Don Kassner: DL Man of the Year

[ham]

I can't say much about the school because I don't know them.
HOWEVER
great caution, deep investigation and formal, written disclosure & consents from the source should be in order.
One might not want to jump in thinking it will cost $2000 altogether and find out he missed some small print and it costs 3, 5000 or more.

(Another question for another time would be why our acquisitive government should be spending your tax money to subsidize a student loan program if now nearly everyone can afford college without it?)

not everybody can afford brick&mortar education given the cost, but most could afford distance education.
Why it hasn't become the norm at least in the Humanities/social sciences is beyond me.
Understand that big brother loves money to change hands, so that it can 'get a cut' at every step.
Welfare schemes, 'affirmative actions' and other bleedy heart 'fantastic' causes are ideal, for not only big brother gets a cut, but big brother's drivers, our friendly politicians always in search of wrongs to right, inequalities to redress, atrocities to avert and so forth, get the bread crumbs in the form of lobbying, financing and 'contributions to make our world a better place'.
Nikita Kruscev said that politicians are great people: they promise the public to build a bridge even when there is no river.
No wonder the puniest welfare program is worth billions; education is no difference.
What disturbs me is the welfare/trailer park mentality that every day makes new adepts.
The 'scholar ship' is a private program allowing students to get an accredited certificate studying on board a cruise ship etc etc, and it is very expensive.
I won't comment on the idea or the quality, but I will just tell they get flooded with letters asking about welfare options, grants, loans, subsidies: it makes no sense. If you are worst off, I understand you may want the good old 'chance' from big brother, but wouldn't a community college suffice?
Welfare scheme frauds are uncovered daily, but much like corrupt Roman tyrants used free bread and games to keep the rabble on the hook, todays politicians use welfare: born to help those struck by occasional ill fate, it has become a lifestyle for many 'you-know-whos'.

[Ben Johnson]

I suspect that Andrew Jackson U. has studied its incremental cost of servicing new sudents and has determined it to be less than $2,000. Maybe one of their staff actually took one of their courses.

I suspect they have a growth goal in mind and want to get there SAP. They could spend money on advertising like the U of Phoenix or discount until they reach their size goal. Growth from discounting probably looked more attractive. I can't imagine the sposorship thing being any more than supporting pet projects.

[Brian Crawford]

In any event, any major discount on an accredited DL degree program is great.

Brian and Ham, your points are well taken, and on a couple of levels.  In my original post I phrased it "no tuition" in quotes rather than "free" as was stated elsewhere for just the reasons you mentioned.  Obviously if a "fee" is involved it's not "free."

Implicit in your discussion is another excellent point.  Students ought to do their due diligence before jumping in with this program or any other.  Run the numbers and see how the "fee" breaks down per course.  

The car salesman analogy is apt.  Colleges are by and large bigger crooks and bound by fewer restrictions.  Cynicism is always healthy when making major financial decisions.  

A point you didn't mention is that the "sponsorship" extends "for their entire program."  It's not just a loss leader to get you in the door for a couple classes, it's the whole program.

When you do get to the bottom line you find this truly is a heckuva deal.  Whether they call it a sponsorship or a scholarship, whether it's a marketing ploy or not, the end result is enormous savings on a quality program.  As Ben Johnson noted, an accredited MBA for around $2K is just astonishing.   Some places charge that much per unit.  

So that's why I was enthusiastic about this program.  It's no overstatement to say this is a potentially revolutionary development on a Henry Ford scale.  How can an unremarkable RA school peddle a $50,000 MBA when you can pick up one just as good or better for $2,000?  

And on the other end of the scale, why pay $2,500 for a bogus degree that will only embarrass you, when you can do a real program for less and actually learn something in the bargain?

(Another question for another time would be why our acquisitive government should be spending your tax money to subsidize a student loan program if now nearly everyone can afford college without it?)

Since we are quick and aggressive in our criticism of those we see undermining distance learning (a rightly so), it seems only proper that we are equally quick to offer support to those who advance it so mightily.  Once the higher education cartel and their shills fully comprehend the significance of this development you can bet they will be on the warpath both overtly and covertly to hammer it down.

Herb,

All great points.

[Albert Hidel]

Growth from discounting probably looked more attractive.  I can't imagine the sponsorship thing being any more than supporting pet projects.

In the not so distant past a talented artist would seek a "patron" or "benefactor," someone with money who liked to spend it to give a deserving person a hand up.  I'm thinking of that old John Garfield movie "Humoresque."  Maybe Joan Crawford drowning herself at the end discouraged the practice.  

I like the notion of people supporting students directly because they want to, and not because the government picks their pockets.  It will be interesting to learn the internal workings of this AJU "sponsorship" program.  I can't see much downside to affordable education, particularly when it's made possible by private parties acting voluntarily and not by government edict.

[jmorgan-at-AJU]

Hello everyone!

My name is Jarrod and I am on staff here at Andrew Jackson University. I just came across this thread, and I thought I might jump in the conversation and answer some questions that came up about our Sponsored Tuition Program.

First let me say that we agree with the first poster's sentiments. This is a revolutionary new way of making higher education available to everyone, and I feel it will change the industry. That being said, because it is so different than the traditional models of education, I can understand that some people are skeptical. Let's go through a couple of the questions that have come up.

First: Keep in mind that when you enroll at AJU, you will fill our an enrollment agreement. This is a legal contract, and the terms defined in it cannot be changed. Therefore, I would encourage all students to THOROUGHLY read through the enrollment agreement before you sign it (at any university, not just AJU). Ours is only a few pages long and it puts in writing your zero tuition amount. There will be no surprise tuition charges after you enroll because the contract cannot be changed.

Second: FEES. You do have to pay for books and fees while enrolled in AJU's Sponsored Tuition Program. The fees you are required to pay are listed at http://www.aju.edu/Admissions/admis_fees.asp . They are as follows:

Application (one time): $75
Enrollment (one time): $125
Semester Fee (Undergraduate students) : $350
Semester Fee (Graduate students) : $400
Graduation (one time): $100
Proctoring Fee (one per course): $30
Textbooks: (standard college textbook charges)

Graduate students can take up to 3 courses per semester, and undergraduate students can take up to 4 per semester.

Third: "How can you do this? Where does the money come from?" This is an understandable question. You can watch a video of Don Kassner (your man of the year nominee) explaining it here: http://www.viddler.com/explore/AndrewJac...videos/60/

The method is simple. The average university uses lead generators, banner ads, and other expensive (and inefficient) methods of generating applications. That equates to a few THOUSAND dollars of marketing costs per student. Read that again. A few thousand dollars PER STUDENT THAT ENROLLS. So who pays for that? You do. This is why tuition rates at most universities continue to rise. Our partners help us recruit students without forcing us to pay thousands per enrollment. These savings allow us to eliminate tuition. Plain and simple, we have found a better way to do business.

There are many other things that make AJU a great university, and we would love to tell you about them. I am glad to answer more questions on this board, or you can contact me at:

1-800-429-9300 (ext 112)
jmorgan@aju.edu

or you can contact our Director of Admissions Tammy Kassner at tkassner@aju.edu.

Happy learning.... and spread the word... Tuition is dead!

[Little Arminius]

Third: "How can you do this?  Where does the money come from?"  This is an understandable question.  You can watch a video of Don Kassner (your man of the year nominee) explaining it here: http://www.viddler.com/explore/AndrewJac...videos/60/

I am glad to answer more questions on this board, or you can contact me at:

1-800-429-9300 (ext 112)
jmorgan@aju.edu

or you can contact our Director of Admissions Tammy Kassner at tkassner@aju.edu.

Happy learning.... and spread the word... Tuition is dead!

Who else from the Kassner family is employed by AJU?

I'm starting to get a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach ...

[ham]

well, his point about marketing costs is right when the condition applies.
For example I never saw an Athabasca ad, a TELUQ ad, an Adams State ad or even a Open University ad (although they seldom organize brunches around the EU ).
Typically schools spending a fortune in ads (and therefore known to everybody ) turn out to be mostly unwonderful schools of the Phoenix kind.
As well, let's not forget the demographic...
People picking a school from a banner or ad are typically non-discerning individuals, probably from 'danger zone' groups who hog the bulk of state-sponsored subsidies, welfare and other institutionalized charity of the social engineering kind.
I have been once the target of hatred from Athabasca welfare hogs for mentioning that I pay my own fees and expect a service...
In my parents' times welfare/public charity hogs would shut up and be thankful...these days they expect to be sort of icon of moral superiority...
A dollar of honor, eh?

[Joe]

Looking at the posts it appears that not many people at the schools play an active role in promoting the "truth" about their institutions.  As such, you may be interested in hearing from the CEO of Andrew Jackson University (me).  My name is Joseph Schmoke; Don Kassner is AJU's President & COO.  Don and I knew there would be lots of controversy when we intruduced our sponsored "zero tuition" program in what we thought was a controlled beta test in July.  We thought we'd just put it out to a limited number of people and let them tell us what they liked, didn't like - or were suspicious of - in the program.  To our surprise, one of the beta test participants was a degreeinfo forum member and spread the word to his forum buddies and the word snuck out.  Don and I sat back and watched the interplay, the guesswork and detective work and were satisfied that most of the folks actually "got" what we were doing.  But a few behind-the-scenes issues were still misunderstood - as they are in the preceding posts - so I thought I'd clear things up with the inside information.

We had just riased our tuition (again) and we were not happy to see that everyone else was raising their tuition too; we were doing it because we were lower than most and wanted to charge what similar schools were charging.  But then we met with some people who presented an idea that caught our attention: create a marketing partnership with "sponsors" who would recruit students for us and pay us a portion of the revenue they were generating from online advertising.  (Think social networks...)  We knew that idea wouldn't fly economically, but Don though he'd take a close look at our actual costs and see how much we had to charge for tuition in order to meet our costs.  As part of his study he looked at what it cost us to recruit a student.  These costs consisted of advertising and lead generation, with leads generated from aggregators (i.e., collegeUSA, etc.) costing between $35 and $50 each while converting to enrollments at between 2%-4%.  That cost was enormous.  (A recent Merrill Lynch report pegged recruiting costs at between $1400 and $2700 per student.)  We thought that, if we could eliminate this tremendous cost we could pass the savings on the students, and began formulating a plan.

Don called me one night and asked what I thought about eliminating tuition.  I told him we weren't a charity and had no endowment to draw from, but he snickered and said he'd like to try charging fees instead of tuition.  The fees would consist of standard application ($75) and enrollment ($125) fees, plus an "administrative" of about $350 for undergraduates and $400 for graduate students, plus a proctoring fee of $30 per course.  The administrative fee covered our cost to provide three (grad) to four (undergrad) classes (three-credit-hour classes) as the instructors wouldn't work for free.  So we decided to test it and the beta program kicked off in July.  You've seen what's happened since then...

Our "partners" or "sponsors" don't pay us anything; we don't pay them anything.  What happens is the sponsors gain new members, customers, followers, etc., at no charge while we obtain leads for potential enrollments at no cost.  Everyone benefits, especially the students.

This is not a come-on; there is no "catch"; costs won't change mid-program; the quality of courses and instructors match up against anything and anyone; student services and technical services don't change for the worse; and in the meantime Andrew Jackson University sets a new bar for the cost for quality, accredited degree programs.  

One last comment, and maybe the best part yet:  for the $350 "admin fee" an undergraduate student can take as many as four courses per semester, and for $400 a grad student can take three courses.  (Why the difference?  We pay instructors who have terminal degrees - only an instructor with a doctorate can teach grad students - more than those with master degrees.) Proctoring costs are $30 per course, so add that too.  But once a student is enrolled the application and enrollment fees disappear.

Why are we doing this?  Two basic reasons:  beause we approach the business of education from an entrepreneurial point of view; and because we want colleges and universities to think about how they can reduce students' costs rather than how they can inflate them.  It's time somebody does that, isn't it?

Some other things we're doing that might interest you:

We introduced web cam proctoring several months ago - I was the guinea pig as I'm not an expert in technology (if Joe can do it anyone can...) - and students love it.  No hunting for a snippy proctor anymore; just take the test in front of your computer.

Toturing service is now offered through a highly qualified third party.  (Yes, it costs extra, but if you need it it's worth it.)

And we're about to release a technical assist service that allows our technologist to remotely control a student's computer & cursor to walk them through what might be an otherwise challenging first stab at online education.  (Yes, I'll be the guinea pig for this too.)

In conclusion, we're for real, we don't want to mislead anyone, the economics are simple - and timely, we think - and our goal is to provide the highest quality education and the best service at the lowest cost.  

[Joe]

Growth from discounting probably looked more attractive.  I can't imagine the sponsorship thing being any more than supporting pet projects.

In the not so distant past a talented artist would seek a "patron" or "benefactor," someone with money who liked to spend it to give a deserving person a hand up.  I'm thinking of that old John Garfield movie "Humoresque."  Maybe Joan Crawford drowning herself at the end discouraged the practice.  

I like the notion of people supporting students directly because they want to, and not because the government picks their pockets.  It will be interesting to learn the internal workings of this AJU "sponsorship" program.  I can't see much downside to affordable education, particularly when it's made possible by private parties acting voluntarily and not by government edict.

[Joe]

Growth from discounting probably looked more attractive.  I can't imagine the sponsorship thing being any more than supporting pet projects.

In the not so distant past a talented artist would seek a "patron" or "benefactor," someone with money who liked to spend it to give a deserving person a hand up.  I'm thinking of that old John Garfield movie "Humoresque."  Maybe Joan Crawford drowning herself at the end discouraged the practice.  

I like the notion of people supporting students directly because they want to, and not because the government picks their pockets.  It will be interesting to learn the internal workings of this AJU "sponsorship" program.  I can't see much downside to affordable education, particularly when it's made possible by private parties acting voluntarily and not by government edict.

Yes, I'm a newbie and hit the wrong button so there's no "reply" in my prior reply.  But I wanted to invite you to look at the post I entered today as it provides the "inner workings" as you call them of Andrew Jackson University's sponsored - or zero-tuition - program.
Joe