Troy Rutman | Writer

AXIS COLLEGE OF UNIVERSITY OF TEMPE OFFERS
NON-TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEARNING

Phoenix, AZ, June 15, 2006 – High school seniors and those new to higher education now have a degree option that is specially tailored to fit their busy schedules, learning preferences and lifestyles. Axis College of University of Tempe recently announced that it will begin serving students nationally through its innovative online program, which allows those with few or no college credits to earn an associate’s degree in as little as twenty months.

Axis College is a subsidiary of University of Tempe, which has helped nearly a quarter-million working students complete their college education through innovative delivery of curriculum and a strong student support system. “An Axis College education focuses on building blocks: writing, critical thinking, and information utilization,” said Stan Myer, Ed.D., vice president of Axis College. “Our experience has shown that acquiring these essential proficiencies is the best way to help new students succeed in their first two years of college and beyond.”

To ensure steady progress toward graduation, Axis students take two 9-week classes at a time. The demands of each class are coordinated to maximize student success; for example, during a given week, one class will emphasize reading and discussion while the other will focus on completing a work project. Students are required to attend class online twice each week and contribute to online discussions at least three times per week. Course curriculum gets increasingly demanding as the degree program progresses.

Axis College’s online format is critical to engaging students in the learning process. Classroom learning goes beyond just listening to a lecture; it requires students to debate and share their ideas with other motivated students in an open and democratic online setting.

According to Myer, Axis College aims to “overwhelm our students with academic support.” Students have access to faculty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, via telephone and e-mail. In addition, each student is paired with an academic advisor to ensure that educational goals are achieved.

Axis College offers more than 20 associate degrees in areas such as accounting, business, criminal justice, health administration and information technology. Students can also pursue a degree in general studies. Credits from Axis College have standard transferability to a four-year degree program, including a seamless transfer of credits to University of Tempe’s ground or online bachelor’s degree programs,“Axis College opens a door to education for forward-thinking students who may not be ready or interested in attending a traditional four-year or community college,” said Ann Vogel, president of University of Tempe. “Students at Axis College have a strong desire to learn and succeed, and Axis College’s support systems and learning models help them do both.” Vogel said that more than 90 percent of Axis College students planned to complete their bachelor degrees, according to a 2005 student survey.

University of Tempe, which has served working adults for 30 years, is on a mission to remove barriers to education for busy adults, by providing accessible scheduling and rigorous degree programs centered on professional goals. The University’s focus on small interactive classes, highly personalized teaching and comprehensive academic accountability systems has won praise and recognition by noteworthy academic and business leaders. The University is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association. The University is the largest private accredited university in North America and is owned by parent company Eduvest, Inc. As of February 28, 2006, 310,800 students attend Eduvest institutions.

Back to top

Today is May 5, 2005. Orson Welles has been dead for two decades and underemployed for the better part of a century. Still, for proof that Welles continues to fascinate, to perplex and to ignite debate, one need only scan this week’s Village Voice. First, the newsweekly reviews the DVD release of F is for Fake, Welles’ latter-day nonfiction take on familiar territory: the intersection of art, commerce, legend and deceit. In addition, the Voice casts laurels on Orson’s Shadow, a stage drama in which a struggling Welles is persuaded to direct Laurence Olivier in Ionesco’s Rhinoceros. Surely, pop culture has, since Welles’ heyday, yielded no shortage of champions and charlatans, so why the persistent fuss?

The answer to that question has likely to do with self-generation; Welles had an undisputed ability to spin his own legend amidst a paucity of actual evidence. Jorge Luis Borges called Citizen Kane a “labyrinth without a center.” Likewise, Welles himself has thrived as an icon, and for a time thrived professionally, not despite the ambiguities surrounding him, but precisely because of them.

There are stock disputes in the ongoing analysis of Welles and Citizen Kane: Did Herman Mankiewicz write the lion’s share? Was Welles merely a figurehead and public showman? Was Welles’ Kane more autobiographical than based upon Hearst, and did this contribute to behind-the-scenes tensions? And who was Welles, really? The lack of hard facts and first-hand sources guarantee continued speculation about these matters, because while nature abhors a void, Hollywood loves one.

Against this noisy backdrop, one story stands apart in its seeming humility, in its relative omission from the dialogue. It is the story of John Houseman.

True to the Citizen Kane legacy, Houseman’s role in the film and in Orson’s life in general is largely undocumented. In Houseman’s case, though, the remaining hearsay leans away from the bombastic, more resembling a strong, consistent hum. Determined as he was, Houseman was also, by all accounts, most at ease behind the scenes; from his earliest days in radio and theatre, “putting it together”-- for art’s sake and society’s-- seemed to take precedence over the vanities intrinsic to show business.

In 1937, Houseman and Welles co-founded the Mercury Theater. Ahead of its time, the publicly funded organization made its first big mark with a Harlem-based, voodoo version of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. As director, Welles succeeded in transforming a group of unemployed African-Americans—most of whom had never touched the stage– into a triumph, both in the classical sense and as a statement on contemporary racial and economic issues. If Welles had the vision, no one contested that Houseman was the rational, efficient producer, ever budget-conscious and content to let Welles provide the company’s public face.

It is worth noting that Welles’ post-Houseman career was hampered by a reputation for ignoring production expenses; while Welles boasted of Kane being deceptively cheap despite landmark effects, it is not difficult to imagine Houseman as the party drawing tight those purse strings. Indeed, Houseman’s air of reliable thrift would endure well into his Smith Barney days, some four decades later.

Still, Houseman’s true center was more ethical than financial. His career demonstrates an unwavering commitment to art as divine, begot of man’s high moral responsibility to communicate ideas. Time and again, Houseman agreed to forego scriptwriting credit in exchange for the opportunity to craft a solid story that would be communicated to the widest audience possible; if the Hollywood machine spat further with Hitchcock on the bill (1942’s Saboteur), Houseman was content to simply enrich the chew. Houseman was proud and admitted a fierce competitive streak, but he seems to have been adept at channeling these drives into a central repository: the work, the work, the work.

The production of the play Native Son, simultaneous to the making of Citizen Kane, is perhaps the best example of Houseman as magnanimous artiste, and the piece’s crafted evolution seems to offer some insight to the development of Kane.

Richard Wright’s 1940 best-selling novel of interracial scandal was a landmark in African American literature. Amidst the madness of Kane, Welles and Houseman pursued stage rights to the novel and hired Pultizer-winning dramatist Paul Green to scribe the adaptation. While Welles filmed Kane, Houseman assumed the role of surety on Native Son, soliciting Wright’s active participation to maintain the spirit of the book. This was not to be an easy task, for while Green was a rare credible white voice for Black America, he was also a noted religious moralist. His injection of piety into Native Son was, in Houseman’s view, untrue to Wright’s original, violent truth. Houseman took an active role in the troika to prevent Green from strong-arming the younger, black novelist, and he soon found Green to be a genuine obstacle.

To resolve the situation, Houseman gently identified problems in Green’s myth-inflected draft, and diplomatically suggested that Green disoblige himself to focus on other projects. Houseman and Wright ultimately rewrote the play, eliminating large chunks of metaphysical dialogue, a move Welles supported upon his return from the West. Notably, Houseman took great pains to explain in detail to Green the rationale behind his creative alterations, while allowing Green and Wright to continue sharing sole writing credit.

Though Native Son was well received by audiences and critics, it was to be the last co-production from Welles and Houseman’s Mercury Theatre. Why quit with a successful, historically relevant drama, on the heels of a watershed, if tortured, film project? A year earlier, Herman Mankiewicz had been “drying out” in the California desert when Welles asked Houseman to help the man write Kane. Houseman wound up smoothing Mankiewicz’s epic struggles with Welles, then walked a similar line between Green and Wright. Was Houseman exhausted with the roles of silent muse and peacemaker? This seems unlikely given his absence from the writers guild arbitration that was ultimately to decide writing credit for Kane—in Mankiewicz’s favor.

No, Houseman’s pattern of placing art ahead of personal glory seems to have been intact through Native Son and well beyond. His break with Welles, then, must have stemmed from a philosophical difference that started and ended in the Mercury Theater, apexing in between with Kane. Though Houseman would write for Welles the actor in the future (1944’s Jane Eyre), he would never again put himself in the position of steering a ship alongside the enfant terrible.

No one knows exactly what happened in the desert between Herman Mankiewicz and John Houseman. That Houseman was later nominated for Best Picture alongside Joe Mankiewicz (1953’s Julius Caesar) sheds little light on his tenor with Herman, given the brothers’ notorious love-hate relationship. What we do know is that, unlike Welles, Houseman worked consistently and amassed respect for the remainder of his career. His reputation for truth was sealed when he left show business to work for the Office of War Information during World War II. The launching of Julliard’s Drama Department and the prestigious Acting Company only furthered his standing as a pure and ethical beacon of the theater. As a finale, Houseman’s Best Supporting Actor Oscar for 1973’s The Paper Chase ushered in a celebrated new career that would last until his death.

During this same forty-year stretch, Welles self-destructed. His film career was halted by bloated productions and a bad reputation, while his personal life ailed of food, booze and women. Famously, Welles was reduced in the 70s and 80s to hawking jug wine to make ends meet. He seemed particularly embittered at this time, making on-the-record homophobic remarks to an authorized biographer.

Was this vitriol directed at Houseman, who in addition to being gay, worked with other homosexuals like Vincente Minnelli and Charles Laughton during his post-Welles career?

If envy had brewed, it is easy to imagine its seeds in Citizen Kane, a juggernaut that eventually eclipsed Welles but left intact his former partner. Could Welles no longer hide from some bit of truth, perhaps that he owed his biggest success to Houseman?

Indeed, one wonders if Welles had been saved from himself on Kane, then left to his vices and devices thereafter. In the end, Houseman was only credited with writing the opera sung by Kane’s trophy wife in the film. Though the genius of the character that was Charles Foster Kane was assigned to Welles, the film displayed a sensitivity that no one had ever ascribed to either of its recorded authors. Could either Orson Welles or Herman Mankiewicz have cast such insight into a man’s simultaneous drives toward brilliance and failure? Such perception seems to require an objectivity alien to those living on that very pendulum, but quite intrinsic to John Houseman.

Back to top

Jodi Lieff has been planning distinctive celebrations in and around Toronto for 7 years. Her extensive history in the design, production and onsite management of high-end events has endowed Jodi with that oh-so-rare combination of creative flair and operational excellence. Whether planning large-scale summer outings, refined galas or edgy urban fare, Jodi's focus on detail allows her clients to relax and truly enjoy those special occasions that adorn our lives.

Since 2000, children's events have expanded their place within Jodi's professional repertoire. Her youthful energy---funky for teens, sweet for kids--- is consistent with Pop! Events’ singular mission: to understand, reach, and captivate young audiences.

Of all the contentious issues raging in America today, the subject of immigration may cut closest to the core of our society. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants seeking a better life. Scour any documentary about the foundations of America, and you are bound to arrive at romantic images of our ancestors and their scruffy children greeting Lady Liberty, with a tear and a smile.

We are, of course, a different people today, with our place indelibly marked on the world stage. As a lifelong participant in the American system of higher education, I know that our society is shaped not just at its borders, but by our ability to mold the human capital already in our classrooms.

Many of us can remember a moment of childhood terror as we moved to a new neighborhood or entered a new school. How shy were we about raising our hand, how tentative in choosing a lunchroom faction? Now add a cultural barrier and a class differential, then multiply to reflect a higher-stakes game---and you may start to grasp what it’s like to be the first in your family to attend college, maybe even the first to speak English. A foot in each of two worlds often means a home in neither.

Generation Y will soon produce one of the largest high school graduating classes in history, and within those ranks will be significant numbers of first-generation college students, many the offspring of immigrants. These folks deserve—and will demand-- financial opportunities on par with their middle- and upper-class, non-immigrant counterparts, and serving them requires an entirely new learning paradigm. They need workable options and we, as a society, need their contribution to our economy and our brain trust.

It’s tempting here to expound on “class-specific modes of analysis” and “views on assimilation,” but that would be too, well, academic. Simply put, it makes common sense that the smoother the entry to higher education, the greater the levels of participation and completion.

We need more than a rhetorical nod to the unique attributes of today’s young America, who seek The Dream but are not willing to abandon communities knit tight by systems of intergenerational financial and social support. This is a time to expand options, to focus where appropriate on learning to learn, and to invest in educational vehicles that promote confident participation.

Let’s start by teaching beginning students how to succeed with writing, information utilization and critical thinking skills. How about smaller classes and a graduated learning plan geared toward those who need a smoother runway? No matter what their schedules or where they live, first-generation students should be able to tap into rich academic programs and dedicated support from faculty, academic and financial coaches.

Finally, let’s use relevant channels: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Internet access already exists in 57 percent of families where the head of household has only a high school diploma or GED. With all aspects of their lives having been impacted by technology, young students of all kinds expect to receive and process information electronically; they view this as more, not less, conducive to meaningful interaction with peers, in that it promotes focused exchange of pertinent information, at a pace comfortable to those new to collegiate territory.

While diversity is a revered topic in higher education circles, it’s a conceptual relic as more students come to view education as a means rather than an end unto itself; debates about the intrinsic value of variety seem a luxury when the education system has yet to accommodate the groundswell of first-generation college students of all races, creeds and colors.

A Clash of Cultures in Academe
by Ann Vogel, President of Eduvest, Inc.,
parent company of University of Tempe

Congressional legislation intended to reauthorize the Higher Education Act has stimulated strenuous debate. The House bill was designed to foster competition by broadening the federal definition of “an institution of higher education” and provide expanded access to a burgeoning student population. It has also exposed a clash of cultures between traditional academia and newer, market-oriented colleges and universities.

The education crisis

America’s economic power depends upon our educated workforce and by all counts, we’re failing. Forrester Research has predicted that about 3.3 million U.S. service jobs will move to foreign countries by 2015, yet we continue to leave behind masses of potential students who either can’t afford college or can’t find a seat in one. It may come as a surprise that your own alma mater is not what the majority of college students may want or need. Those bucolic, ivy-covered campuses may even be obsolete with their heavy investment in physical facilities, semesters based on a bygone agrarian system, and class schedules that appear to honor the more pressing needs of the faculty than the flexibility required by students.

Today the majority of students are cobbling together their education in fits and starts, commuting to colleges while working full-time. Many are single parents and first-generation college students, and frequently they must engage in remedial coursework to overcome an incomplete or insufficient educational past. These students need flexible learning options such as online classes, alternative schedules, financial assistance and access to intensive support services to provide a coherent path to their degree.

New market-oriented colleges do the nation’s work

Market-oriented colleges like the for-profit University of Phoenix are an essential part of the solution. The public, land-grant colleges originally intended to provide broad access to education cannot do it alone. In their quest for prestige, many of them have raised both tuition and admission standards beyond the reach of most students. Community colleges are filled to capacity, graduating fewer than 25% and struggling to serve this growing population.

In this environment, the rise of private for-profit colleges and universities should be no surprise. These institutions provide educational access to a broad spectrum of students, and they push the envelope on important innovations in flexibility and quality because they are fundamentally organized to confront market forces. Taxpayer dollars are not available to these colleges to fund their growth or services. Rather, public support comes in the form of loans and grants, which go directly to students to fund their education. As employers, market-oriented colleges pay into the tax system and provide local employment opportunities. It’s a perfect example of America’s free enterprise system, whereby demand for a service fuels the growth of innovation and supply—and not just any service, but one that our nation desperately needs.

Quality and Regulation

Traditions die hard, despite the dismal realities confronting our public education system. Regulation and popular sentiment favor the status quo. It’s nice to believe that non-profit organizations have a higher moral purpose, but despite the extreme rhetoric about regulatory mishaps in for-profit education, there is no evidence that the accredited for-profits are any more or less compliant in regulatory matters than their non-profit peers. Indeed, if oversight is a comfort, the private, for-profit higher education sector is certainly the most examined and therefore most transparent in all of American higher education; accountable to local, state, and federal accreditation boards, in addition to the SEC. We must provide evidence of outputs or educational quality by maintaining comprehensive learning assessment systems, available to our regulatory overseers.

Education in the 21st Century

As with all innovation, skeptics abound to feed the culture clash between the old and the new. Those invested in the status quo objected when land grant colleges were introduced and also when community colleges came on the scene, railing against their supposed lack of quality. For-profit colleges are the latest target. We know that today’s students will choose to earn their education both online and on campus, probably at multiple institutions, and from the colleges that can provide the most support and flexibility. There is no turning back - this is what education looks like in the 21st century.