We Value Your Feedback - But Not Really

One of the most consistent criticisms of the University of Phoenix on the Internet - and frequently from those who otherwise praise the program they went through - involves the mandatory team assignments.

I blast this practice every time I evaluate a course in my MSA program. I have received yet another email from a UoP official on the matter of group assignments, or more specifically, on the matter of how desperately I need them and how valuable they are.

I was informed, in part, that "team experience and the ability to solve problems within teams is a powerful tool for you to develop." Apparently I have not developed the ability to work in groups yet. Yet I rather imagine that most of the crowd that the UoP caters to with their master's degree offerings are considerably mature and have some work experience under their belts. So I apologize to my fellow students - were it not for my total lack of experience in working with groups, these hated team assignments would not be necessary.

The Senior Faculty Liaison further enlightened me as to the fact that "as in the 'real-world,' you may be faced with students that do not meet performance expectations." Gee, really? The important difference here is that in the "real-world," such persons tend to have their employment terminated. Students are not fired; that would not be profitable for the University.

The email also noted that "while you may face difficulties, you will come out with the most gained from the experience." What I am supposed to learn, or any student is supposed to learn, from the portion of the assignment done by another student is well beyond me. And will likely remain that way, until I take the time to learn what I missed thanks to the UoP's stubborn inability to admit that the many students that complain about group assignments have a valid point.

As I have pointed out in an earlier post, the UoP forums do not lend themselves to teamwork, and I doubt any business uses such a horrible system for collaborative work when it is necessary to do it online. In stark contrast to my last class, where I and one other student were forced to the entire group assignment ourselves or forfeit points, in my latest class everybody is scrambling for the crumbs of credit for work done. The assignment is this: create a three-page memo to a fictional replacement manager wherein we 1) briefly describe the five stages of group development; 2) analyze barriers that may exist in group communication; and 3) describe techniques to overcome those barriers and enhance group communication.

This assignment lends itself to three parts, does it not? Maybe four if we include compiling and editing as a fourth function. My group has six people.

Oops.

Concerned for their grades, everybody stampeded to the forum to declare: "I'll take the analysis!" or "I've got the five stages part!" Those too slow on the draw were left with nothing to do. So much for coming to any consensus. It was every man for himself - and my group was composed of mostly women!

So now I have to deal with a communications instructor that is so crass he USES CAPS TO TELL STUDENTS NOT TO DO SOMETHING, a Machiavellian group of students that weren't even assigned with respect to similar time zones (that darn instructor again), and a University that would rather shrug off legitimate criticism like so much rain off a well-oiled leather duster.

I'll keep complaining, but I suspect that most students get discouraged when they realize that the University isn't actually listening to them. As I was told:

"All your comments are reviewed by administration and archived."

Well, I guess being preserved for posterity is something.