Editing Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern student withdrawal patterns, program retention, and the wellbeing of students working through the MSN-DE program. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers seven tracker entries, all rated High severity and all CONFIRMED: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-023}}, {{HU|HU-073}} (split into {{HU|HU-073a}} and {{HU|HU-073b}}), {{HU|HU-087}}, and {{HU|HU-095}}. The entries were added between 2026-04-30 and 2026-05-05, with {{HU|HU-073}} split into its two sub-issues on 2026-06-06. The underlying evidence spans a wider window, from student emails in late 2025 back through Facebook group posts dated as early as June 2023, and forward to member posts through early 2026.

Two entries, {{HU|HU-014}} and {{HU|HU-023}}, document a single reporting student's own wellbeing crisis: a documented inability to succeed under the program's structure, an investigated but impractical transfer, and a pattern of inter-departmental communication failures that left the student acting as the liaison between clinical faculty, the ADA coordinator, and appeals staff. The remaining five entries trace a broader retention pattern across the wider student body: a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures rather than academic difficulty ({{HU|HU-073a}}), the ethics committee's non-response to a formal five-page complaint and a four-month re-entry delay ({{HU|HU-073b}}), cohort attrition documented at 63 to 71 percent with NCLEX pass rates calculated only on the students who remained ({{HU|HU-087}}), and a two-fail dismissal policy paired with a rigid 80 percent threshold that compounds financial harm ({{HU|HU-095}}).

The recurring owners across this topic are the Dean of Nursing, Academic Affairs, Student Retention, the Ethics Committee, the Provost, Student Services, Institutional Research, and the Registrar. The entries cross reference each other heavily, and several also point outward to appeals handling, complaint investigation, faculty instruction, grading, and financial aid, indicating that the withdrawal and retention pattern is treated in the tracker as downstream of failures documented elsewhere.

== Issues ==
<span id="HU-014"></span>
=== HU-014: The reporting student documented systemic inability to succeed; investigated transferring; academic crisis in Fall 2025 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Ethical Concern
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Student Services / Program Chair
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student documented a systemic inability to succeed in the program, investigated transferring to another institution, and experienced an academic crisis in Fall 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Student email (2025-10-10): "I do not believe that I can be successful with the way the setup is at the moment." The reporting student investigated transferring to another institution and found it would require moving states and adding three semesters. Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but I have to tell you that this university is stressing me out and I have never experienced anything like this since I've been in college and I have gone to many different schools and completed eight different college programs.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Herzing Mission: "educate, support, and empower all students for success." ACEN Standard 5: student learning environment must be supportive. A student expressing systemic barriers to success warrants a documented institutional response and support plan.

'''Impact.''' A student with documented disabilities experiencing systemic program barriers, consistent communication failures, and compounded stress. The pattern poses risk of academic harm and potential attrition.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student also requested an IT loaner laptop for exam support in October 2025. Associate Dean Steele said he would check, but the outcome is unconfirmed in available evidence.

<span id="HU-023"></span>
=== HU-023: Documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures requiring student to act as liaison between university departments ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Program Leadership
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, a documented pattern of inter-departmental communication failures required the student to act as liaison between university departments.

'''Evidence.''' Student email to Dr. Laban (2026-04-10): "I'm constantly having to do the communication between staff members because things are not being properly communicated." Source group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>My point is that I'm constantly having to engage in communication because I feel like different departments at the university are not communicating with each other and that adds a significant amount of stress to me as a student. I should be able to login, do my coursework, have my appropriate assignments, and take my exams without fault.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5; ADA duty of care. Inter-departmental communication failures that place the burden on the student, particularly a student with multiple documented disabilities, constitute a systemic institutional failure. ADA requires proactive institutional coordination, not reactive student advocacy.

'''Impact.''' The student was required to explain his own accommodation status and disability services communications to faculty, appeals staff, and the clinical team repeatedly. This adds documented burden to a student with anxiety, panic disorder, and cognitive disabilities.

'''Notes.''' Specific documented failures: (1) a clinical professor unaware the student needed an incomplete; (2) the ADA coordinator unaware of the screen reader situation; (3) appeals staff unaware of the accommodation details. This is described as a systemic, not isolated, issue.

<span id="HU-073"></span>
=== HU-073: Lead: two distinct retention and grievance problems (a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing over systemic issues, and the ethics committee's non-response to a formal complaint); see HU-073a, HU-073b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Ethics Committee / Provost / Student Retention
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, this is the lead entry for two distinct problems documented in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-073a}}, a cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty, and {{HU|HU-073b}}, the ethics committee's non-response to a five-page formal complaint, and a re-entry process that told a returning student to wait four more months. See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-073}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-073}} resolve to this lead. Verification recommended: institutional withdrawal data, GPA-at-withdrawal statistics, and ethics committee response rates. Involves multiple withdrawing students (Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others), documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-073a}}, {{HU|HU-073b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-016}} (unmonitored appeals inbox), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation adequacy), {{HU|HU-077}} (no response to withdrawal complaints).

<span id="HU-073a"></span>
=== HU-073a: Cross-cohort pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing while citing systemic failures ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Retention Indicator: High-GPA Students Withdrawing Over Systemic Issues
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Retention / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, multiple students with strong records withdrew citing systemic program failures rather than academic difficulty: Student M (withdrew September 2024 with a 3.6 to 3.7 GPA), Student BA (withdrew with A's), Student BB (dropped the second cohort and transferred to a local program), an anonymous student lost because no clinical placement could be secured, and a report of at least three drops in a few weeks between 2023 and 2025.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts: Student M (September 26, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's and a 3.6 GPA after teaching himself the material amid platform and organization failures; Student BA (September 27, 2024) describing withdrawing with A's; an anonymous post (June 20, 2023) that a student was lost because no clinical placement could be secured; Student AJ (July 12, 2023) reporting at least three drops in recent weeks; Student BB (July 12, 2023) confirming she dropped the second cohort.

'''Reported statement.''' One withdrawing student states that despite earning A's, the constant errors, the read the directions comments, and the 80-20 comment made the program impossible to continue with, and that paying for the program should not mean having to independently find 80 percent of the information.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: students must have retention support; a pattern of high-GPA students withdrawing rather than failing is itself a retention indicator that should trigger institutional review. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Compare {{HU|HU-014}}, {{HU|HU-045}}.

'''Impact.''' Students were left with significant loan debt and no degree; cross-cohort consistency from 2023 to 2025 indicates persistent rather than resolved issues.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Involves Student M, Student BA, Student BB, and others, documented by the reporting student.

<span id="HU-073b"></span>
=== HU-073b: Ethics committee non-response to a five-page complaint, and a four-month re-entry delay ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Grievance Process Failure: Non-Response to Formal Complaint
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ethics Committee / Dean of Nursing / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student M wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks; the institution did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal and had no retention process; when later invited back, he was told he would have to appeal and wait four more months, and he declined after spending about 27,000 dollars with nothing to show.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook posts by Student M: October 20, 2024, stating he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee with no response after three weeks and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern at withdrawal; February 14, 2025, stating he went back through re-entry only to be told he would need to appeal and wait four more months, and that he was about 27,000 dollars in with nothing to show.

'''Reported statement.''' Student M states that he wrote a five-page complaint to the ethics committee and received no response after three weeks, and that Herzing did not respond to a single concern when he withdrew and put no retention effort into place.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 602.16: accreditation requires institutional response to student grievances. Non-response to a formal five-page complaint reflects a grievance-procedure failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-073}}. Parallel to {{HU|HU-016}}, {{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-077}}.

'''Impact.''' Failure to respond to formal complaints prevents systemic learning and leaves documented financial harm uncorrected.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-073}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Concerns Student M, documented by the reporting student.

<span id="HU-087"></span>
=== HU-087: Cohort attrition documented at 63-71% for Cohorts 1 and 2; NCLEX pass rates calculated on survivors only, artificially inflating reported outcomes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Cohort Attrition / Outcome Reporting
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Institutional Research / Dean of Nursing
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, Student AJ (January 24, 2025) reported that many cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s. Student AY (January 26, 2025) reported that the program's high success rates reflect only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025) reported that the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and that applying the actual pass-fail rate across the full cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024) documented more than 90 students entering Cohort 3, down to 50 by semester five or six, approximately 44 percent attrition. The highest documented attrition, for Cohorts 1 and 2, is 63 to 71 percent. This significantly extends {{HU|HU-073}}.

'''Evidence.''' Student AJ (January 24, 2025): cohorts went from 70-plus students down to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not mean high student success, and the programs are getting bigger without more help for held-back students. Student AY (January 26, 2025): the high success rate is based on the 26 of more than 70 who made it. Anonymous member 638 (December 31, 2025): the HESI pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take it, and applying the actual pass-fail rate across the cohort would deter enrollment. Student V (September 14, 2024): roughly 90 students entering first semester, down to around 50. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student AJ states that many cohorts dropped from more than 70 students to the 20s, so a high NCLEX pass rate does not reflect a high student success rate. Student AY states that the reported high success rate reflects only the 26 of more than 70 students who made it through.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Section 668.41 (institutional disclosures): institutions must report graduation and completion rates accurately. IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey: completion rates must be calculated on a cohort basis, not a survivor basis. 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): reporting NCLEX pass rates calculated only on students who reached NCLEX, without disclosing that 63 to 71 percent of enrolled students never reached it, constitutes a potential misrepresentation of program outcomes. HLC Criteria for Accreditation 4A: institutions must demonstrate student achievement data including completion and graduation rates. ACEN Standard 6: program outcomes must include completion rates; if 63 to 71 percent of students do not complete the program, this is a required outcome reporting element.

'''Impact.''' Prospective students and their families make enrollment decisions based on advertised NCLEX pass rates. If those rates are calculated on the 26 to 37 percent of students who survive to NCLEX rather than the full enrolled cohort, they significantly misrepresent the program's actual educational effectiveness. The gap between advertised outcomes and actual completion rates affects financial planning (Grad Plus loans, {{HU|HU-048}}) and career expectations. Anonymous member 638's observation that the pass rate reflects only the few students who actually take the exam identifies the core methodological issue.

'''Notes.''' This issue extends {{HU|HU-073}} (withdrawal pattern) with quantitative attrition data. Verification recommended: IPEDS graduation rate data for Herzing's MSN-DE program, and specific cohort enrollment and completion numbers from institutional records. The expansion of cohort sizes, which Student AJ describes as the programs getting bigger and bigger, while maintaining the same resource structure increases systemic pressure on remaining students and compounds all other documented issues.

<span id="HU-095"></span>
=== HU-095: Two-fail dismissal policy with 4-month delay per failure; re-entry appeal process documented as opaque; Student M lost $27,000 with no degree; 79.8% fails as completely as 60% ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Academic Standing Policy / Financial Harm
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Academic Affairs / Registrar
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the MSN-DE program enforces a two-fail dismissal policy: any student who fails two courses is dismissed from the program and must file an appeal for reinstatement. Each individual course failure results in a four-month delay because students must wait for the next cohort cycle to retake the failed course. Student BI (August 24, 2025) reported that only two fails are allowed before dismissal. The 80 percent passing threshold means a 79.8 percent grade, which would pass at nearly every other institution, fails completely at Herzing, triggering the four-month delay. An anonymous student (August 24, 2025) documented ending a course at exactly 79.8 percent and being told by both the professor and Dr. Prashad that nothing could be done. Student M documented investing approximately 27,000 dollars in the program with nothing to show for it: credits that do not transfer, no degree, and dismissal. Anonymous member 812 confirmed it is basically impossible for nursing credits to transfer elsewhere.

'''Evidence.''' Student BI (August 24, 2025): a fail sets a student back a semester (four months) and requires retaking the class, and only two fails are allowed before dismissal. Anonymous member (August 24, 2025): ending a class with a 79.8 percent and asking whether anything could be done, calling failing by 0.2 percent crushing. Anonymous member (August 27, 2025): emailed Dr. Prashad, who also said nothing could be done. Student AV (August 24, 2025): the grade is the grade, no extra credit given. Anonymous member 469 (August 24, 2025): was not offered extra credit with a similar score and failed. Anonymous member 989 (August 24, 2025): during their first semester, instructors were giving a few extra points on assignments so students could get over 80. Student M (September 2024): documented 27,000 dollar investment, no degree, credits not transferable. Anonymous member 331 (April 4, 2026), on failing NSG 635 twice: believes the student would be withdrawn from the program and would have to submit an appeal to be reinstated. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review, 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student BI states that failing a course sets a student back a semester and that only two fails are allowed before dismissal from the program. An anonymous member states that during their first semester, some instructors added a few extra points to assignments so students could reach the 80 percent threshold.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR Sections 668.71-75 (Misrepresentation): if prospective students are not clearly informed of the two-fail dismissal policy and the non-transferability of credits, they cannot make an informed enrollment decision. Contract law principles in higher education (Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410, 7th Cir. 1992): students invest substantial funds in reliance on the program's representation that completion leads to a credential; dismissal without a degree and non-transferable credits may constitute a breach of the implicit enrollment contract. Consumer protection principles: a student who invests 27,000 dollars and is dismissed with no credential and no transferable credits has suffered material financial harm. The inconsistency in grade-bump availability, with some students receiving instructor-added points to clear the 80 percent threshold and others being denied, constitutes unequal treatment under the same academic policy.

'''Impact.''' Student M lost 27,000 dollars, has no degree, and holds non-transferable credits. Each fail carries a four-month delay plus a full semester's tuition cost (approximately 12,465 dollars per term based on documented rates). A student who fails two courses faces potential total financial loss of their entire investment with no credential. The 79.8 percent scenario, where a fraction of a point determines a 12,465 dollar retake fee and a four-month delay, is particularly severe. The inconsistent enforcement of grade-bump availability (some instructors grant it, others do not, Dr. Prashad denied it) means the outcome of a borderline grade depends on which instructor a student happens to have, arbitrary rather than policy-driven. This compounds {{HU|HU-060}} (500 dollar course retake fee, which may be in addition to tuition).

'''Notes.''' The two-fail policy interacts with every other documented issue: platform-caused grade errors ({{HU|HU-082}}, {{HU|HU-075}}) can trigger fails; NI contracts issued in error ({{HU|HU-091}}) can trigger fails; HESI content covering untaught material ({{HU|HU-088}}) can trigger fails; milestones elimination with no retake ({{HU|HU-083}}) can trigger fails. Each of these institutionally caused failure modes can contribute to a student's fail count, potentially triggering dismissal for failures not attributable to academic performance. The inconsistent grade-bump practice also warrants scrutiny. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-048}} (financial aid cap), {{HU|HU-060}} ($500 retake fee), {{HU|HU-073}} (high-GPA withdrawals and financial harm), {{HU|HU-087}} (cohort attrition).

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Financial Aid]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Faculty Instruction and Curriculum Design]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]