Here we go again. Corporations are making money not by producing a product and marketing it, but by loading consumers with loans they cannot pay and then sticking the taxpayers with the bill. Only this time, it's not houses and mortgages but "higher" education and student loans.
Here's how it works. Fly-by-night "educational entrepreneurs" -- people who run profit-making colleges -- buy small liberal arts colleges that are on the verge of collapse because of financial difficulties. This provides the profit-makers with coveted regional accreditation, which is needed to allow their students to take out federal loans. The profit-driven colleges then set up boiler-room style "recruitment" offices to hunt and pressure people to enroll and take out loans, promising them bright futures and successful careers. Former recruitment officers have reported that they were under intense pressure to meet quotas and enroll students, regardless of their readiness for college-level education. Enrollment counselors were told, when on the phone with prospective applicants, to "create a sense of urgency" and "push their hot button," all tricks typically used to sell penny stocks. (All of this was vividly documented by PBS's Frontline in an episode entitled "College, Inc." You can watch it here.)
The education students receive at for-profit colleges bears little resemblance to the kind they would get at a true liberal arts college. Neither does it resemble the collegial image the for-profit colleges love to project. Professors at these schools often work on short contracts. There is no tenure. The executives make staggering salaries. Most students are taught online, often by poorly qualified professors who have very limited contact with the students. A 2007 New York Times article revealed that graduates of the University of Phoenix, the largest of the for-profit schools, had bitter complaints about "instructional shortcuts" and "unqualified professors." Students in an average course at the University of Phoenix spend about half as much time with professors as students in traditional universities do. Moreover, the university was fined for falling short of the minimum scheduled time required for receiving federal aid.
The schools' stripped-down curricula and poor instruction often make for nearly worthless degrees. When students graduate from these colleges, many cannot find jobs -- or at least not the kinds they were promised -- and eventually, many of them default on their loans. The federal government has estimated that for-profit university students, who make up just 10% of all American college students, account for about 44% of all student loan defaults. When the students default, you and I pick up the tab. But note: the money does not go to the students, but to the shareholders of the for-profit colleges.
The taxpayers are putting up the money and absorbing the losses, but the shareholders are making out like bandits. Bloomberg recently reported that in fiscal year 2009, the University of Phoenix reaped nearly $3.8 billion in revenue, and 86% of it came from the U.S. Department of Education.
In response to the growing problems, the U.S. Department of Education recently proposed new rules requiring for-profit universities to justify the federal support they receive by demonstrating that their graduates are actually finding jobs. But a swarm of industry lobbyists pressured the Department of Education, which just announced that it has delayed settling on a specific definition of the new rules, regulations which might turn out to have only limited influence over profit-making colleges.
The profiteers argue that they serve a large number of poor and minority students. These individuals could be served much better by transferring the funds the executives at "College, Inc." are dedicating in large part to their shareholders, to traditional four-year colleges and community colleges. Instead the administration cut the funds originally planned for community colleges from a proposed $12 billion over 10 years to $2 billion over four years. If these funds were to be restored to the proposed levels, these students could get not just an education, but a better one.
I graduated in 2008, in a public college and I still receive exhortations for donations as an alumnus from my own school - like ya didn't get enough out of me over four years?
Costs need to be lowered, stat, with government subsidies (though at this point it's unfeasible in light of governmental misallocation of funds), and more federal grants given to serious students. I know plenty of diligent students now paralyzed for the next 20 years by loans. But we should recognize the right of its citizens to education - we don't ask for tuition from public high school students - and the importance of education in a "free society".
Perhaps online is innovative. Hopefully we don't let our fear of change get in the way of progress while other countries pass us by.
Not saying for-profit is or isn't the answer. Frankly I don't care. I want high quality education for everyone. I am not delusional enough to believe it should be free. I do know we have to fix our current system and bringing minds from tradional and non-traditional schools together might be a great place to start.
Nice one College Industrial Complex!
This racket is over 20 years old.
America should NOT fund "higher education" for people who can't demonstrate they're reasonably qualified and motivated.
ANYTIME the person paying for a goodie is not the one benefitting from it, EVERYONE involved gets corrupted. And so it is with these for profit pseudo-colleges.
First, do everything possible to make going to college as beneficial as possible. This means making your degree worth as much post graduation as possible. This might mean decreasing the number of people starting/finishing college (might). Means ensuring all colleges and universities are meeting high standards of education to their students.
Second, need to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue higher education opportunities. Regardless of credit, background, whatever. If you are willing to committ to more education, we should be able to find a way for you to do that. Financial aid is a great tool. Loans are fine with me because that gives students an incentive to be employable upon graduation.
Third, ensure that schools are financially sustainable. Community colleges are cheap, but they are so cheap they are losing money. This has our economy tanking (along with other reasons).
I am sure there are more things to do than this, but our current system isn't meeting the needs and perhaps the pressures, success, and failures of for-profits will serve as a catalyst to change non-profits. Maybe the systems can merge to create better systems.
Traditional art education as practiced since the times of the ancient Greeks and rediscovered during the Renaissance has revolved around what is now known as the Atelier. The educational practices in an Atelier are completely different than those at a liberal arts college. Atelier's emphasize studio time with a qualified instructor and mixing students of varying levels, as well as forbidding homework.
The one size fits all accreditation requirements that the DOE uses for allowing financial aid to be issued for higher education excludes Atelier style of learning for the arts, but favors the inferior "art school" model based off the liberal arts college.
My concern is that the Department of Education would have a difficult time when it comes to actually ensuring quality at art schools, this is because regulatory bodies, which are tasked with enforcing a uniformity of standards, do not excel at making or identifying equally valid exceptions.
Perhaps Art education should fall under the National Endowment for the Arts instead of the Department of Education?
I just know that the issue with higher education isn't as simple as for-profit versus non-profit. There are gaps in the system, and we need to figure those out to ensure we have the strongest system possible moving forward.
Though it's possible that the cost-benefit relation between educational quality and tuition expense at these "non-traditional" is poor I would think that as much as GWU charges your not quite getting the most bang for your buck either, and that's a gross understatement. In my mind, Mr. Etzioni, your university is probably every bit as much of a rip off.
That seems to be the modern American business model. It's been very successful so far. You can't knock success... maybe.
Undeserved success, via predatory tactics, shutting people out, using superficial tactics... oh, there are plenty of justified reasons to "knock success". Usually because it's not success and it's not anything that would be condoned in a real pro-life, Christian country. (Just to knock the political group that claims we're a "Christian Nation" but would do things only Judas would be proud of.)
I guess the recruiting business is slow, or their "student" prospects at the Salvation Army -- or worse -- have not awakened yet this morning.
Is someone being protected, lest the public hear the truth about these scam online colleges?
What is it? I feel that most of the anger is incredibly surface level. Most of it lacks context. Obviously I am not the expert everyone else seems to be, but I guess I figure our education system is failing and we need to find new, modern ways to improve it. Are most of these for-profits doing that? No, they are exactly who you say they are. But you are painting with a very broad brush.
And watch some cheap daytime TV and watch them advertise.
Nice to hear from one of the folks who have made sure this thread is under heavy moderation. Obviously you are singing for your supper.
In short, they are a business model geared to mining federal loan money, NOT to educating anyone.
And shouldn't so called non-profits (although we know all schools wish they could make money) be adopting something to MAKE money? Otherwise they are all going broke. Plain and simple. Non-profits provide better education to better students, but their business model is very broken and unsustainable. We need a middle ground and everyone dismissing online schools as a crock is living in the past. We need to find affordable, yet financially sustainable, ways to provide high quality education to anyone willing to make the committment to their higher education. Black, white, poor, rich, online, face-to-face, whatever... The United States needs to find ways to do that. The old model, before online and more adult-friendly options came around, won't fulfill that need. They can't even handle the demand they are under now. Their classes are full and yet they are losing money by the fistfull. And their regents are making serious bank too, don't think they aren't.
I dislike a system where the schools and the corporations want everything from us, but won't pay a living wage in return to help us afford these necessities of improving.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
I've posted various costs and wages from the year 1979 and used that calculator to post what, adjusted for inflation, they should be today. While incomplete, as in none of my other relevant posts did I dig up college costs in 1979, compare with inflation, and what the same level of college would cost today, enough of an argument could be said as a job requiring a Bachelor's degree, adjusted for inflation, would pay far more in 1979 than it does today. Especially when colleges have framed on walls, plaques telling how much a person earns for having x degree. $36,000/yr with a Bachelor's degree is criminal when you consider how much money (and time to ensure good grades) is needed to earn one. (And with luck, colleges will look at students' reports - if an all-A student gets a C in one class, why the discrepancy? It might be the student or it might be a teacher, who'd rather leave early or tell the students "you're not smart" or "Look out only for yourself". I'm not speaking about my situation as I'm all-As right now, but a student with mostly high-grades would not often have a low grade in only one or two classes. :)
Hopefully there will be more in depth reporting on the distortions in the education industry.
Would be good to see the bar raised for institutions to remain non-profit colleges and universities. That may bring back education to schoolin'
GET THE PICTURE?
Simply graduating with a diploma doesn't really mean much by itself. You need to make sure that you take advantage of all the resources available to you while you are in school in order to squeeze the most from what you are paying to go to school.
i have no sympathy for them, and i bet most self-educated folks are as smart, or smarter than the degree holders
some of the regular colleges saddle their students with over a quarter million in debt after four years
thats the real crime
not some online college, charging $200-300 a class
Some people can get an education without going to a traditional college, but the burden is definitely on them to prove they have that education.
I've met some awfully uneducated people whose degrees did NOT come from what I consider the right kind of institution of higher learning.
Online colleges are for-profit money machines. Their business model is based on ripping off the taxpayer.
kinda sounds like fannie may all over again