The Century Foundation on Online Education and OPMs: Position paper masquerading as a study

,
3 replies
  1. Steve hodownes
    Steve hodownes says:

    Phil as usual another fact based article. Thank you. While no one solution will work for every school or program, the continued attack on OPMS is upsetting. To arbitrarily slam the opm model is flat out wrong and to classify a position paper to support ones own narrative is well…

    With all that has been written on this topic in the various publications no one points out that schools control the academic experience and no one address the concept of agency costs. In a fee for service model the incentive for the provider is to generate more fees with nominal concern for outcomes. In the revenue share model the incentives are fully aligned in that both parties want students to be successful. An opm will not be profitable if the student is not successful- retained and graduates. The university will also have issues if they recruit students and they drop out.

    An interesting corollary is the health care industry which today for the most part is fee for service with marginal focus on outcomes. The industry is now migrating to value based care to control costs and improve outcomes.

    Fee for service may work for some schools, and revenue share for others, and full in sourcing for others. To continue to bash Revenue share models without the facts is simply weak.

    • Jim Lummus
      Jim Lummus says:

      Great article and reply- and I would add that it has been frustrating to see all OPM’s painted with the same brush when two people’s definition of an OPM can vary so greatly. That was proven this week when yet a new term came about- OPX. To me, it is just as impossible to compare some of the “OPM’s” in the graphic this week as it is to compare a Kia and a Range Rover. Yes, they both have the same primary function but they are so very different. I think it is time for the authors to recognize differentiation in the models that are in the market.

  2. Greg Ferenbach
    Greg Ferenbach says:

    Wow. It is good to see someone is finally calling out these TCF pieces for what they are: jeremiads masquerading as social science. I love the way they always seem to cite their own work to make a point. And so patronizing too. “Predatory” contracts? Please. Since when do college administrators need business advice from political advocacy groups?

Comments are closed.