At our campus they have started holding us to numbers again. We were told we can be fired for not enrolling x amount of students, not hitting x amount of dials, and if we leave for the day without "making" it happen, don't come back. We have been punished for not hitting individual run rates by being forced to work till 8 on Friday and 5 on Saturday. Threatened with Sunday. Written up for cancels after being told to gross up...it's like GAO never happened around here.
18 replies (most recent on top)
WASC is getting upset with Heald and might put the WASC accreditation on notice with full blown site reviews. Heald IT faculty and students have been complaining to WASC that the IT program is horribly outdated and not relevant to the real world. Outside IT professionals have been called in by WASC. The outside professionals have told WASC that they completely blew the call with regards to an AA degree being worthwhile in the pursuit of an IT career. WASC is getting pretty pissed off with its reputation being put on the line for giving Heald accreditation.
So tenure is no longer factor as it was in the wave in March... that's why the vacation policy had to change. They are about to riff based on ROI. Cost too much =gone. Hired when the pay was decent=gone.
Onlinetampa (Online Admissions), I'm sorry to hear about the situation in Tampa. It sounds like there may a class action case if people share their experiences (getting fired for high customer service but fewer enrollments). University of Phoenix lost a great deal in a "matrix" whistleblower suit. It wouldn't be an easy case, and they could try to drag it out for years, but maybe there would be a lawyer to take the case. Also, the Attorney General of California might be interested in the information.
During the recent layoff "speeches" to those that were rifted they were told those who remained behind were based strictly on their escore. BULL. The reps that were chosen to remain had more enrollments than those let go. I am one who had alot of enrollments but a lower eScore, mine was in the low 80's and lots of reps who had in the 90's were let go. I had 10 starts in November and 18 starts in January...I stayed, others with less enrollments, but higher customer satisfcation scores and higher eScores were let go. There is NO integrity in their system.
In regards to: They call it "quality of work" on paper. Two comments. First we know that the wolf is in costume. Second no matter how high your enrollment numbers, you should have given better customer service. Just ask that nice, friendly little pig over there.
Here is the part on advertising agencies (66875)
Comment: Several commenters asked
for clarification regarding the safe
harbor in current § 668.14(b)(22)(ii)(J)
permitting an institution to award
compensation for Internet-based
recruitment and admission activities
that provide information about the
institution to prospective students, refer
prospective students to the institution,
or permit prospective students to apply
for admission online. Specifically, the
commenters asked us to clarify that
institutions can make payments to third
parties that provide Internet-based
recruitment and admission services as
long as they do not otherwise violate the
statutory prohibition. Other commenters
asked for confirmation that clickthrough
payments are permitted if the
third party is paid based on those who
click, not those who enroll. Other
commenters requested examples of
permitted relationships.
Discussion: The HEA does not
prohibit advertising and marketing
activities by a third party, as long as
payment to the third party is based on
those who ‘‘click’’ and is not based in
any part, directly or indirectly, on the
number of individuals who enroll or are
awarded financial aid; therefore, the
regulatory language would not prohibit
such click-through payments. Further,
institutions may make payments to third
parties and entities with formal thirdparty
arrangements as long as the parties
are not compensated in any part,
directly or indirectly, based on success
in securing enrollments or the award of
financial aid.
Changes: None.
Based on @8438's statement there is s violation. Jobs are threatened every other day for not enrolling enough or not starting 80% or drops or reversals or cancels. They call it "quality of work" on paper.
66872 column 2 section 668.14.
Advertising based on enrollments? IDK what you are talking about. If you can point me to the place it says point blank "admissions reps cannot be held to numbers" then great because "they" say the rules were misinterpreted and they are within the legal boundaries. If not I'll get back trying to hit my start until I see otherwise. again, when I see...I may know of such recordings.
Oh, and just to be clear: It is my non-attorney opinion that the school can talk numbers, as every business does, but enrollments, including continuation in or completion of a program, cannot be used as a basis for compensation or performance measurement.
The Federal Register is very explicit, and includes enrollment numbers for advertising agencies too. That is CCi, or another school, cannot pay for advertising based on enrollments. Read the entire document before you suggest it's not explicit. That Federal Register also outlines that admission reps cannot get raises more than one time per year.
...I may know of such recordings. But where is it in black and white they can't talk numbers. State says NOT illegal. publication referenced earlier not explicit (granted its lengthy and I only glanced thru it). Does anyone know where the law says that admissions can not be held to or even given individual run rates?
Oh come on, when the entire admissions department has a culture of "enrollment of students is the only thing that matters," do you really believe it would be that difficult to prove that CCi is out of compliance? Oh, that's right, no matter how high, if the rep gave better customer service the enrollments would be higher.
admission and fa has always been enrollment driven, although there is no written document that indicate it, the standard of performance is how many students you can enroll and that's how you get to the top. It has always been the sale tactics. Although, you can no longer get rewarded monetarily or via gifts, you get to keep your job and be known as the top performer. Thus, employees will have a hard time proving that CCI is not up to compliance with that. Unless, some one has the balls to tape every team meeting they have, while discussing such topic.
Anonymous8414, which Wyotech are you referring to? Do you (and others) have documentation to show a pattern about letting everyone pass?
All of you should read the Federal Register, specifically October 29, 2010 (66832-66975).
It's been like this for a long time. Even here at Wyo tech if you dare fail to many students your unofficially threatened with a PIP or on someone's shit radar. It's like unofficially being told to pass them all no matter what....even if they can't read. Lot of quality .....not!
@Numbers. This sounds possibly like illegal (criminal) activity. Do you know where this directive is coming from? Is there any written documentation about this directive? What do you plan to do in order to make your quota? Doesn't this put you into a position where you may have to mislead and defraud potential students?