Grand Canyon University and the Rise of the Robocollege: Mass Education or Mass Deception?

In an age when higher education is increasingly defined by scale, automation, and profit, Grand Canyon University (GCU) has emerged as a flagship for a new breed of institution: the “robocollege.” With over 125,000 students—more than 98,000 of them online—GCU's explosive growth is a case study in what happens when business efficiency collides with educational integrity.

What exactly are these students buying? And what, if anything, are they learning?

Education at Scale—But at What Cost?

GCU’s meteoric expansion reflects the broader boom in online education and a shift toward workforce credentialing over traditional liberal arts education. In theory, this means flexible, affordable education for all. But in practice, critics argue that GCU—and similar robocolleges—deliver a watered-down, highly standardized experience that prioritizes enrollment numbers and shareholder returns over intellectual development.

Classes often rely on templated syllabi, discussion boards policed by rubrics, and preloaded lectures. Assignments are frequently graded by software or overworked adjuncts paid by the piece. While GCU markets itself as a Christian university rooted in purpose and service, the reality for many students is an educational experience that feels impersonal, mechanized, and transactional.

Robocolleges and the End of Faculty

One of the more disturbing elements of this model is the erosion of faculty roles. At institutions like GCU, full-time professors are scarce, especially in online programs. Instead, armies of contingent instructors—many of them underpaid and invisible—serve as glorified content moderators. There is little room for mentoring, dialogue, or intellectual curiosity. Students often receive form-letter feedback and never develop relationships with instructors.

This is not education in any traditional sense—it's content delivery. And it's optimized for scale, not learning.

A Pipeline to What?

GCU has positioned itself as a career-focused institution, touting job readiness and Christian values. But for many students, the end result is a generic degree, heavy student debt, and limited upward mobility. According to College Scorecard data, the median earnings for GCU graduates ten years after entry hovers around $53,000—about average, but far from spectacular considering the cost.

Even more concerning: GCU’s parent company, Grand Canyon Education, is a for-profit contractor that operates much like the controversial education conglomerates of the 2000s. While GCU converted to nonprofit status in 2018, the U.S. Department of Education has raised repeated red flags about the true nature of that arrangement. In essence, GCU's nonprofit facade masks a highly profitable business model.

The Assembly Line of the Educated Underclass

Robocolleges like GCU are not designed to cultivate critical thinkers or scholars. They are factories, churning out degrees at the lowest possible cost. The students they attract—often working adults, parents, and veterans—deserve more than this. They deserve a system that treats them as learners, not customers. But under the robocollege model, education becomes a service industry, and students are simply consumers of prepackaged content.

We are witnessing the creation of an “educated underclass”—credentialed but disempowered, trained but not transformed.

Conclusion: A Warning Signal, Not a Model

GCU’s growth is not a triumph. It’s a cautionary tale. As policymakers and the public grapple with the future of higher education, we must ask ourselves: Is mass education worth it if it sacrifices meaning, mentorship, and genuine learning? The robocollege model offers convenience and scale—but at what cost to the human spirit of education?

Until we reckon with that question, the assembly line will keep running, churning out diplomas like widgets. And students, desperate for a better life, will keep buying in.

The Digital Dark Ages

In this so-called Age of Information, we find ourselves plunged into a paradoxical darkness—a time when myth increasingly triumphs over truth, and justice is routinely deformed or deferred. At The Higher Education Inquirer, we call it the Digital Dark Ages.

Despite the unprecedented access to data and connectivity, we’re witnessing a decay in critical thought, a rise in disinformation, and the erosion of institutions once thought to be champions of intellectual rigor. Higher education, far from being immune, is now entangled in this digital storm—none more so than in the rise of robocolleges and the assault on public universities themselves.

The Fog of Myth

The myths of the Digital Dark Ages come packaged as innovation and access. Online education is heralded as the great equalizer—a tool to democratize knowledge and reach underserved students. But as the dust settles, a darker truth emerges: many of these online programs are not centers of enlightenment, but factories of debt and disillusionment. Myth has become a business model.

The fantasy of upward mobility through a flexible online degree masks a grim reality. The students—often working-class professionals juggling jobs and families—become robostudents, herded through algorithmic coursework with minimal human interaction. The faculty, increasingly adjunct or contract-based, become roboworkers, ghosting in and out of online discussion boards, often managing hundreds of students with little support. And behind it all stands the robocollege—a machine optimized not for education, but for profit.

The Rise of Robocolleges

The rapid growth of online-only education has introduced a new breed of institutions: for-profit, non-profit, secular, and religious, all sharing a similar DNA. Among the most prominent are Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global Campus, Purdue University Global, Walden University, Capella University, Colorado Tech, and the rebranded former for-profits now operating under public university names, like University of Phoenix and University of Arizona Global Campus.

These robocolleges promise convenience and career readiness. In practice, they churn out thousands of credentials in fields like education, healthcare, business, and public administration—often leaving behind hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.

The Robocollege Model is defined by:

• Automation Over Education

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment

• High Tuition with Low Return

• Shallow Curricula and Limited Academic Support

• Poor Job Placement and Overburdened Students

These institutions optimize for profit and political protection, not pedagogy. Many align themselves with right-wing agendas, blending Christian nationalism with capitalist pragmatism, while marketing themselves as the moral antidote to “woke” education.

Trump’s War on Higher Ed and DEI

Former President Donald Trump didn’t just attack political rivals—he waged an ideological war against higher education itself. Under his administration and continuing through his influence, the right has cast universities as hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, cultural decay, and bureaucratic excess. Public universities and their faculties have been relentlessly vilified as enemies of “real America.”

Central to Trump’s campaign was the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Executive orders banned federally funded diversity training, and right-wing media amplified the narrative that DEI was a form of “reverse racism” and leftist brainwashing. That playbook has since been adopted by Republican governors and legislatures across the country, leading to:

• Defunding DEI Offices: Entire departments dedicated to equity have been dismantled in states like Florida and Texas.

• Censorship of Curriculum: Academic freedom is under siege as laws restrict the teaching of race, gender, and American history.

• Chilling Effects on Faculty: Scholars of color, queer faculty, and those doing critical theory face retaliation, termination, or self-censorship.

• Hostile Campus Environments: Students in marginalized groups are increasingly isolated, unsupported, and surveilled.

This culture war is not simply rhetorical—it’s institutional. It weakens public confidence in higher education, strips protections for vulnerable communities, and drives talent out of teaching and research. It also feeds directly into the robocollege model, which offers a sanitized, uncritical, and commodified version of education to replace the messy, vital work of civic learning and self-reflection.

The Debt Trap and Student Loan Servitude

Today, more than 45 million Americans are trapped in a cycle of student loan debt servitude, collectively owing over $1.7 trillion. Robocolleges have played a central role in inflating this debt by promising career transformation and delivering questionable outcomes.

Debt has become a silent form of social control—disabling an entire generation’s ability to invest, build, or dissent.

• Delayed Life Milestones

• Psychological Toll

• Stalled Economic Mobility

This is not just a personal burden—it is the product of decades of deregulation, privatization, and a bipartisan consensus that treats education as a private good rather than a public right.

The Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education

Over time, and especially under Trump-aligned officials like Betsy DeVos, the U.S. Department of Education has been hollowed out, repurposed to protect predatory institutions rather than students. Key actions include:

• Rolling Back Protections for borrowers defrauded by for-profit colleges.

• Weakening Oversight of accreditation and accountability metrics.

• Empowering Loan Servicers to act with impunity.

• Undermining Public Education in favor of vouchers, charters, and online alternatives.

The result? Robocolleges and their corporate allies are given free rein to exploit. Students are caught in the machinery. And the very institution charged with protecting educational integrity has been turned into a clearinghouse for deregulated profiteering.

Reclaiming the Idea of Higher Education

This is where we are: in a Digital Dark Age where myths drive markets, and education has become a shell of its democratic promise. But all is not lost.

Resistance lives—in underfunded community colleges, independent media, academic unions, student debt collectives, and grassroots movements that refuse to accept the commodification of learning.

What’s needed now is not another tech “solution” or rebranding campaign. We need a recommitment to education as a public good. That means:

• Rebuilding and funding public universities

• Protecting academic freedom and DEI efforts

• Canceling student debt and regulating private actors

• Restoring the Department of Education as a tool for justice

• Rethinking accreditation, equity, and access through a democratic lens

Because if we do not act now—if we do not call the Digital Dark Ages by name—we may soon forget what truth, justice, and education ever meant.

---

If you value this kind of reporting, support independent voices like The Higher Education Inquirer. Share this piece with others fighting to reclaim truth, equity, and public education from the shadows.

Southern New Hampshire University: America's Largest Robocollege Facing Resistance From Human Workers and Student Complaints About Curriculum

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), America's largest robocollege, is facing layoffs again. And this time, workers are talking. 

For years, Southern New Hampshire has avoided scrutiny compared to other online schools that have been labeled as bad actors. Part of this reduced scrutiny may have been because SNHU is a non-profit and some because Paul LeBlanc, its long-time president, was perceived as a higher education visionary, granting degrees that consumers could use and afford.  

Consumer advocates largely ignored that Southern New Hampshire often worked like a for-profit.  The school, which includes a physical campus in Manchester, New Hampshire employs 130 full-time instructors and 8,042 part-time instructors for 164,000 students. A  lion's share of the organization's budget is spent on marketing and advertising rather than on curriculum and instruction: about $14,000 per student.  

But things have changed, with the higher education terrain, with public opinion, and with Southern New Hampshire leadership. More people and organizations are questioning the value of degrees, especially graduate degrees, which Southern New Hampshire specializes in. SNHU has lowered tuition to $10,000 to increase demand, which has reduced financial margins. 

Despite good enrollment numbers, layoffs at Southern New Hampshire have occurred in 2023 and 2024. Now at SNHU, after the latest round of IT layoffs, folks are talking about the new leadership and of office politics taking precedent over innovation. And students are complaining about the course materials as old and recycled.  

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor the situation at Southern New Hampshire University as it develops.

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

• Reduce services or limit patient intake

• Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals

• Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

• Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality

• Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs

• Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment

• Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services

• Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

The Watchdogs of Higher Education: Journalists Covering the College Meltdown

In an era of propaganda, PR masquerading as reporting, and shrinking newsroom budgets, a small cohort of journalists continues to ask the difficult questions about U.S. higher education. These writers are the watchdogs, skeptics, and truth-tellers who probe the system's contradictions—exposing corruption, inequality, and the commodification of learning.

While many mainstream outlets have reduced their education desks or opted for click-friendly content, these journalists persist in a more thankless task: investigating the deeper structures that shape college access, affordability, and legitimacy. Their work is essential in this Digital Dark Age, where universities are marketed like tech products and student debt chains millions to futures they did not choose.

---

Current Watchdogs

• Josh Moody (Inside Higher Ed)
  Steady and detail-oriented, Moody explores enrollment cliffs, closures, and the survival of regional public colleges.

• Natalie Schwartz (Higher Ed Dive)
  A sharp analyst of the robocollege sector, Schwartz highlights OPM contracts, predatory recruitment, and accountability gaps.

• Michael Vasquez (The Chronicle)
  Known for hard-hitting investigations into for-profit schemes and enrollment deceptions.

• Stephanie Saul (The New York Times)
  Tackles elite admissions, racial bias, and the mechanisms of legacy advantage.

• Chris Quintana (USA Today)
  Examines the hidden costs of student debt, accreditation breakdowns, and federal oversight failure.

• Derek Newton (Forbes)
  Unflinching in his critiques of online education scams, weak accreditation, and credential inflation.

• David Halperin (Republic Report)
  Legal-minded and relentless, Halperin holds the Department of Education and the for-profit lobby to account.

• Jon Marcus (Hechinger Report / NPR / The Atlantic)
  A veteran storyteller who humanizes systemic crises—affordability, public disinvestment, and policy drift.

• Rick Seltzer (Chronicle of Higher Education)
  A seasoned reporter, Seltzer has focused on the intersection of state and federal policy, accreditation issues, and the financialization of higher education. His investigative pieces often highlight how policy shifts impact institutions serving the most vulnerable students, particularly in the community college sector. Seltzer’s ability to distill complex policy changes into accessible reporting has made him an essential voice in higher ed journalism.

---

Those Who’ve Left the Beat (But Not Forgotten)

• Eric Kelderman (formerly The Chronicle of Higher Education)
  Kelderman offered deeply researched policy analysis and was one of the few who bridged the world of federal education policy and on-the-ground campus effects. His departure leaves a vacuum in longform institutional memory.

• Katherine Mangan (formerly The Chronicle)
  Known for profiling marginalized students and faculty, Mangan brought empathy and nuance to her reporting. Her stories exposed how abstract policies hit real people—and her absence is deeply felt.

• Jesse Singal (formerly The Chronicle / NY Mag)
  Though now better known for controversial takes in broader cultural debates, Singal once wrote incisively about the psychology of higher ed policy and the unproven assumptions behind new academic models.

• Paul Fain (formerly Inside Higher Ed)
  A go-to source for OPMs and workforce ed, Fain had a unique grasp of the tension between labor markets and academic missions. He now writes the The Job newsletter for Work Shift, with a narrower focus.

• Kelly Field (formerly The Chronicle / freelance)
  Field’s reporting on federal financial aid and for-profit lobbying was some of the most thorough in the industry. Her exit reflects a broader trend: that deeply informed journalists are often priced or pushed out.

• Goldie Blumenstyk (semi-retired, The Chronicle)
  A longtime chronicler of innovation narratives and public-private partnerships, Blumenstyk now writes occasionally but is no longer on the frontlines. Her absence from regular coverage marks the end of an era.

---

Why This Matters

Many of these journalists left not because they lost interest—but because media economics, editorial shifts, or burnout drove them out. The result? Fewer people holding institutions accountable. Fewer watchdogs sniffing out robocollege fraud. Fewer investigations into how DEI is dismantled under political pressure. Less public understanding of how tens of millions became student loan serfs.

In their absence, we see the rise of sponsored content, consultant-driven “thought leadership,” and university propaganda dressed as reporting.

At The Higher Education Inquirer, we believe journalism is not just about reporting the news—it’s about building public memory and resisting amnesia. That’s what these current and former reporters have done. And that’s why we honor both those still in the trenches and those who left with their integrity intact.

If this is truly the Digital Dark Age, then we owe everything to those who kept the lights on—even if only for a while.

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers

The rise of online-only education has been a double-edged sword. While it has expanded access to higher education, it has also introduced a new breed of institutions (robocolleges), students (robostudents), and workers (roboworkers). These accredited online universities are for-profit, non-profit, secular, and Christian, but the all share similar characteristics. 

Robocolleges prioritize profit over pedagogy, churning out ambitious and busy working-class professionals in fields like education, medicine, and business--and hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. These schools include Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, Walden University, Capella University, and Colorado Tech.  A list of America's largest robocolleges is here.

The Robocollege Model

Robocolleges are characterized by their reliance on technology to deliver education at scale. They often employ automated systems for course content delivery, student assessment, and even faculty interaction. While this can reduce costs, it can also lead to a dehumanized and impersonal learning experience.

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment: Robocolleges often employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, including misleading advertisements and high-pressure sales techniques. These tactics can lead students to make hasty decisions without fully considering the financial implications of their enrollment.
• High Tuition Costs: Robocolleges typically charge significantly higher tuition rates compared to public and nonprofit institutions. This is often justified by claims of providing a superior education or specialized programs, but the quality of education may not always align with the cost.
• Lack of Faculty Interaction: Many robocolleges rely heavily on pre-recorded lectures and automated feedback systems. This can deprive students of the valuable mentorship and guidance that comes from interacting with experienced faculty.
• Shallow Curriculum: To maximize enrollment and revenue, robocolleges may offer overly broad or superficial curricula. This can result in graduates who lack the depth of knowledge and critical thinking skills required for professional success.
• Focus on Quantity Over Quality: Robocolleges often prioritize churning out graduates rather than ensuring their academic excellence. This can lead to a decline in standards and a dilution of the value of their degrees.
• Limited Academic Support: Robocolleges may have fewer resources and support services compared to traditional institutions, which can make it difficult for students to succeed academically. This can result in increased dropout rates and prolonged time to graduation, leading to higher overall costs.
• Poor Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields or secure jobs that pay enough to justify the high cost of their education. This can make it challenging to repay student loans, especially if the loans are based on the expected earning potential of the degree.

The Impact on Professional Fields

• Education: Substandard educators can harm students' learning outcomes and contribute to a cycle of educational inequality.
• Medicine: Substandard medical professionals can pose a serious risk to patient safety and health. 
• Business: Graduates from robocolleges may lack the practical skills and business acumen needed to succeed in the competitive job market. 
• Government: Graduates may lack essential interpersonal skills like communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, and team building.  
  
  

 

Consequences of Student Debt on Roboworkers:

• Delayed Major Life Milestones: Student debt can delay major life milestones such as buying a home, starting a family, or pursuing further education.
• Financial Stress and Anxiety: The burden of student debt can lead to significant financial stress and anxiety, impacting overall well-being.
• Limited Economic Mobility: High levels of student debt can limit economic mobility, making it difficult for individuals to achieve their financial goals and improve their standard of living.
  

Addressing the Problem

To address the issue of substandard professionals produced by robocolleges, several measures can be taken:

• Increased Oversight: Regulatory bodies should strengthen oversight of online institutions to ensure they meet minimum quality standards.
• Transparency: Robocolleges should be required to disclose their faculty qualifications, course delivery methods, and student outcomes.
• Accreditation Reform: Accreditation standards should be updated to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of online education.
• Consumer Awareness: Students should be made aware of the potential risks of enrolling in robocolleges and encouraged to research institutions carefully.

While online education can be a valuable tool, it is essential to hold institutions accountable for the quality of education they provide. By addressing the shortcomings of robocolleges, we can ensure that online learning continues to be a force for positive change in higher education.

Related links:

Robocollege Update (2024)

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

In a previous Higher Education Inquirer article, I presented frightening full-time faculty numbers at some large online universities which I call "robocolleges."  Full-time faculty at these robocolleges, in fact, are nearly nonexistent. Bear in mind that all of them are regionally accredited, the highest level of institutional accreditation, and the list includes well-known public university systems as well as for-profit ones.  

Robocolleges have de-skilled instruction by paying teams of workers, some qualified and some not, to write content, while computer programs perform instructional and management tasks. Learning management systems with automated instruction programs are known by different names and their mechanisms are proprietary.  As professor jobs are deskilled, tasks can be farmed out at reduced costs.  

Besides the human content creators who may be given instructional titles, other staff members at robocolleges are paid to communicate with students regarding their progress. The assumption is that managing work this way significantly reduces costs, and it does, at least in the short and medium terms.  However, instructional costs are frequently replaced by marketing and advertising expenses to pitch the schools to prospective students and their families.  Companies like EducationDynamics and Guild Education have filled the niche of promoting robocolleges to workers at a reduced cost but their overall impact is minimal.  

Meanwhile,  companies like Chegg profit from this form of learning, helping students game the system in greater numbers, in essence creating robostudents.  

The business model in higher education for reducing labor power and faculty costs is not reserved to for-profit colleges.  Community colleges also rely on a small number of full-time faculty and armies of low-wage contingent labor.  

In some cases, colleges and universities, including many brand name schools, utilize outside companies, online program managers (OPMs), to run their online programs, with OPMs like 2U taking up as much as 60 percent of the revenues.  OPMs can perform a variety of jobs, but are best known for their work in enrollment and retention.  Prospective students may believe they are talking to representatives of a particular university when in fact they are talking to someone from an outside source.  Noodle has disrupted the OPM model by selling their services ala carte, but only time will tell whether it has an impact, or whether schools will merely find less costly outsourced servicers.  

Outsourcing higher education has been a reality in US higher education for decades. And automation is also part of education, as it should, when it performs menial tasks, such as taking roll and doing preliminary work to determine student cheating.  It's likely that more schools will become more robotic in nature to reduce organizational expenses.  But what are the long-term consequences with long-term student outcomes, when automation is used to perform higher level tasks, and when outsourced individuals act in the name of brand name colleges?  

To get a small glimpse of this robocollege phenomenon, these schools cumulatively have about 3000 full-time instructors for more than a half-million students.  

American Intercontinental University: 51 full-time instructors for about 8,700 students.

American Public University System has 345 F/T instructors for more than 50,000 students. 

Aspen University has 34 F/T instructors for about 9,500 students.  

Capella University: 216 F/T for about 38,000 students.

Colorado State University Global: 34 F/T instructors for 12,000 students.

Colorado Technical University: 59 F/T instructors for 26,000 students.
Devry University online: 53 F/T instructors for about 17,000 students.

Grand Canyon University has 461 F/T instructors for 103,000 students.*  
Liberty University: 1072 F/T for more than 85,000 students.*
Purdue University Global: 346 F/T instructors for 38,000 students.

South University: 0 F/T instructors for more than 6000 students.

Southern New Hampshire University: 164 F/T for 104,000 students.

University of Arizona Global Campus: 194 F/T instructors for about 35,000 students.
University of Maryland Global: 193 F/T instructors for 60,000 students.

University of Phoenix: 127 F/T instructors for 96,000 students.

Walden University: 206 F/T for more than 50,000 students.

*Most of these full-time instructors are faculty at the physical campuses.  

University of Phoenix: Training Folks For Robowork

The Higher Education Inquirer has published a number of articles on robocolleges, robostudents, and robowork, noting that the University of Phoenix has been a pioneer in the evolution of making humans more machine-like (or in science fiction terms, cyborgs). This is an evolution that spans more than a century, with Frederick Taylor and his Scientific Management of Work and Clayton Christensen's Theory of Disruptive Innovation.

More recently, we have posted articles on artificial intelligence and the dehumanization of society, including futuristic work by renowned sociologist Randall Collins. 

The University of Phoenix, in the present, has taken another step in this profit-making dehumanization process, formal online customer service training for the international workforce. According to the University of Phoenix, customer service is in high demand globally, and UoPX offers a convenient series of professional development trainings for making human skills more efficient. It's not known how many humans are involved in teaching or content creation. What we do know is that the University of Phoenix relies on little human labor, with an average student-teacher ratio of 110 to one. 

What are your thoughts on this training program? And how does type of online education and tech work bode for humans and humanity?  

Related links:

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers (2024)

Robocollege Update (2024)

New Data Show Nearly a Million University of Phoenix Debtors Owe $21.6 Billion Dollars (2024)

University of Phoenix and the Ash Heap of Higher Ed History (2023)

How University of Phoenix Failed. It's a Long Story. But It's Important for the Future of Higher Education (2022) 

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)