Every month, I speak to groups all across the country about various issues in education. To me, it's an opportunity to take my message about reforming our schools to audiences that might not otherwise hear it. In June, I'll be speaking at an annual convention of for-profit colleges and universities. Some have questioned why I would speak at an event like this, given the poor records of so many of these schools, and I understand these questions. But I think it's important that we engage those with whom we don't always agree, and that we're willing to tell them the hard truths they need to hear.
This is the basic truth I want to tell these schools: it doesn't matter if a school is a for-profit or a non-profit, it needs to be doing a good job educating students. And if it's failing to do that, it should be shut down. The problem this sector has is that too many of its schools are failing students, and no one is being held accountable.
There are a number of colleges and universities in this sector that are doing good work and providing a solid education for students. These schools are providing new opportunities to their students -- opportunities they might not otherwise have access to -- and that's a great thing. Unfortunately, those schools aren't as common as they should be.
Consider a report from the well-respected education think tank The Education Trust, which found particularly high levels of debt for students at for-profit colleges, and embarrassingly low graduation rates. The report's authors concluded that the colleges they studied "do a far better job at turning a profit for stockholders than ensuring that their students graduate. And while too few of their students acquire degrees, too many end up saddled with crippling debt." I plan to tell the for-profit colleges that they need to do a better job of making sure their students are getting a good education, are graduating with meaningful degrees, and are able to do so without being saddled with unreasonable debt.
But the problems aren't just academic. Some of these schools seem to be engaged in downright malicious behavior, cravenly taking advantage of students trying to get a better education and a better job. An investigation by the Government Accountability Office in 2010 looked into recruiting practices at 15 for-profit colleges and found outright cases of fraud at four. Moreover, they found that officials at every single one of the colleges investigated lied or misrepresented the programs offered in order to convince students to enroll. That's wrong, and I plan to tell them so. These schools need to focus on getting the best outcomes for their students -- the people relying on and trusting these schools to provide a high-quality education.
The bottom line is that students need to know what their prospects are before they enroll in these schools. That requires transparency. And students need to know whether a school can actually meet their needs and provide the education and support to help them get the kind of job they're hoping for. Schools need to deliver on that promise, and that demands accountability.
President Obama's administration has put forward rules that would hold these colleges accountable for their performance, and I think that's a good first step. If these rules are to be meaningful, it's vital that they be strictly enforced. But I don't think the rule-making process itself is enough to ensure the kind of broad-based shift in approach and outcomes that needs to happen among for-profit colleges. That, I think, will require the entire for-profit college sector to recommit itself and focus on providing a great education for the students they serve. In fact, it's those schools that are actually doing a good job that should care the most. They are the ones with the most to lose, and who have a responsibility to act. That's what I'll be telling them.
The solution to these problems isn't to ignore them or avoid them -- it's to face them head on. That's why I'll be speaking at this conference, and telling those in attendance that they need to be more accountable, more transparent, and start doing a much better job of educating students. I'll tell them what I think: if the schools they represent aren't producing results and providing a great education, they should be out of business.
Dr. Lawrence M. Schall: Our Tax Dollars at Work: The Shame of Proprietary Colleges
David_Halperin: Michelle Rhee Says She'll Tell For-Profit Colleges To Clean Up Their Act
Michelle Rhee and For-Profit Colleges by Daniel Luzer | Washington ...
Michelle Rhee and George W. Bush are featured speakers at for-profit
Report: "Who Wins? Who Pays? The Economic Returns and Costs of a Bachelor's Degree." This report indicates that the annual net cost to taxpayers of a bachelor's degree per full-time-equivalent student is nearly $8,000 at a nonselective or less-selective public institution, and around $1,000 at a nonselective or less-selective private institution. For each student who attends a for-profit institution, however, taxpayers see a gain of nearly $800 annually, the report concludes. "Strictly from a taxpayer perspective, for-profit institutions represent a better deal than tax-exempt not-for-profit or public institutions," it says.
It's really good that someone's looking after our @ss es because we're just so incompetent about making our own decisions.
What a huckster.
I have a friend who will get his online Master's degree and there are certain subjects that we cannot discuss because he lacks any education in those areas that had he attended a real college he would have been forced to take. The Online schools are bout giving out even more diplomas than the Public schools. And people don't go to colleges to get educated, they go there to get better jobs and what they learn there is already 5 to 7 years old and is no longer useful in the business world.
As for Rhee, she is going to go tell everyone else what to do when she herself has already shown that she doesn't know what that is!
She is in it for the profit, not for the students.
No accountability for what she promotes or sells.
Which brings me to my other issue. It isn't the schools job to act in the best interests of the students, it is the schools job to provide the best education possible. What the students do with that is their choice, and if they can't keep up with the standards then that is on them. They are paying for an opportunity, not an automatic pass or to have their hand held every step of the way.
And while I certainly would welcome regulation targeting the predatory practices of these institutions, unless they take government funding, I don't see how the government has any right to regulate their educational practices. Attending these schools is optional, something people willingly spend their money on, and so long as they are not deceived during enlistment, then it is on them if they chose a bad university.
I work at a University. I get sad when some kid with good intentions comes to my office looking to transfer credit from the University of Phoenix, AIU, Remington etc. & we tell them sorry, those credits are crap. These kids are deceived by the predatory schools and something needs to be done.
these two sentences are contradictory.
For-profit education companies have very little stake in providing their customer-students with a "good" education. They have no financial incentive to do so.
The financial incentive for any for-profit education business is to attract customers. These customers can get an education anywhere, from an expensive, 4-yr. + private university to a local state system school to their community technical college. So the companies do not sell an "education". They sell:
1. "Convenience" (meaning: on-line or distance courses)
2. "Flexibility" (meaning: few or no requirements regarding credits, time or individual work quality)
3. "Support" (meaning: on-line or phone customer service)
The customer-student believes that s/he has earned an advanced degree at a specialized, accredited institution -- albeit with less effort, time and study than at any other type of school.
The education company, meanwhile, knows that its lack of regulation, minimal service output and very low overhead equals profit for its stakeholders.
They don't have to do otherwise, regardless of what Ms. Rhee says.
When I graduated, it was clear much of my training was obsolete. For instance, I was taught vacuum tube technology - something I never used. But as my subsequent work experience quickly convinced me, we were intended to flood the job market and bring wages down. I was having a hard time making a good income and still pay off my Federally-guaranteed student loans.
But I got very lucky. I actually found a good paying job (where I remain currently) where my training was actually useful. I worked with other DeVry and ITT grads, most of whom were very good at their jobs. So despite being obsolete training, it was good training. We still knew our stuff.
But as the years passed, I could see that those coming from those schools weren't as good at their jobs as we were. Something had changed besides the huge increase students owed when they graduated. That something was their training. They weren't taught what they needed to know to do even the most basic jobs in my field. In effect, they got nothing for the $30,000+ they owe for their "edjimikashun".
If this is the record that Michelle Rhee's beloved charter schools will produce, then count me out of the revolution for profit-based education. We already have more than enough greed-based problems to last the term of the Roman Empire.
My daughter went to ITTTech and did get a reasonable job. We helped her pay for college, she wasn't pushed into taking out additional loans, and she's made every payment (except for one) since graduating. The sad thing is - she's being paid about the same money I was paid for a similar job about 30 years ago. So while college expenses continue to increase, the annual salaries for many, many jobs, including jobs that do require post-secondary education, continue to stagnate.