Letters

From the December 2008 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

She frequently cites David Breneman, a noted expert in higher education, as a critic of the university, yet fails to note that he serves as a nonpaid advisory board member of the University of Phoenix’s newly formed National Research Center, an unusual role for a “critic.” Mangu-Ward refers to a “comprehensive takedown” of the University of Phoenix by The New York Times (where, incidentally, she previously worked as a researcher). Yet the story was largely discredited following its publication, leading This Week in Education to ask, “Did the NYT Get it Wrong on the University of Phoenix?”

Finally, Mangu-Ward implies that the University of Phoenix preys on the underprivileged who attend the school primarily through government-issued Pell grants designed for low-income students. Yet only about a quarter of the university’s students received Pell grants during the last year—not an uncommon percentage for a public college or university offering associate through doctoral programs. It is nonsensical to examine the University of Phoenix through the lens of traditional academia. It is not Yale, nor is it trying to be. The University of Phoenix is designed to accommodate busy adults through flexible schedules, a combination of online and conveniently located on-campus courses, and education technology.

According to the Making Opportunity Affordable initiative, the U.S. will need 16 million more Americans to earn degrees by 2025 in order to remain competitive with other leading developed nations, representing a 37 percent increase in productivity per year, as estimated by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Conventional institutions cannot accomplish this on their own. If our nation is going to remain competitive, we must raise more working adults to higher skill levels. The University of Phoenix is an important part of the process.

William J. Pepicello
President, University of Phoenix

Katherine Mangu-Ward replies: The long, strangely angry letter from the University of Phoenix proves the old maxim that no good deed goes unpunished. My intent was to defend Phoenix from the more outrageous, unfair criticisms thrown at the school—something the other letter writers clearly comprehended. Somehow, Phoenix missed my point and instead responded as if listing those criticisms in order to refute them is equivalent to endorsing them. After accusing their critics of snobbery, I credited Phoenix as a champion of the poor and underserved, a bold and independent educational innovator, and the wave of the future. I also pointed out that the education it provides is partially federally funded and inferior in some ways to that offered by traditional four-year colleges. During my reporting, I had an excellent conversation with William Pepicello, whom I quoted approvingly several times. If the University of Phoenix is holding out for an article more sympathetic to for-profit educational ventures than mine, it may be waiting a long, long time.