Tag: buy

  • Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)

    Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school. 

    Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors. 

    But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs. 

    Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines. 

    The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.

    Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”

    And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws. 

    The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.

    Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.

    But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.

    So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think. 

    Source link

  • CUNY Plans to Buy Manhattan Campus

    CUNY Plans to Buy Manhattan Campus

    Funds from the sale of the campus will pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt.

    Cash-strapped Metropolitan College of New York is planning to sell its Manhattan campus to the City University of New York for $40 million, a regulatory filing first reported by Bloomberg shows.

    The two institutions signed a letter of intent on Monday, according to the regulatory filing, which notes that proceeds will be used to pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt. 

    MCNY agreed to sell the site last year as part of a forbearance agreement with bondholders.

    Metropolitan College of New York has struggled to keep up with debt in recent years and failed to maintain the agreed-upon ratio of liquid assets, according to a regulatory filing from July. The small college enrolled fewer than 500 students, according to the latest state data, and posted a deficit of more than $7 million in fiscal year 2023, publicly available financial data shows.

    CUNY is purchasing 101,542 square feet across three floors in the shared building, which officials told Bloomberg they intend to use as a temporary site for the Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing amid ongoing construction projects. The sale will require approval from bondholders as well as Metropolitan College’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Caring for the Planet: Walk More, Buy Less

    Higher Education Inquirer : Caring for the Planet: Walk More, Buy Less

    In a world of climate crisis, student debt, and endless consumption, there’s a quiet revolution available to young people: walk more, buy less. It sounds simple—because it is—but the impact can be profound.

    Most college students and recent grads don’t need to be reminded about environmental collapse. You’ve grown up amid wildfires, extreme weather, and warnings about rising seas. But while corporations and billionaires pump out pollution and plastic, you’re often told that the burden to fix things falls on your shoulders. You recycle. You switch off lights. You carry a tote bag. Still, it doesn’t feel like enough.

    That’s because systemic change is slow and hard. But two actions—walking and not shopping—have the power to disrupt entire systems of waste and exploitation.

    Walking Is a Radical Act

    In car-dominated societies like the U.S., walking is often dismissed as inconvenient or inefficient. But for those who can safely walk, it is an act of environmental resistance. Cars consume fossil fuels, require destructive mining for materials, and spew emissions into the air. Even electric vehicles rely on rare earth metals, large batteries, and energy grids that still burn coal and gas.

    Every mile you walk instead of drive avoids carbon pollution. Every pair of shoes worn out instead of tires is a win. Walking also builds local awareness. You notice what’s happening on your streets—who’s struggling, who’s thriving, which spaces are neglected, and where nature is still hanging on. You become part of your community rather than just passing through it.

    Walking saves money, improves health, and takes power away from oil companies and car-dependent infrastructure. That’s not just healthy—it’s revolutionary.

    Buying Less: Anti-Consumerism as Climate Action

    You’ve probably heard the phrase “vote with your wallet.” But what if not spending is the more powerful vote?

    Our entire economy is built around constant consumption. Fast fashion, tech upgrades, cheap furniture, endless online shopping—this isn’t just bad for your bank account. It’s bad for the planet. Every product you buy took raw materials, labor (often exploited), and energy to produce, ship, and store. The less we consume, the less destruction we support.

    Here’s the thing: corporations want you to feel like you’re missing out if you don’t buy the newest thing. Social media and marketing are built to trigger that FOMO. But refusing to participate—living simply, creatively, and consciously—is one of the boldest stands you can take.

    You don’t have to live like a monk. But delaying gratification, fixing what you already own, swapping clothes with friends, using the library, and just sitting with your discomfort instead of numbing it with shopping—these are environmental acts. They’re also acts of freedom.

    Why This Matters for Students and Grads

    As a young person, you’re probably juggling rent, school loans, gig jobs, and anxiety about the future. You may feel powerless. But walking and cutting back on shopping are low-cost, high-impact moves. They don’t require wealth. They don’t require perfection. They’re daily choices that build awareness and build community.

    By walking and refusing overconsumption, you model an alternative future—one not built on endless growth, but on balance, care, and intentional living.

    These small acts won’t fix everything. But they will help you live in closer alignment with your values. And they send a clear message: We’re not buying the lies anymore.

    Final Thought

    Caring for the environment isn’t about being perfect. It’s about shifting culture. It’s about resisting a system that treats the Earth—and our lives—as disposable.

    So walk when you can. Buy less than you think you need. Look around. Notice what matters. And know that in these small acts, you’re part of something bigger.

    Your steps count. Your refusal counts. Your care counts.

    Higher Education Inquirer is committed to radical truth-telling and student advocacy in an era of climate chaos and corporate capture.

    Source link

  • What Happens if Libraries Can’t Buy Ebooks? (opinion)

    What Happens if Libraries Can’t Buy Ebooks? (opinion)

    Clarivate, the company behind ProQuest, dropped a bombshell in the academic publishing world last month when it announced that it will “phase out one-time perpetual purchases of digital collections, print and digital books for libraries.” Instead, institutions will pivot to subscription-based access models. Clarivate justifies this seismic shift by pointing to the need for regular content updates, particularly as AI-enhanced research tools reshape scholarly publishing.

    While perpetual-access options for ebooks won’t vanish entirely—they’ll remain available through certain marketplaces like Clarivate’s Rialto platform—this decision drastically curtails traditional purchasing options. More troubling, it signals an acceleration of a broader industry trend toward subscription-only models, raising profound questions about the future of academic scholarship and underscoring libraries’ critical role in ensuring equitable, continuous access to scholarly resources.

    The Critical Difference Between Books and Journals

    In recent years, some major commercial publishers like Hachette and Penguin Random House have moved from perpetual access to subscription-based access models for ebooks, a shift that to date has primarily impacted public libraries.

    This subscription push mirrors the established practice for scholarly journals but presents unique challenges for academic ebooks. Unlike journals, which primarily deliver new findings, academic books represent enduring intellectual investments. A monograph acquired today often remains essential to scholarship decades later, particularly in humanities disciplines like history, literature, philosophy and sociology, where foundational texts retain their relevance across generations.

    Financial and Academic Risks

    Given academic books’ distinctive value, subscription-only access threatens to undermine teaching and research continuity. Faculty who design courses around specific texts may suddenly find essential works unavailable due to licensing changes. Researchers engaged in long-term projects risk losing access to crucial resources if subscriptions lapse. Though subscription models initially offer lower up-front costs and greater flexibility, the cumulative expenses can become substantial over time, introducing budgetary uncertainty.

    Yet subscription models also offer distinct advantages for certain institutions. Programs with rapidly evolving content, especially in STEM fields requiring frequent updates, may benefit from subscription flexibility. Smaller colleges and institutions experiencing enrollment fluctuations or curricular shifts might find subscriptions economically viable due to lower immediate costs. Subscriptions can help institutions avoid large up-front expenditures, manage predictable annual budgets more effectively and ensure continuous access to current scholarly content.

    Understanding these potential financial implications becomes crucial, especially as other industries have navigated similar challenges when transitioning to subscription-based models.

    Lessons From Other Industries

    Higher education can extract valuable insights from similar transitions in software and media streaming sectors. Traditionally, software represented a one-time transaction granting perpetual access, allowing customers indefinite use after an initial investment. The shift to software as a service (SaaS) fundamentally altered this paradigm, providing continuous access through recurring subscriptions. SaaS models initially attracted organizations due to lower up-front costs and greater flexibility to scale services as needed. However, this transition introduced budgetary uncertainty, as ongoing subscription fees can be unpredictable over time.

    The media industry’s experience with subscription models offers another cautionary tale. Platforms like Netflix and Spotify initially captivated consumers with affordable, convenient access to vast content libraries. Yet over time, numerous competing services entered the market, fragmenting content distribution. Consumers found themselves juggling multiple subscriptions to maintain comprehensive access, resulting in “subscription fatigue” and significantly increased total costs. This fragmentation not only impacted household budgets but also created complexity in managing multiple services, ultimately diminishing the convenience these platforms initially promised.

    Drawing parallels to higher education, subscription-only models could similarly fragment access to academic resources, forcing institutions to maintain multiple subscriptions for comprehensive collections. Over time, this fragmentation could increase administrative complexity and total costs, complicating resource management. Institutions must therefore approach subscription-only models with caution and deliberation.

    Open Access as a Strategic Solution

    One proactive strategy for addressing subscription challenges involves embracing open access (OA), a model providing free, unrestricted online access to scholarly research. Unlike traditional commercial models dependent on paywalls, OA enables anyone to read, download and distribute content without cost barriers. This dramatically increases research visibility and democratizes knowledge by making it accessible regardless of institutional affiliation or financial capacity.

    Institutions can strategically support OA by investing in university presses, institutional repositories and collaborative publishing platforms. Successful examples include the Directory of Open Access Books, Open Book Publishers and the Open Library of Humanities, which have demonstrated sustainable, rigorous academic publishing methods. Redirecting a portion of subscription budgets to these initiatives can build permanent collections while fostering transformative scholarly communication practices.

    However, OA models face their own challenges. Financial sustainability concerns emerge because publication costs often fall on authors or institutions, potentially disadvantaging researchers without institutional backing. Moreover, robust infrastructure, consistent funding and effective policy frameworks remain essential to maintaining quality and longevity of OA content.

    Moving Forward: A Call to Action

    As academic scholarship navigates these transformative currents, institutional leaders must proactively engage with their libraries, publishers and vendors. Delaying action risks fragmented access, escalating costs and compromised academic integrity.

    Leaders should urgently prioritize collaborative actions to:

    • Develop balanced subscription and perpetual-access models in partnership with publishers and vendors.
    • Invest strategically in open-access initiatives while acknowledging and addressing their implementation challenges.
    • Strengthen consortia and partnerships to enhance negotiating power, reduce fragmentation and streamline resource management.
    • Foster structured communication among faculty, libraries, publishers and vendors to align acquisitions with academic priorities.

    The proactive decisions we make today will shape academic scholarship for decades to come, ensuring that vital resources remain accessible, sustainable and equitable for all.

    Leo S. Lo is dean and a professor in the College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences at the University of New Mexico and president of the Association of College and Research Libraries.

    The author serves as a volunteer member of the Clarivate Academic AI Advisory Council. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Clarivate.

    Source link

  • Stanford drops plan to buy Bay Area campus

    Stanford drops plan to buy Bay Area campus

    Stanford University backed off a plan, almost four years in the making, to buy the Notre Dame de Namur University campus in nearby Belmont, Calif., the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

    “The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago,” Stanford officials wrote in a Tuesday statement announcing the decision.

    Officials added that as the university was “exploring possible academic uses for a Stanford Belmont campus,” it became clear “that identifying and establishing those uses for a potential Belmont campus will take significantly longer than we initially planned.”

    Administrators also seemed to hint at potential financial concerns, as President Donald Trump has sought—unsuccessfully, so far—to cap reimbursements for indirect research costs funded by the National Institutes of Health, which experts have warned will harm research universities. 

    “The landscape for research universities has changed considerably since Stanford entered into the option purchase agreement with NDNU,” Stanford officials wrote. “These changes are resulting in greater uncertainties and a different set of institutional and financial challenges for Stanford.”

    In their own statement, NDNU officials noted the university would continue to seek a buyer and expressed disappointment that the sale had fallen through.

    Notre Dame de Namur has sought to sell the Belmont campus near Palo Alto since it shrank its offerings and moved a number of its programs online in 2021 amid financial challenges that pushed it to the brink of closure. Now the private Roman Catholic institution is focused on graduate education and offers a mix of in-person, hybrid and online programs.

    Officials had expected the sale of the Belmont campus to provide a financial boon.

    “Our focus remains on finding a buyer who will preserve and honor the historical significance of this beautiful campus and continue to serve the community-oriented mission that has long been a cornerstone of Notre Dame de Namur University,” NDNU president Beth Martin wrote.

    Source link