recruiter needs to reach the next salary level."
The report describes intimidation tactics used by managers. One admissions director tells students who are not meeting required enrollment they are, ""stealing from Brian Mueller" (CEO of UOP on line.)"
The "red room" was a place reserved for punishment for those not meeting required sales figures. The room was a glassed in enclosure so those outside could look in. Tables were placed in the middle where recruits were made to sit and make calls, while fellow co-workers looked on. Those sent to this room had to report immeadiatly and would be closely monitered by management. THis practice was eliminated in 2002.
SOme recruiters point out management would become intimidating when enrollment numbers were down, saying their "heads would be on a chopping block" if numbers weren't reached. One recruiter recalls explaining she may need to fly home to attend here grandmas funeral and was told by her manager, "YOu can't afford the time away..." and ..."if you go, you have to prove that you went to the funeral and that she is dead."
As to recruiter evaluations, the report describes, "More than 70% of the recruiters reported that they were unaware of any basis for compensation other than enrollment numbers and recruiting activities. It is remarkable that the only recruiters who said that their salary also included qualitative factors, such as customer service, were recruiters chosen by UOP to be interviewed by the reviewers. Literally every recruiter interviewed randomly or outside of the work premises said that the number of enrollments determined their salary." One manager when asked by a recruiter about compensation stated its enrollments. You know its enrollments. It will always be enrollments.
From its monthly commissionable 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 the report concludes.
The report asserts, The sales philosophy at UOP and practice is designed around evasion and relies upon euphemisms to avoid detection by the Department. UOP systematically established terminology and procedures to hide the fact that UOP pays distinct and significant financial incentives solely based on recruiters' success in securing enrollments. To avoid detection, the UOP uses euphemisms to describe enrollments, such as activities or level one student information cards.
The report goes on to describe how recruiters with the highest enrollments get massive pay raises. It describes managements pressure to recruit unqualified students. That recruiters are coached when officials from government or accrediting agencies were visiting. And in response to DOE questions, Literally every current UOP employee who has worked longer than a year, expressed anxiety over possible retaliation by the UOP.
The report goes on to describe a cover up during the DOE review, UOP's behavior during the program review process further substantiates the ethical concerns expressed by both current and former employees. When one manager knew of the review, she coached two employees what to say, that salaries were based on numerous factors, not just enrollments. She further instructed they were not to speak to former UOP employees about what goes on at the UOP.
Recruiters were told if they were contacted by DOE personell, they were first to report this to management before participating in an interview. Recruiters uniformly said they felt intimidated by this practice.
After managers were told the DOE review would be conducted as schools in Northern California and Phoenix, UOP management told some recruiters at the California locations they should take leave. When interviewed, these recruiters indicated they were absent as they had reputations for being honest and frank.
M
SLC, Utah
U.S.A.
