WGU Layoffs

[ashkir]

YIKES! I wonder how AI evaluations work with accreditation? I'm sorry but I'm not paying any college for AI evaluations. I want to be evaluated by someone - a person - who has knowledge and experience in my courses. I don't want a robot to say good job. The way this was handled has me really reconsidering getting an MBA from WGU. I was going to do their MBA in a few years but after this I'm not sure I want to be associated with a school who doesn't have an ethical bone in it's body. They handled this soooooo poorly! The lack of communication and transparency was astounding. I see more BIG changes (not good ones either) in the works with a new CEO and CFO who do not come from academia. CEO came 6 months ago and CFO came onboard 9 days before the layoffs. CFO is from AT&T. Why any higher education institution would bring in executives who don't have a background in higher education I'll never understand. Well unless WGU wants to start operating like a for profit then it all makes sense. Add in an 11%+ tuition increase to this mix and the red flags are flopping in the wind.

Yeah. AI is brilliant in use cases. But I feel education still needs humans to touch it, because we're guiding people, not making them spit answers out for a test. We need our degree holders and higher educated people to be able to problem solve, interact with our civilization, and react to feedback. If it's robotic, it holds no value. This is potentially great for a mass program like Sophia or SDC, as it's a consistent grader. But, nowhere near what I'd expect from an actual institution.

Is WGU going to turn into the next diploma mill? If they do, I feel bad for everyone who WORKED HARD on their degrees to get this shitty change. These people worked hard on their education, etc, and use it to boost WGU's name. Now WGU is pulling a skyrim soldier and taking an arrow to the knee. 

Sounds like WGU is wanting to break out of being funded by the government and become a for-profit mill.

---

 I know we're blaming the new CFO, but these decisions weren't made, approved, an executed in the week or two that he had been there. That's not how organizations of this scale operate. This was coming long before his hire.

According to a mentor who was in the meeting where they made the announcement, the decision to lay them off was decided 3 days beforehand. It was the last day of the fiscal year. Yeah the new CFO had a hand in this. They wanted the books to look better for the next fiscal year.

Very possible they're copying Reddit with Ellen Pao. Bring a new executive on. Make the changes under THEIR name. Let the public outcry happen, slightly adjust it to "seem" better and safe face. Then give them millions of dollars and fire them, and tada, these planned changes that have likely been years in the making is all good in the public eye again

---

A rash decision of this scale, for a company of this scale, from start to execution, would still be no where close to 3 days. 3 days is simply not a reasonable claim.

Regardless, even if I conceded this impossible 3 day timeframe, my overall point stands. Much ado about nothing.

I've seen a fortune 500 make the decision to lay off over 1500 people in less than 3 hours before from start to finish, after an analysis my company provided for them. No notice, no preparations, etc. Entire departments cut, the fortune 500 barely read the report and went with our recommendations the moment they found out about it.

ooof.