*I have had nothing but problems with Grantham and after a sore disappointment with the local BBB, I decided I wanted to make sure that anybody interested in knowing would be able to see that Grantham's garbage isn't just limited to crappy service, high prices, half truths, and virtually worthless credits. For anybody who's wondering I completed the first semester with Grantham with a 4.0 - so understand this is not an emotional response to failure. I am continuing my education with a local JC that will be much better quality at a lower price and most importantly - the credits will be worth something when I'm ready to transfer. My correspondence through the BBB says it best.
*I filed a brief complaint with the BBB against GU on 7/08/08:
I work full time and wanted to take classes online to eliminate the additional commuting requirement for going to school. So I first enrolled at Grantham University in June. During the first semester, GU changed its policy on extensions, significantly changing the amount of time I had to complete the semester. They applied this to me retroactively without notice. It was a significant inconvenience to complete the course work within the new deadline.
I choose to continue with GU thinking that the first semester issue was a one time thing. I re-enrolled for the second semester in Dec. The first surprise was when GU changed their tax status (no longer issuing 1098-T) again without any prior notice. Then, after completing most of a math class off line, GU changed the class format and applied it to me retroactively effectively forcing me to repeat the course work. This was in addition to professors that were slow to respond and seemed disinterested in the class content. The final straw was GU's recent overhaul of all policies and procedures that have been applied to me retroactively. I have neither the time nor interest to continue trying to understand GU's constant policy changes, class restructures, etc in addition to the already poor student service.
*Grantham refused to reply in writing (they completely ignored the first BBB deadline) until I responded to them by phone so that my "service rep" could pressure me over the phone to take a deal I had already rejected. I rejected it again and then got the exact same offer again at the end of GU's rebuttal:
Contact Name and Title: John R. Ferris, VP
Contact Phone: 703-778-8504
Contact Email: jferris@grantham. Edu
Thank you for bringing [NAME]'s complaint/concern with Grantham University to our attention. We take [NAME]'s concern very seriously, as we do with all student concerns. At Grantham, we are committed to providing the highest level of service and satisfaction to each of our students. However, despite our rigorous quality control program, communication with our students, and commitment towards compliance, we occasionally hear a concern such as the one Mr. Jackson expressed to you in his letter. When this does happen, it is our standard operating procedure to document the concern and to investigate immediately. Because our investigation is thorough, it may take longer than one business day to formulate an accurate and appropriate response. We appreciate your patience in allowing us to look into this situation.in doing so, we have determined the following:
With regard to [NAME]'s concerns with his degree switch, poor communication from instructors, and a lack of concern from our Academic staff-
[NAME] originally enrolled into four courses and two additional labs for those courses on
[NAME] completed all courses by 11-13-07.
On 11-13-07, [NAME] also requested to have his IEP updated to the current IEP for his degree program.
On 11-26-07, [NAME] expressed his concern with having to take a course that he did not feel he should have to take as he felt a previous course he had taken with us was an acceptable substitution or transfer for the course required in the new IEP. A representative from our Evaluations department reviewed [NAME]'s appeal and informed him that the course in question would in fact need to be taken because the course Mr. Jackson felt should have been substantial did not meet the required transferability based on differences in course content.
On 11-28-07, Mr. Jackson agreed in writing to the changes in his IEP and accepted the change in his IEP.
On 11-29-07, the degree switch occurred.
On 11-30-07, a new enrollment agreement was sent to [NAME] and he was enrolled into his courses on 12-10-07.
With regard to [NAME]'s concern with Grantham University policy changes-
[NAME] did enroll with Grantham at a time when Grantham offered a limited amount of extensions per course with authorization for those extensions to be determined by the students SPR (Student Progress Representative) and SPR management. The purpose of these extensions was to allow for emergencies, deployment, or other similar situations.
[NAME] was granted 7 extensions for a total of 151 days of additional time to complete his coursework in his first semester (contract) with Grantham.
[NAME] enrolled on 12-10-07 into his second contract with Grantham.
During this contract, [NAME] expressed on 5-16-08 his concern with a course he felt was poorly written.
On 5-16-08, [NAME]'s SPR emailed the Dean of College of Arts and Sciences expressing [NAME]'s concerns.
On 5-16-08, the Dean responded that he had reviewed the course tests and felt they were appropriate and in light of the fact that there were no other complaints with the tests, the tests would not be changed at that time and [NAME]'s grades would stand.
After not hearing from [NAME] after this information was relayed, his SPR attempted to contact [NAME] again on 6-9-08 with concern over [NAME]'s progress in his coursework and to make sure [NAME] was prepared for the new policy changes that would affect his end date and ability to complete his work beyond his end date. The SPR left a voice message and sent an email offering possible free assistance through a tutoring program.
Again, after no response, [NAME]'s SPR attempted to check on [NAME] on 7-9-08. Again a voicemail message was left for [NAME] and an email was sent.
During this time Grantham University also sent out several email blasts to its entire student body to communicate policy changes that included the change to a 56 day term as well as the change from multiple extensions to one additional 56 day period a student would have to complete coursework. [NAME] did not respond with questions to any of these emails.
The letter we received from your staff at the Better Business Bureau was the first communication we have had either from or concerning [NAME] since 5-16-08. After a thorough review of [NAME]'s concerns, we have determined that [NAME] was properly informed of all policy changes, and unfortunately, due to [NAME]'s lack of response to his SPR and to the multiple emails sent out regarding our policy changes, he did not complete his coursework by his original end date. As of 7-21-08 [NAME] is enrolled in 4 courses in which he has completed no work in 3 of the courses and only two assignments in the remaining course. Fortunately, [NAME] still has an additional 56 days from his original end date of 7-20-08 to complete the remainder of his coursework. We would strongly encourage [NAME] to dedicate himself to completing his additional coursework by the end of the additional 56-day grace period, which will end on 9-8-08. Grantham University is confident it has done its due diligence in its attempts to inform [NAME] of its policy changes and therefore is unwilling to issue a refund for the coursework. However, because Grantham is a University dedicated to working with its students to produce successful outcomes in an environment of academic integrity, we are willing to work with [NAME] in the event he is unable to complete the remaining coursework in that time, despite his best effort to do so.in that case, we would ask [NAME] to complete a minimum of one course in the remaining additional 56-day extension period he has left. We would then withdraw [NAME] from his remaining courses, which will result in a grade of F in those courses. At that point we would be willing to re-enroll [NAME] into the withdrawn courses again and at no cost for those same courses. Because [NAME] has demonstrated a propensity to extend beyond his original end date, Grantham would require [NAME] to enroll into each course one at a time or in separate subsequent enrollment periods. We will be happy to extend this offer to [NAME] and will attempt to contact him again with his options.
*Most of this response was a mixture of half truth and pure BS. I had decided I was done with Grantham and I filed the complaint against Grantham some time before the semester deadline was over but Grantham choose not to respond until after. I focused on the more glaring misrepresentations in my rebuttal to Grantham:
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The events that took place during the first semester are correct as listed except for the omission that a significant policy change occurred in which course time frames were extended and extensions were limited to two fifteen day extensions per course. This policy was applied to me retroactively by limiting the number of extensions available to me, but the increase in time available to complete the courses was not. It was a significant inconvenience to complete the courses under the new policy, but I decided that if it was a one time issue, I would continue to work with Grantham.
After completing the first semester, I noticed that Grantham had essentially created a new EE degree program. After reviewing it I was interested in the change and after some discussion regarding how course work would be applied, I accepted the degree switch to the revised degree program and enrolled in the next semester of classes.
During this second semester, I began by working through the math class due to it having off line testing. I submitted the first test, and proceeded to work through the remainder the tests off line. When I went to submit the remainder of the tests, the course format had changed and the test which I had done off line could not be submitted. I communicated my dissatisfaction with this mid-course change but my only option was to repeat the tests using the new online format.
In addition to having to repeat course work already completed the main reason this posed an inconvenience was that I was unable to work on the tests while carpooling long distance as I had been. I chose to persist in completing the tests online. After a few long nights of doing tests after work, I noticed a trend while starting to do the fourth test that in each test there were numerous errors that even a casual read through should have caught.
Some of these errors were decipherable due to the multiple choices available while others were not leavening a guess between the two potential answers. I was told that I would have address the issue with the professor. The amount of difficulty this involved the few times it happened during the first semester made this quite discouraging, and the thought of fighting through another semester like that was even more discouraging.
Grantham's decision to roll out a comprehensive policy revision was simply the last straw. I took some time to reconsider my persistence with an organization that despite its age appears to be passing through a great deal of change, and does not seem interested in honoring its current contract agreements each time it makes another radical change.
During this time I did allow a general inquiry from my SPR to go unanswered. I decided that since I had already been told by my SPR that a refund was not an option, my best option was to contact the BBB to seek remedy and to seek education alternatives. As I demonstrated after the issues that occurred during the first semester, I am more than willing to work with an organization that makes an occasional questionable action. But the pattern of radical changes and disregard for existing agreements and course formats is unacceptable in an educational institution.
The subsequent general inquiry that occurred the day after my complaint was filled went unresponded since I wanted to see what Grantham had to respond in writing first. Once Grantham's original time to respond had passed, I received a second communication (which again was only a general inquiry regarding my current classes). I chose to respond figuring that Grantham did not intend to respond to BBB until speaking verbally with me.
While speaking with my SPR, he offered the 56 day extension and to continue the classes one at a time after receiving and F in the remainder of the classes I am enrolled in. I explained to him that this was not a solution since it did not address the ongoing issues I have had with Grantham. I said that I had no interest in continuing with Grantham since it had shown a consistent pattern of unacceptable behavior.
Although not mentioned in Mr. Farris's response, his offer of a solution was already verbally rejected, and now I still see no reason why I would continue to work with an organization that continues to do business in this manner. My original demand for a refund of this semester's tuition, and withdrawal from all current classes stands.
*The BBB's response dealine past and once again, Grantham didn't respond. So the BBB's response was to consider the matter resolved. So the morals of the story are: one, Grantham may look good when you browse the site, but think again, and two, BBB sticks up for its members not the customers that get screwed.
0 comments