The University of Arizona’s fight to integrate a contentious, once for-profit online education company has been generating headlines for months. And while opponents of U of A’s move to acquire University of Arizona Global Campus say UAGC has a history of predatory practices, there is another factor at play: The university already has its own long-held online entity, the University of Arizona Online.
Arizona Online, launched in 2015, is staffed entirely by University of Arizona professors and operates on a schedule similar to U of A’s main campus. As it faces standing alongside UAGC—formerly known as Ashford University, accused of pushing for revenue above all else—some say Arizona Online’s reputation is at risk.
“[Arizona Online] is an excellent, strong program that reflects the excellence of the University of Arizona,” said Leila Hudson, U of A’s Faculty Senate chair. “It is dwarfed in size by UAGC, and perhaps more importantly, they’re very incompatible. And it’s hard to see how they would articulate together because of the radically different business models.”
U of A leaders and Arizona Online executives alike are firm that folding in UAGC will not harm Arizona Online. The deal is still in flux and needs approval from several regulatory entities. But should it be approved, both programs would be under U of A’s purview—and remain separate brands.
Caleb Simmons, executive director of online education at U of A, said he has “no reason” to believe Arizona Online faculty or programs would be cut.
“We’re doing so well [at Arizona Online]; I assume things will change as we re-org, but neither me or anyone on my staff is in danger,” he said, adding he has gotten several assurances to this effect from U of A leaders.
Other higher education experts, along with faculty members like Hudson, do not see how two programs that are at once too similar and diametrically opposed could coexist.
“I think the integrity of the whole university is undermined by running what is one of the worst for-profit colleges,” said David Halperin, an attorney and critic of for-profit institutions. “I think Arizona Online could be done in by its connection to the extent Arizona Online is even closer to UAGC.”
As part of what it called a “transformational” definitive agreement, the U of A first announced in 2020 that it would create a new nonprofit entity called the University of Arizona Global Campus by buying the for-profit Ashford University. UAGC cut ties in 2022 with services provider Zovio, which has since dissolved. (Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that UAGC is not a for-profit university.)
The 2-Brand Plan—and Conundrum
To close, the UAGC deal needs approval from several outside bodies, including the U.S. Education Department, the Arizona Board of Regents and U of A’s accreditor, the WASC Senior College and University Commission.
The consolidation has already seen pushback from Arizona governor Katie Hobbs and the Education Department. That spurred the university to hire the consulting firm Ernst & Young to conduct a 12-week analysis of the potential for a consolidation. It culminated in a 43-page assessment released in June.
The report highlighted Arizona Online’s increases in student enrollment (roughly 900 students every year). It flagged UAGC’s enrollment decline, which was 9 percent before U of A’s acquisition and then dropped another 14 percent. It also said both Arizona Online and UAGC have “lagging” graduation rates, citing “potential broad opportunity” for U of A to evaluate its online operations.
Simmons, of Arizona Online, said the two entities serve different student populations: His is more of a traditional offering, with asynchronous courses that typically run the length of a semester, while UAGC runs a wider variety of asynchronous courses that span various lengths and commitment times.
Aaron Lacey, a partner at Thompson Coburn and chair of the law firm’s higher education practice, said he has advised many institutions that began building internal online operations before contracting with outside programs. In large university settings, in particular, “there’s lots of room for diverse programming,” he said, adding that issues only tend to arise when institutions try to forcibly merge two programs together.
“Not only can they coexist, but my expectation is organizations look at the types of programs, the students they serve, and over time it would not surprise me if there was an increased effort to distinguish the two brands and what they do.”
That could be necessary, as confusion about the two Arizona entities—both serving online U of A students—has already ensued: Simmons said he has received several inquiries from students looking to enroll in UAGC versus Arizona Online. But he says he simply sends their inquiries to the appropriate person.
“In some ways it’s getting us increased visibility,” he added. “That’s a positive for us, because we stand behind everything we do.”
Potentially muddying the waters further, Gary Packard serves as the interim director of both UAGC and Arizona Online.
“Expanded online higher education initiatives enhance accessibility for people whose life circumstances might impede their ability to pursue a degree in person on campus,” Packard said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “We are united in our belief that integrating UAGC with Arizona Online as part of the U of A is a crucial step toward providing exemplary academic instruction and support to every student.”
Mark DeFusco, a senior researcher at Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions, had another take: “I’m an expert in the field, and it’s hard to tell the difference [between brands]. If you’re a consumer, would you know the difference of ‘I’m taking a course from Arizona Online or taking it from this fraudulent entity’?”
Culture Shock
Beyond course offerings, the two programs operate differently internally. Arizona Online has a focus on longer phone calls with prospective students, for example, sometimes culminating in an employee telling the student they would be better suited for, say, neighboring Mesa Community College before attending Arizona Online.
“That’s a culture of fit that’s really served us,” Simmons said. “And we have now been doing it long enough they are coming back.”
UAGC, on the other hand, prioritizes enrollment—reportedly in ways that hurt students: In an article published last month by the Arizona Republic, more than two dozen former UAGC students said they were misled about the outcomes of a UAGC degree. Some said they now are deep in debt with no job prospects.
DeFusco said that if U of A is “going to put resources into things, put them into things that are successful,” like Arizona Online’s positive enrollment versus UAGC’s dip, it should “spend the time and energy to grow that part and get rid of the things that will distract.”
Still, Simmons believes the addition of UAGC will enable U of A as a whole to reach more nontraditional students who may find Arizona Online’s structure too rigid.
“I came from a poor background and needed help with access; that’s who I want to serve, and their model is better equipped to serve that population,” he said. “They can provide, through consistency and flexibility, for that online student—and that’s something in this discussion that seems to be lost.”
Just who’s teaching UAGC courses is another sticking point among some U of A faculty. While Arizona Online employs faculty that also teach at U of A, UAGC relies on adjunct professors. Part-time professors, in general, across higher ed, are underpaid and undersupported by their institutions, with downstream effects for students.
“It’s part of the incompatibility,” said Hudson, the faculty chair. “Think of it in any academic model: Cheap, low-quality assets drive out the more expensive quality assets.”
Simmons said if the deal does go through, there are plans to make public how the vetting process will take place.
But these promises of transparency come too little, too late for some. Hudson said dozens of faculty have left over the last year, in part because of the UAGC deal, but also because of larger concerns about governance. Earlier this year, for instance, the university faced a $177 million shortfall, which faculty claimed was due to tuition discounts and a renewed focus on a failing athletics department. In April, U of A president Robert C. Robbins announced he would step down once his contract expires in 2026.
Hudson said she hopes the two programs—UAGC and Arizona Online—can in fact coexist, with a focus on using UAGC’s software, hardware and staffing systems and stripping the rest.
“I haven’t lost hope of that,” she said. “But until we have new leadership with that vision, the path is a thicket of obstacles.”
