By Professor Doom
Mainstream news sure is a funny thing; questions
don’t get asked, and you’re very lucky to get even the facts. Despite being a
typical mainstream news piece, the following is well worth consideration:
The highlights are simple enough. A college
administrator was changing the grades of students, turning F students into A-
students (this goes a long way to explaining why A- is now
the median grade in college), allowing them to get those all-important degrees.
He would forge faculty signatures to facilitate the grade changes.
I’ve mentioned before that going to
admin is the thing to do when failing (it’s good, albeit corrupt,
advice that could have come from Machiavelli himself, I admit), but this is a
little over the top.
The article makes it clear the
administrator wasn’t taking bribes to make the changes (one might conjecture
the salary these guys get is pretty much an “advance bribe” to make sure
students do well). The article does a poor, poor job asking the question why he
did it.
He’d been at the institution well over a
decade, so it’s a safe bet that this sort of thing had been going on for quite
some time. The administrator has little to say in his own defense:
“They did not like the way I was doing my job, and we
mutually agreed I should leave,”
His job, apparently, was to make sure
students got their degrees no matter what. He says there was no pressure from
above, but I find that claim preposterous. I’ve worked for over 20 years in
higher education, and at most institutions the pressure from above to pass
students no matter what is, simply, relentless.
Incidentally, he wasn’t fired right away; he stayed
on the payroll long enough to cash in his sick and vacation days. That’s
amazing; even if not convicted of job-related fraud, faculty lose that sort of
stuff immediately when they’re fired, and they’re fired immediately.
Letting him stay employed long enough to
for that shenanigans is a clear message that the administration of the school
approved his actions.
It is, of course, completely impossible
for this level of fraud to only have a single person involved; I suspect the
administrator’s unwillingness to implicate others or claim he was pressured
into committing fraud is merely assisting the cover-up, with vacation and sick
leave as a reward. His immediate supervisor also left the school:
In my research, it’s jaw-dropping how
often an administrator involved with fraud, even if fired, has no trouble
landing another plum position somewhere else. As I mentioned before, the only
other fields where fraud and incompetence doesn’t disqualify you from future
work in the same field are banking and politics.
For his fraud, the administrator will get
6 months in jail, and 5 years’ probation. I figure a better than 99% chance
that when he gets out, he’ll get another plum position in higher education,
since nobody will ask the questions that need to be asked here.
Me, at
graduation: “ I have no idea who that person is. Did you pass that student?”
Faculty:
“Nope.”
Me: “Is
there someone else besides you and me teaching the courses it says she passed,
to graduate?”
Faculty:
“Nope, but I know better than to ask questions.”
--I grant
my memory for faces and names is far from perfect, but I really started to hate
going to graduations at one school, which was just too small for so many
students to have slipped through the cracks. Asking questions got me in some
trouble there, I concede.
Only 15 students were specifically
mentioned in this case (I repeat, this admin was there for over a decade, so I
bet there were quite a few more students involved). Despite the fraud, none of
the students will lose their degree. Lucky them, though I honestly believe this
sort of thing cheapens the value of the degrees the legitimate students, if
any, receive.
Let’s talk about the money involved here.
The article helpfully says that the program the students were in could cost
nearly $75,000 per student. Hmm. Times 15, that’s well past a million bucks.
Much like in banking, just a few forged signatures are necessary to procure
that kind of money.
But no, the administrator says he wasn’t
paid extra to help those (and other) students, and the article doesn’t dare
suggest that there was some financial benefit to the administrator for passing
those students.
Despite the fraud, the school remains
fully accredited. In fact, it will not even get a second look from
accreditation. Of course. Accreditation has no means to even discover fraud
like this, so can’t be expected to penalize a school engaging in such fraud.
This is why, time and again, I stress that the way to at least start fixing
higher education is to make
accreditation something besides a fraud and a joke.
I wish this case would set a real
precedent in higher education. Churning out worthless degrees for bogus and/or
non-existent coursework is actually quite common in higher education today, and
the administrators involved should probably be the ones looking over their
shoulder, instead of the minimally paid adjuncts who are under constant
pressure to pass everyone, lest they be fired and have the grades changed by
administration anyway.
A man can dream, right?
I've had that sort of thing happen to me personally.
ReplyDeleteThe institution I used to teach at had a policy that if a student got a mark between 47 - 49%, he or she would automatically be bumped up to 50%. If they got between 40 and 46%, they were eligible for a supplementary exam, but they had to ask the instructor for it. Usually, most such requests were granted.
I had 2 students in a course I taught one year fall into the latter category. One, before leaving for summer break, asked me if he could write the exam and if there was any way he could study for it. I lent him one of my textbooks and said I'd see him at the beginning of the next term.
He came back at the end of the break, returned my book, and gleefully said he didn't need to write the exam because he "passed" the course. Presumably, the other student did as well. In other words, they were given at least 4% free of charge by someone higher than me in authority. The only one who could have done that was my department head.
It wasn't the first time something like that apparently happened. I heard a story about an instructor who taught our students a certain service course. According to what someone told me, the department head examined the marks sheet and proceeded to change any "unfavourable" grades--in the presence of that instructor. The latter didn't do anything because it wasn't his responsibility any more.
My department head got away with that nonsense because he was protected through being politically well-connected at the institution. There was hardly anything he wasn't allowed to get away with. Of course, nobody ever mentioned the word "corruption".....
That's what makes the article so special: we all know this goes on regularly. It's like suddenly going to jail for going 71 mph on a 70 mph highway.
ReplyDelete