The crux of the issue is that this sector has open admissions and attracts many students that do not meet the entrance requirements of traditional colleges. This does not mean that they cannot succeed.

What it does mean is, that as a group, they are a high risk segment.
The taxpayers should not be the ones taking on that risk.

It's the exact same situation as mortgages except that there is no inherent value in a college degree. A house, the land, the physical structure has an actual value. A college degree is far, far, more abstract in value. Since anyone can get these loans and anyone can get into a for-profit college it seems pretty freaking clear to me that this represents a problem.

No it doesn't mean that someone can't succeed but that the same thing as these bad mortgages. Just because MOST can't pay back their high risk mortgages doesn't mean that everyone can't. It's just ridiculous. I feel like the liberal do-gooder thing has been hijacked by the right-wing profit at any cost thing.

Well when one goes to a for-profit university, the students are paying for access and not quality. To many unprepared students, why worry about quality when you can pay for the access and still get a degree? Why do you think University of Phoenix has been getting hammered lately with their watered down programs and courses? The classes are so easy that 5th graders can pass them. Heck if I was a dummy and could not get into a regular school, I would go to a for profit to have a degree to hang on my wall. Why not, right?

I beg to differ with sunking_2007 (#3) about the dumbed-down classes at the U. of Phoenix. It's true that there are some specially designed remedial-cum-entry-level classes there that normally college-level students would consider "gut" courses, and that some instructors are easier graders than others...but that's true of many community and state colleges with open admission, and the student and faculty profiles are roughly equivalent.

It's also true that many of the teachers, classes, and the textbooks and other resources supporting them are as challenging and sophisticated as those found in any on-ground campuses. Distance education has a bright future as an industry, for many good intellectual as well as social and technological reasons.

You have to hand it to Harris Miller. He makes a very persuasive argument: "for-profit schools have no incentive to fill seats...". This is essentially the same argument tabacco execs made to Congress when they testified "cigarettes are not dangerous".

Come on Harris...wake up buddy. I know you are smarter than your silly little comment. For-profits answer to shareholds...period. Of course they have every incentive to put as many students in their courses. The question should be can they effective service those students, all of those students, that they let in.

This is really where the dialog should focus: a schools ability to service the students it admits. There should be established benchmarks in place to measure a school's effectiveness around completion, satisfactory academic progress and the potential for gainful employment. When the school demonstrated they are incompetent or incapable of delivering satisfactory results, they should be restricted from growing until they can demonstrate this capability. Continued failure to meet established success standards should result in the school's accreditation being revoked.

At the end of the day, the for-profits are always going to try to get as many students in the door (ie, revenue) that they can. Great. Go crazy with this. But if you are going to tap in to federal dollars for this, you better be able to show acceptable progress on all of those students in terms of completion and the potential for a job that is at least in line with the cost of your education.

Profitability as the primary goal leads to a complete breakdown of any business venture. GM should make cars and let the profit come. Any business that puts profit before a quality product and good customer service is a business destined to fail.
Universities, like news organizations, can never be profit driven. In fact, market logic will generally run counter to their successful operation.
The rise of the American higher education system came at a time of vast government support. Tenure freed faculty to pursue rigorous research and teaching, and student complaints were ignored (as they should be, they are not the customer, they are the product HELLO!? The customer is society).
The erosion of government funding for higher education over the past decade, coupled with the downward spiral of tenured faculty, has produced a system in which the lazy, stupid, and spoiled students are more and more in charge; and yes that is what most of them are and what I was when I was 18, there are exceptions of course, and stupid doesn't have to be a permanent state.
However, when the 18 year old is going to spend $40-$60k on their education suddenly they are the customer instead of the product; it is hard to argue with their concerns about their education, particularly since they are essentially bullied into college then come out indentured to their loans.
This state of affairs is simply wrong.
Genius is common as dirt, John Taylor Gatto has said. However, most geniuses need a kick in the pants to get started, I know I did, ok I'm not much of a genius and it took many many kicks.

"for-profit colleges have no incentive to fill seats with students who will not succeed academically"

And computer stores have no incentive to sell anyone hardware they won't use, gyms don't have an incentive to sell memberships people won't use, and mechanics have no incentive to sell services that aren't needed.

Stop reading right there. The guy should at least make a small attempt to hold onto some credibility. He _really_ thinks we're idiots.

Why WOULDN'T he believe that statement ("for-profit colleges have no incentive to fill seats with students who will not succeed academically")? His sector makes billions convincing people that they can log in and post unintelligible statements on a discussion board once or twice a week, buy a textbook that they never have to read and turn on a video to play in the background while they watch TV to earn a degree that will translate into a career for them, where they will make more money. The students considering these for-profit programs ought to be introduced to my grandmother who often said what other grandmothers say: if it sounds too good to be true,...it probably is.

Real education is hard work, inconvenient (yes, I said inconvenient; it's not served in a fast food container that you pick up through a drive-thru), and requires that a certain level of academic hard work take place beforehand (i.e. K-12 or remedial pre-college work).

Miller is being literally honest. For-profits have no incentive "to fill seats with students" - as seats imply a physical infrastructure that would require maintenance, real estate, and property tax liability for a for-profit corporation, and would substantially eat into their profit margins, as well as bottleneck the number of paying customers they can accommodate. There are no fire codes on bandwidths.

I really like what Jack Cade said above.

For profit cars are GM---dead eventually. For profit "higher education" is an oxymoron. If you got it you would sue them for providing it to you. That you do not sue means you did not get it--see? Just like all those wonderful mortgages--public risk, private gains. This is Ross Perot style capitalism (EDS was founded by Ross switching from head of Texas welfare one day where he gave a sweet sweet contract to an unknown firm to him the next day turning up resigned and head of that firm with the sweet sweet contract---all that talk about enterprise ends up covering up government sources of "enterprise").

Wow, the level of ignorance contained in most of these comments is amazing, obviously from those who have little or no actual knowledge or experience with the for-profit education sector.

For those of you who take a sound bite/portion of a sentence an then twist it into something that it is not...Harris Miller is correct, for the vast bulk of this sector - those colleges who have national rather than regional accreditation (look it up), schools are required to GRADUATE AND PLACE IN JOBS, a minimum percentage (the number varies by accreditor) of those students who enroll. Bottom line - students who fail academically put the entire school operation at risk, i.e. the school could lose it's accreditation status and be forced to shut it's doors. This fundamental quality standard is not required in the public sector.

For those of you who think that open admission is the crux of the problem, and that tax payers should not be funding these students to earn an education, please look up the admissions requirements of your local community college (I'll save you the time - they're open), and then look further to see how your/our/my tax dollars pay for these students to attend school for a cost that is miles below the actual cost, and you'll then realize how silly that argument is.

For those grumpy professors (a very common breed) who somehow think Profit as a primary goal is the crux of the issue and causes the complete breakdown of any venture - oh please. For-profit education is no different than any other heavily regulated American industry - those who produce a good product grow and prosper. Students would not be enrolling if they were not benefiting from the education product. The majority of new student enrollments in the for-profits come from referrals from satisfied existing students and grads. i.e. if a UOP degree was "worthless" the market would respond. You can learn that in the first week of econ 101. The fact that the market has reponded to make that institution the great American success story that it has become should tell you something. But that would require some knowledge, or research, something this bunch of "lazy, spoiled, stupid" posts clearly does not have and has not done.

Harris Miller's bio on the Career College Assoc. website indicates that he holds a B.A. in political science and philosophy from the Univ. of Pittsburgh and an M.Phil. in political science from Yale.

His training in the liberal arts at non-profit institutions seems to have served him quite well in his career. It's unfortunate that he does not advocate for the same type of education that he received.

Mr Miller is a lying sack of ?? Of course, it is to their (for-profits) advantage to run students in and out of the system as fast as possible. Asses on seats is their motto and the more (along with, of course, their Gov-sponsored loans) the merrier. Who cares if they "pass" (or even learn anything)! The more students, the more loans, and the higher the profit margins since the OTHER side of this coin is the minimum-wage slavery paid to (often) highly qualified people. For-profits take shameful advantage of those who love etaching but can't find a full-time job in this worst of academic markets.

JVK

The quality of all educational institutions--for profit and non-profit alike--depends on the strength of their faculty. Both for-profits and non-profits nowadays have equal incentives to "fill seats." As a long time administrator at a large public research institution and as board member of a small private non-profit college, I have been party to some discussions about recruitment and retention that were not any more or less crass than anything that could go on at the University of Phoenix. The difference is that non-profits have 1) a strong tradition of faculty governance sustained by tenure and 2)strong and distinguished faculties who (quaint as it sounds) have a serious commitment to their roles as stewards, conveyors, and creators of knowledge. Both factors are important. There surely are faculty members at for-profit institutions with serious commitments to knowledge, but they tend not to be hired for those qualities, and it is hard to identify a for-profit institution where the faculty exert much influence on institutional decision making. More often, the faculty are intentionally dis-empowered--frequently part-time, having little control over curriculum, enacting scripted curricula created by course designers, heavily burdened,lacking any kind of job security or professional organization. Lord knows, I have had many battles over the years with our faculty over one thing and another, and they usually win, eventually. I find consolation in knowing, in my heart or heart, that they are the foundation of the academic integrity and quality of the institution. If there is any imminent danger to quality in higher education, it lies in the growing tendency of the non-profit institutions to emulate for-profit institutions in diluting the power of the faculty in institutional governance.

It's impressive that Miller manages not to choke on such outright lies as "Career-college education is a word-of-mouth business!" Is this why they spend billions of dollars on advertising on TV and the internet, where Phoenix pop-up ads give the porn idustry a run for their ubiquity and frequency?

Miller's remorseless sophistry is wasted at CCA. He ought to be doing this for even more money at an even bigger disaster site, say the Gulf of Mexico, where he could explain how most of the birds covered in sludge are really responsible for their predicament.

"You can learn that in the first week of econ 101"

There's the problem - you didn't make it past the first week of econ 101. In the second week, they teach you about problems caused by imperfect information.

JVK - What makes me think you are a victimized member of the Not for Profit educational system? You have been educated for a job that doesn't exist or for which there is an oversupply. That is the reason for a low salary for teachers.

When I was employed by DeVry University, the For Profit made a sizable contribution for that year to Princeton University. If I remember correctly, the Corporate President had attended that institution. DeVry was championed by a member of the regional accreditation body North Central who thought there was too little diversity in education and supported that institution's original accreditation. She was a nun.

The innovations made by the For-Profit sector have been attacked, then adopted by government funded institutions or private non-profit ones. If For-Profits cost more than public institutions or private non-profits to attend, it is because the student must pay the true cost of the education. In public institutions the cost is borne by the state taxpayers. In private not-for-profit colleges, much of the cost is absorbed by money from endowment.

For-Profit institutions take the students who have been failed and discarded by the public educational system and find a way for them to overcome the obstacles of family responsibilities and poverty to succeed in life. We find the considerable talent in these students that would have otherwise been lost to society.

As an employee of a For-Profit, regionally accredited institution, I know that the courses that our students take are more difficult than the ones I took at state institutions. Our students have won state and national knowledge tournaments with students from other college sectors repeatedly; I am proud of the job we are doing and I am appalled at the jealous ranting of those who know nothing of the functioning of For-Profit institutions other than their petty prejudices. In the U.S., we have a disavowal of socialized medicine and a system of socialized education. If we hold the For-Profit sector to a job placement and salary ratio, let us do the same to nonprofit institutions.

Strikingly absent from this conversation is the notion of Gainful employment in the nontraditional sector. Those who are the first to cast stones should mind their own house. Perhaps, Congress should investigate why schools conitnue to operate only 9 months a year, or why most schools are closed Fridays. Taxpayers might be concerned if the Chronicle published professor's salaries along side how many real hours of teaching fulfilled thair full load. How would traditional colleges show their gainful employment statistics for their liberal arts students turned Starbuck barrista?

The proposed gainful employment rules would have the terrible unintended consequence of causing for-profit colleges to cut important liberal arts/general studies from programs, focusing on job related knowledge and skills to the exclusion of skills that build better citizens. In effect, it will expand the educational divide between elite and an educaional ghetto which serves as only the farm team for low paying jobs. After years of trying to expand opportunity, it would be tragic if Congress turned its back on students who have been largely ignored by traditional education.

The growth of for profit education has more to say about that weakness of the traditional model than about fraud. For profits have grown from about 2% of the total student body in 1990, to an estimated 11% next year. They are doing something right, and traditional education can either whine or examine themselves to see why for-profits are such a desriable choice for consumers.

What's REALLY going on here is that traditional colleges and universities are not meeting the needs of large segments of the population, and so for-profit institutions have been established to meet those needs. And while F-P enrollment is growing, traditional schools are getting hammered. What's the matter, guys? If these F-P institutions are so crappy, they won't pose any threat to you, right? You afraid of a little competition?

Where is the outrage at the complete bullsh!t degrees students are getting from traditional schools (Queer Studies? Underwater Basket Weaving?) and borrowing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain, after which they have no marketable skills? And how many of these students are taking student loans for these worthless degrees?

If traditional institutions want for-profit schools scrutinized under a "gainful employment" standard, then let's apply that same standard to ALL colleges and universities, and compare the "gainful employment" of their graduates, discipline by discipline. In an economic downtown, with diminishing revenues, I'd imagine that such a comparison would provide plenty of grist for the administrative mill, and the groups on each campus deciding which programs should stay and which should go.

If what we had here were dozens of taxpayer-funded government programs to educate single moms, vets, older and returning students, and students who would not meet "traditional" admissions standards, everyone on academia would be all for it.

But because these are for-profit businesses (which will have to stand or fall on their own merits), and because the traditional model of higher education is suffering under inflated salaries, meaningless curricular programs, bloated administrative bureaucracies, poor teaching, and skyrocketing costs, the Old Dogs of higher ed are taking a different tack: going after the for-profit institutions politically.

All of this trumped-up outrage and high dudgeon is just so much Kabuki theatre.

Give me a break. The for-profit higher ed. sector lacks so much transparency it's a joke that Miller should talk about letting the market decide on quality. For example, the Univ. of Phoenix enrolls over 200,000 students and yet only lists the names of 46 "featured" faculty on its web page. Nowhere is there a full list of the faculty employed by the school. This is a basic indication of quality that is lacking. It is virtually unheard of in the public or private non-profit sector.

I knew it wouldn't take long before the elitism spewed forth (see 11274135's comments). For the government schools, it is always about inputs, not outcomes. Talk to the employers that hire the private sector IHE graduates -- they hire, they have been hiring for a long time, they will continue to hire. Private sector institutions have a better business model, do a better job and get slammed for it - based on the failures of a government-structured education system which is being left behind in a rapidly changing world.

Thank you 11274135 for speaking from experience because Lord knows as you state the faculties are the key component to the for-profit or the not-for profit institutions. Which means that when the programs are cookie cutter and the faculty are enacting scripted curricula faculty must become a member of the institutional governing body and should provide oversight to the authenticity of the program to deliver the proper message. Failure to perform this necessary step is where the breakdown takes place. Thus the students which were described as products in an earlier post receives a not so stellar service and is not capable of representing themselves professionally or obtaining the goals and objectives that they originally had dreamed of for themselves. The rigor of a program is dependent upon the academic integrity and loyalty of the administration to do the right thing. To dig ones heels into the ground and not come up until the right fits are found when it comes to hiring faculty, staff and administration can be daunting, however in the end the work does pay off for itself. The word of mouth advertisement is the “proof in the pudding”.

Let's all take a deep cleansing breath and ratchet back the invective. It's not particularly constructive.

Can we agree that there are better and worse institutions of all tax statuses? I hope so. It's not a black and white issue, we all have strengths and weaknesses.

I think we all know in our hearts that students of both non-profit and for-profit schools are borrowing too much money. That is the problem that needs solving. It is cynical to pretend that student debt is the issue if we only address the debt burden of the 10% of the nation's students who attend for-profits while ignoring the other 90%.

I have many, many friends and colleagues in both kinds of schools. For the most part we all work very hard and take pride in serving students and society.

Thank you, 11274135, for the reminder about the important role of the faculty. I have taught in both for-profit and non-profit institutions. THE major difference is the treatment of the faculty.

Admissions is the heart and soul of the institution in the for-profit world. Admissions reps are all full-time, receive much better compensation than faculty, and have institutional support for professional development.

Faculty, meanwhile, are seen as the least important cog in the machine. There is a very prevalent disdain for faculty in for-profit colleges. Faculty, after all, don't put "a**es in classes." As such, they are thought to deserve no job security, very little pay, and appalling working conditions.

It's probably just a matter of time before the for-profits do away with faculty altogether.

For a group of accomplished and intelligent people, I am amazed at what many of your responses focuses on. Anyone care to comment upon how a for-profit approach has changed our defense budget? How about the many problems that have arisen in a for-profit approach to pharmaceutical use worldwide? For-profit education, healthcare and environmental clean up? When new markets have to be open because the old ones don't work, this points to failures both within and outside the system. Of course, the within system problems get trumpted for change, but what is less visible are the outside forces corrupting the system for new changes. We witness all sorts of harnessed complicity to sell the NEW and dispose of the old (see Robert Tucker)using words like innovation, efficiency, impact factors and entrepreneurship as academic sustitutes for replacing compartments of decay with new invigorated free-market essentialism....

So, when I read an article like this, I would expect a few people to maybe,,, challenge some of the assumptions here?????

"there is no price bubble, as there was in the subprime-mortgage crisis."

The hyperinflation of tuition costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition)

The generational implications of debt for diploma while the larger economy sheds jobs through outsourcing practices within and outside the university (http://archive.demos.org/pubs/Generation%20Debt%20Real%20Change%20News%203.29.06.pdf)

Cheaper and less educated workforce within undergraduate education
etc.

The history of Neoliberal Economics & Asset Bubbles in the Southern Cone of Latin America, Russia and Eastern Europe, US during the last 30 years and Western Europe... suggests that policies of for-profit universalism in all sectors of an economy work to aggregate capital among those who already benefit from its leverage while systematically gutting responsibilities to social safety net (education, retirement, and healthcare) called de-leveraging. This creates a system where wealth disparities are maintained and augmented.

For those who understand, are willing to replicate and sell the NEW: they profit and ascend professionally. For those not apart of the narrative or unwilling to throw out the OLD, they become marginalized forms of labor. To miss this narrative, is to miss how easily a for-profit system divides intelligent people into individualized little engines of petty self-interest and productivity.... So, this article really captures the out with OLD and in with the NEW narrative that disciplines future contexts and directions.... Higher education is a bubble precisely because it is adopting those policies that create bubble tendencies....

Not all for-profits are diploma mills waiting to pounce on and exploit the American public. Further, it would be naive to believe that they alone as a sector have cornered the market on low quality and corruption. All sectors have their "diploma mill" institutions -- all sectors have their high quality institutions that challenge and create programs with academic rigor as well. From personal experience working at a for-profit, I can tell you that many faculty work at both non-profits and for-profits simulataneously (economic times are tough for all), teaching the same courses at both institutions, using the same syllabi, same tests, and requiring the same textbooks and out of classroom workload -- no difference in academic rigor required. Thus, if their courses at the for-profit institution are "dumbed down" and a "joke", than they are the same at the public or private institution.

No institution - regardless of sector affiliation - will survive long-term if it does not graduate students with marketable skills that allow them to successfully transition into gainful employment; people are not going to assume the kind of debt that ALL postsecondary institutions "require" if there is not a reasonable outcome in the form of employment. Word spreads, the market "corrects" - we are all subject to the forces of capitalism eventually, regardless of sector.

Further, for-profits exist because they serve a public and societal need that is not being met by the other sectors (namely, high-risk students with multiple challenges, typically hailing from low socio-economic circumstances and typically minorities and non-traditional/adult populations). If the other sectors want to stifle, limit or eliminate the proprietary sector, then respond appropriately by addressing the issues of these populations. This will mean adding education delivery systems and becoming more flexible -- e.g., night and weekend programs, child-care, distance learning, etc. If they aren't willing to change or accommodate the contemporary realities of our society, then they have no right to complain that another sector has formed and is growing by doing just that. Again, market forces at work.

There is no doubt that regulation/oversight is needed to eliminate abuses. Due to the population they serve, the proprietary sector receives a huge amount of Pell funding and students with other forms of government aid, and certainly when money gets to the numbers they are receiving, the temptation for corruption increases. However, let us also not forget that this sector largely serves an underserved and overlooked population of Americans that deserve the right to have a shot at an education and a better future. A better educated population helps society overall. Are the publics and non-profits willing to step in and educate these students if the prop schools disappear? Let's face it, the answer is no.

Throughout history, entrepreneurs have prospered by making profits. Why not "higher" education? When parents send their offspring to college most say they expect preparation for the "real world," yet far too many demand all the comforts of home and all the coddling their darlings want. When adults in need or real desire of further learning avail themselves of accredited for-profit institutions, many of them online and planned with serious learners in mind, they are investing in education rather than in boats, autos, vacations, etc.

What's wrong with that? Could it be that traditional institutions are afraid of the competition? Could it be that they honestly believe that traditional delivery systems are better than non-traditional models? That sitting in (or skipping and using somebody else's notes for) classes while texting or otherwise non-participating is somehow inherently better than self-paced learning one pays for oneself?

Many in the for-profit sector welcome regulation. For the institutions that are responsible and accountable, it weeds out the trash. The problem with this particular issue is that it puts an unreasonable burden on the students after they graduate. The requirement is that they be able to pay back all of their loans in 10 years with nor more than 8% of their salary. That means if you have $40,000 in student loans (not unusual at any institution these days), you have to pay back $4000 per year. That means a starting salary of $50000 per year. Need I say more? What do first year teachers earn in your area?

The wall street analogy is a separate issue. When an education company is publicly traded, they are beholden to the stockholders before the students and that is an absolute conflict of interest. That is what reguloators should be looking at, because that is where the bubble is, not in tuition.

OK, now they're calling them "career colleges" instead of "for profits." Whatever. All these comments are the same pro and con arguments that we have all heard again and again. Much of it is anecdotal. There really isn't a lot of hard evidence to support or refute either supportors or detractors. So, why would the "education industry" not want closer scrutiny? Why do they even have a lobbyist? Who lobbies on behalf of public education? Anyone? Anyone? The bottom line that I think ideologues on both extremes of the political spectrum can agree on- if it's taxpayer money, we want some accountability. Show us the facts. Prove our money is being well spent. Prove that your advertising claims have some grounding in reality.

Read the report yourselves:
http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/For-Profit%20Emerging%20Risk%20Report1.pdf

Adults acting like my kiddoes. Silly.

I agree with prof_truthteller. The facts should speak for themselves and then decisions should be made and enforced.

BTW, I am a certified public school teacher in the state of Texas at Ysleta MS, a part time BCIS instructor at El Paso Community College, and Marketing Director (and partner) for www.dlastudios.com. We are a start-up with less than 6 months behind us but have been consistently achieving greater success as the months go by. I completed both my BS and MBA at the University of Phoenix. Not only do I teach how to be successful in academia and business, I walk the talk.

Bam! How about those apples!!

As a successful Phoenix, or vocational college graduate, or entrepreneur, or whatever will tell you its not the pedigree, or lack thereof, to obtain "gainful employment" it's called HARD WORK. I've gotten mine. Get yours.

"Who lobbies on behalf of public education? Anyone? Anyone?"

AASCU, APLU, AACC.....................everybody has a lobbyist these days.

It has already been said, but I believe it bears repeating - if government decides to impose legislation regarding the debts incurred by a student in relation to their potential earnings, that rule needs to be applied to all institutions of higher learning receiving any sort of federal funding (be that in the form of student loans, or tax subsidies that lower tuition costs). The dollars paid by taxpayers to subsidize those tution costs need to be taken into account when figuring that debt burden. It is more than unfair to use the same rubrik to evaluate the debt burden of student graduating from a state university whose tuition (and debt) is 1/3 of what it would be without those government subsidies. It's all taxpayer cost - be that in the form of subsidizing lower tuition costs or Pell grants.

I work for a small, privately-owned for-profit college. Our graduates average over 90% placement in their field of study. Our graduation rate is more than double the state average for associate degree programs, and higher than the state average for four-year programs. Our accrediation agency requires that we maintain at least 70% placement in order to stay accredited. I received my education from a large, top-20 ranked private university. I have never had any assistance from a career services department, nor have never had any contact from said department to determine whether or not I have been employed in my field of study (which I am not). Students now attending my alma mater need to come up with roughly $200,000 for their bachelor degree (which is well over double the cost when I enrolled less than 20 years ago). Many of my classmates graduated with large amounts of debt and undergraduate degrees with little or no practical value (philosophy, theology, English Literature, Art History, etc.) Even those who graduate with science degrees have little or no chance of meeting the 8% rule that is being considered - an undergraduate degree in science is basically just half your application to grad or med school.

Schools like ours - ethical, rigorous, award-winning schools that do a great job preparing students for a career - are being unfairly lumped in with the schools that many of you are rightfully calling "diploma mills." Any proposed new regulations that don't make exceptions for institutions like ours are not helping anyone - tax payers included.

The liberal arts are the core of higher education. Yes, we want our graduates to get jobs, yes, we prepare students for various careers, but our mission is better, more educated citizens, not job training. I think it is great that these for-profits are engaged in job training, but they should not be called colleges or universities. Find another name.

@ lizziac

What a well-written post. I envy your ability to express yourself and I totally agree with you. Let me repeat what was said by her about the executive form a for-profit school who testifed: "His sector makes billions convincing people that they can log in and post unintelligible statements on a discussion board once or twice a week, buy a textbook that they never have to read and turn on a video to play in the background while they watch TV to earn a degree that will translate into a career for them, where they will make more money. The students considering these for-profit programs ought to be introduced to my grandmother who often said what other grandmothers say: if it sounds too good to be true,...it probably is.

Real education is hard work, inconvenient (yes, I said inconvenient; it's not served in a fast food container that you pick up through a drive-thru), and requires that a certain level of academic hard work take place beforehand (i.e. K-12 or remedial pre-college work)." ......

Very well said. I will say again, yes, as far as I can see ALL for-profit schools are basically trash, and ALL online programs and online classes are simiply not real. They are not real school, we don't know who is doing the work, they give credit for "stupid stuff" like discussion posting, and they are all about convenience with no real teaching whatsoever. I say they all need and asterisk. Any any online degree should be required to be identified as such by law. It is not real education.

@11280066 -

I wonder what response you would receive if you told students at a traditional college or university that they weren't there to get training in order to get a better job. Just tell them "you know those loans you took out and that debt you incurred - that was just so you could get an education in order to make you a better person. We aren't here to train you for a job." I don't imagine you'd get a very positive response.

Regardless of what you claim the mission is for higher education, 99% of the students who enroll in college do so because they think it will give them a better chance at getting the job in the field of study they are pursuing. Do you really think that people incur tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt just because they want to be more well-rounded individuals?

@softshellcrab -

As far as you can see, ALL for-profit schools may basically be trash, but you can't see very far. There are many for-profit colleges who do a better job educating their students than traditional colleges. Our graduates win more awards, get better jobs and receive better feedback from their employers than the graduates of any other program with a similar course of study (public, private, non-profit or for-profit) in our area. Graduates of our two-year program regularly beat out graduates of two local, nationally renowned four year bachelor programs when applying for the same position.

We may be one of the exceptions, but we do exist, and we prove that the model can work when run by the right people with the right intentions.

Why does everything have to turn into such a major issue when SIMPLE solutions would work much better? Concerns about quality instruction or course content should be addressed with accreditation standards. Private institutions, career colleges, or "for profits" should only be allowed to receive state and federal financial aid funds IF accredited. To ensure an increased graduation rate, and therefore a substantially better chance that loans will be repaid, state and federal financial aid funds should only be given to those students who maintain a set minimum GPA. Why should anyone who has a finanacial need be automatically given funds? Finanacial need + effort shown through grades = SUCCESS!!!

I will simply note that Mr. Miller's statements have zero semantic content. They are argument by assertion, period.

Neo-this, neo-that, neo-theotherthing. Anything new to say?

I am not sure if anyone will read this still at this point, where it may be in the discussion, but if you do I ask that you read it in its entirety.

I work at a for-profit so please do not let that jade an opinion, only that I have experienced what I will say. Many articles have made good points, some have over-simplified the situation or pigeon-holed all institutions into one or two categories.

I first attended college at a public university right out of high school. I would have had a degree had I not been unfocused. I was able to come back and complete my degree, and it would not have been possible had I not used the for-profit model (I started the program before I even started to work at one, much less consider working for one).

I think for-profits have advantages in that a person can go to college and work full time and earn a degree in a comprable time to what you would going full time at a public university. I think the cost is expensive, and I think you pay for the convenience. If public schools could ever accept the same model of short courses over a period of time instead of four or more course over 15 weeks, then they could probably kill the for-profit sector because the cost would be much less (ideally). I attended a summer school session at the public university where I completed 12 credits. Why can that not be done more often? Why can't you take one class at a time over 5 - 6 weeks, one at a time?

As far as "quality" the textbooks we used at the for-profit were the same books you would use at public schools. I unfortunately did not take the same program with the for-profit so I cannot make a direct comparison of curriculums, but I did compare materials to what is used. The homework I would do was legitimate. Could you fake it? Some things maybe, I never did, but I have seen people fake it in public school too. Were all the instructors the same at the for-profit? No, some were easier than others, though I have seen that in public schools. Could have some instructors done more, certainly. My degree was accounting so my litmus test will be the CPA exam, though I am not sure if that is exact proof since everyone requires additional study in order to pass.

One advantage public schools do have is connections with the outside world. Your advisor generally had experience in the field of study and was a professor. Not to say the instructors at the for-profits do not connections, only they were not your advisors and did not offer job assistance(and I cannot speak for all for-profits). I never asked, however. I was also employed so I did not need to find a new job and I think that is often the case with some for-profits. The downside to the for profits is the advisor may not have any experience in the field and is probably not a teacher. They do not have the same networking I think. But they offer the flexibility brick and mortar colleges do not.

As far as comments about enrolling students who are not fit for college: Does this happen? Yes, it does, but that is not the intention or goal. Students who rack up debt and cannot pay, are just as bad as the for-profits because the balance becomes bad debt and reduction in profits. Anyone would tell you they do not want to enroll students who cannot complete a program. I would say one reason is it is not profitable. A company would make more off someone completing 60 credits rather than 12. I do think the pressure to enroll new students does affect people who get in, but sales is sales everywhere, whether it is recruiting, electronics, or enrollments. I know some people make sure they make quality sales, but some do not care as much.

Onto the profit issue, do the goals of offering degrees to everyone and making a profit walk hand-in-hand? There is a point where the goals diverge. You can restrict enrollment by standardized tests or other measures like public schools, but then you limit your profits. If you allow more people to come to school, you can make more money, but then you take on more risk.

That is an issue people have, the risk. If someone offers a carrot and someone takes it, then the taker must comply with any conditions the carrot giver has. The government has a right to be concerned about money it gives for a purpose. Is there waste and abuse, possibly, but it is not limited to for-profits. Is it wasteful for a person to go to a community college for $1,200 a semester and receive 2,365 in Pell with a $1,165 credit balance check each semester? I think so, but there is no focus of this on the whole sector. Now at least the Pell pays for the entire year, whereas it may only pay for a couple of classes at a for-profit. The for-profits do take more aid partially because the volume and partially the cost so there is legitimate concern.

Are the for-profits demons, no. Do some consider them a threat, yes. Do all offer quality education, not sure, but I know several that make sure they do. Is it worth the cost, some people think so because they pay the price. Will everyone have a degree, probably not. Consider this, if everyone does have one, what is it worth then? People will always create differentiation markers, whether it is money, ability, etc. There is a more fundamental issue of trying to equalize an unequal world.

I did read your whole posting ramses. Long! Each and every for-profit school out there is a fake school. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. They are all about retaining students and keeping the money coming, and nothing about standards or rigor. And every online class, with which the for-profits are in love, are also not real. I don't want to hear that someone worked hard and did their own work. Great for whoever did. In the on campus classes in my department, we require students to work hard. We require them to take closed book exams, mandatory attendance, extra work that they cannot cheat at because the answers are not out there. In our core courses we have many classes with class gpa's in the 2.0 range, and where a third or more of the class drops out or gets a D or F. It is all about "just say no", "you did not do well enough so you fail". Or "yes, you attended all sessions, you took the tests and turned all work in. But you did poorly on the tests and graded items and you get an F". The for profits will never, never say "no", because they want the students' money. Please spare me the bologna trying to claim otherwise. At my school we will pass on their money, or having them as a major, because we prefer instead to only graduate quality graduates who know their stuff. And we in fact DO flunk a number of our majors out of our program. In any (purely) online class, if the teachers don't know who is doing the work, or taking the tests, and they grant points for silly things like discussion postings and homework (which would be a good idea, except the solutions are all available for purchase on the internet) and of course all tests are open book without knowing who actually takes them, then don't - and I mean for God's sake don't - tell me it is real school. It is, it must be, fake school. It's all just pretend.

@softshellcrab,

Why don't you quit hiding behind you cloak of anonymity so we can check out the many empirical claims you make about yourself and your institution.

It is abundantly clear that you have neither conceptual sophistication (your concept of 'fake' makes a case study for philosophy of language 301) nor even primitive knowledge of the industry (are you aware that the typical B/E is course 3.5; do you even know that this means? how much of your own money will you put up against your claim that for-profits never flunk anyone? I flunked quite a few people years ago when I taught at one).

Increasingly, I am guessing that you are not a professor at all, softshell. Do you have the integrity to stand behind your own persona when you insult sincere and constructive people, such as ramses, who work hard to be objective. Or are you 'fake'?

- Robert W Tucker

I work as an admissions recruiter at one of these for-profit colleges. Working here has made me realize there is a big need for adult distance education. There are many adults who need to venture outside of the traditional brick and mortar universities to receive education. I hear constant stories of situations where life happens and now they're too old to go to their local campus or the need to work full time to support their family. So I do understand their is going to me a market for distance education, especially in this rapidly globalized society. The accessibility of these for-profit schools are great. If you have a high school degree, and you're qualified for title IV funds, you can come and take classes. The flexibility makes sense and it really can work for millions of adults.

Herein lies the problems of some of the for-profit schools. It's easy to get anyone into these universities. With that comes aggressive recruiting from the "bad apples". I'm talking, straight out "Wall Street" or "Boiler Room" sales environment. We have a performance review that can triple your starting salary in a year. Cheap leads are being bought from internet pop-ups who confuse people to fill out questionnaire. Then we call them five-six times a day until we can talk them into enrolling. Or we'll get leads for people looking for short-term career training, and we talk them into taking 40 grand in loans to finance their four year degree they were never looking for.

The thing is, graduation rate isn't important. It's the "active population" (no joke, that's what we call our students) that's important. You see if we have 100,000 students, it doesn't matter if they graduate. I mean if they do, great!! But that's not what the "bad apples" for profit-schools are about. If we lose ten thousand students one month, just enroll another ten thousand.

Here's another problem. Some of theses students I enroll, jump from for-profit school to for-profit school. They're unemployed so they get the full Pell grant of $5,350 and then borrow the maximum amount in loans. They take a couple classes so they can get their financial aid stipend check, cash it out and then drop out after three classes so they're still in good standing. Then next year they enroll at another one and do the same thing.

When I get one of those leads, I know it's automatic.... I'm getting an enrollment application, which means money for me, and money for the students. This one student I tried to enroll had five different online colleges in five years on her application. She didn't qualify for financial aid because she was maxed out. She's completed 20 semester credits in her previous five years. Here's the kicker, she's 67 years old. Do you really think she ever planned on paying back these loans?

It's pretty comical really, everyone's playing the system. I read some of these comments from people work at these for-profit schools, and they're drinking their companies kool-aid. We call it "changing lives" so people buy in. Really, we're "changing" their lives for the worst. We're riddling them in debt with enormous tuition costs for degrees that they won't get jobs with. To those who think that we're charging them true tuition costs, do some more research on the "bad apples," about 5-10 percent go to anything related to education. The rest goes to market the schools, pay the executives and investors very handsomely, buy all the leads, and pays for the recruiters like myself to call these leads five times a day. I did mention the executives and investors are getting paid handsomely right? And because the executives know they're morally corrupt, they spend millions in their local cities to make them look good so they have good publicity. The one I work fore the CEO made over 20 million in stock options for his bonus. Hmmmmm that sounds like a wall street exec type bonus to me.

But I'm happy here. I know it's a business. I get paid well because I'm good at what I do. I target the lower income states and lower income area codes. After a while, you know which area codes mean poor people. They're the suckers. I just paint a picture about how they'll get money coming back. I mean you, the taxpayers money, cause most these students are on welfare and don't pay taxes. We tell them just press apply now and I'll waive your application fee and give you free books and you'll get money and you could get your degree. Sounds nice, doesn't it? It's who we target because we have numbers to hit every week and every month. I did mention it's "Boiler Room" here, right? Just today, I spent three hours to help a completely illiterate computer user to create an email address, and complete an online application for enrollment, for a degree in business infosystems. He said he liked technology. I guarantee you he doesn't make it past his second class. But guess what... I was celebrated for that. Cheers, claps, whoot and hollering, a high-five from my manager and a good job email from my director. This, for my persistence, to get a near retard, into college.

The system is broke. But we're going to pay lobbyists, good job guys!!!! (A third of these comments are from the lobbyists) to make sure the Republicans stop the Democrats from real crackdown. So expect a lot of posturing, but nothing's going to happen. Because there's a lot of money going around.

Keeping it real,
Ashfordrecruiter

To think that public and private universities have no interest in profit is incredibly ludicrous. I had more than one professor declare the "core curriculum", at the state university I attended, as the university's "profit motive". To require engineering students coursework well outside the focus of their chosen field is, what, exactly? Do you really think that private and public universities have a "societal" interest in graduating "renaissance" students? Give me a break. Requiring students to achieve a specific number of credit hours in foreign languages, liberal arts coursework, math, science, and the like, when it is not associated with the field they have chosen, is what? It's not bringing the universities profit when a student could easily scale back the number of semester hours required (tuition), to complete their degree.

With regards to the for-profit colleges, there are numerous accrediting agencies that hold each institution accountable in that regard. As far as the guidelines are concerned, I know of several hundreds of law schools that would lose accreditation based on the fact they cannot effectively place 75% of their graduates as "gainfully employed" in the area of their training. But at least they would be able to define Bohr's Law.

There are some schools that get it, and, unfortunately, there are some that take it. It takes a lot of work and sacrifice to have integrity. A great many of us could argue that welfare "changes lives", unfortunately it's a program ripe for abuse. Apparently the phrase, "A few bad apples...", comes into play here. But to make blanket claims and accusations is irresponsible and lazy.

KEM

From "Ashfordrecruiter"'s description, it sounds an awful lot like University of Phoenix. With their 4% graduation rate, UoP is the world leader in victimizing students. The family that founded this system to rip off the government an destroy potential student's hopes has grown rich.

There are two major areas of problems with online schools.
A. Schools that deliberately recruit students in order to take their money and not even try to give them an education. (UoP is the largest, most egregious offender.) Based on the record of Wayne State, many of those recruits could succeed if the school actually cared to try to educate them.
B. Schools that pretend to educate their students and graduate them without having fulfilled even a high school level of education.

I know from experience with students that some students come through online schools with excellent educations, really quite impressive. I don't have a valid statistical sampling, but that has been my experience. I also know that others come through with nothing, and given the dominance of UoP in the for-profit sector I find it hard to imagine that it is plausible to think that coming through with nothing, or worse than nothing, is the norm.

The thing that really makes me furious about some of the for-profit schools (and I believe for the majority of students in them) is that these schools aren't even trying to be educators.

To con people that are ignorant in the guise of pretending to be a real school is the worst sort of mental rape. Those people are revolting and deserve to be stripped of everything they have and go to prison for a long, long time.

There are also many non-profit institutions that provide poor quality education and have fraudulently used federal money. Accreditors such as Middle States need to be scrutinized and investigated. When site visitors visited the institution where I work, after they passed the university with flying colors, two of the site visitors expressed their desire to apply for work at the university (one may have actually applied). Also, another site visitor from another accreditation agency openly discussed his desire to work at the university during a summation of their visit on that same day. This type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and should be illegal. It reeks of corruption. Site visitors are supposed to be non-biased and should not be allowed to make such comments during site visits. The university operates as a for-profit, where 99% of students (who are extremely deficient in oral and written communication) pass with all A's and have a 4.0 GPA. Many underachieving students accumulate a high debt but continue to get a second or third degree (borrowing more loans to pay for luxury items such as cars, jewelry, etc. rather than a quality education) at the same institution in order to avoid paying off their loans. Higher education, both for-profit and non-profit needs to be reformed.
In terms of comment #44, the non-profit where I work also engages in such practices. We also have a lot of older students in their 60's who will never really pay off their loans. At many colleges/universities, both the school and students are to blame (the school for engaging in unethical practices and the students who want to "game the system" because many are aware that with the new loan forgiveness program their massive debt will be forgiven after 10 years). Even when students are advised not to take out a massive debt, they ignore the advice because they know they can get away with not paying.
Over the years, I have read repetitious articles from the Chronicle regarding poor quality education and lack of standards from accreditors. It has become nothing but tiresome, incessant blathering. As long as there are lobbyists bending the ear of congress members, nothing will change. As the recruiter from comment #44 stated: " So expect a lot of posturing, but nothing's going to happen. Because there's a lot of money going around."

24/7 Wall St. lists Apollo Group among top fifty least trustworthy companies in America: http://bit.ly/bh7qM1

To Ashfordrecruiter and lizziec: For the very reasons you've described, congress needs to amend Title IV to limit student loan borrowing to direct cost. Students max out when they jump from school to school, attend part time or online while borrowing the max term after term for "living expenses" (e.g a graduate student who borrows $90K for a $38,000 program is common). How can someone legitimately claim to incur additional living expeneses if they attend online or after work hours? This alone would cut out the refund shoppers and vastly reduce the overburdening debt students take on.

Everybody who has actually worked within both N-P and F-P universities please raise your hands. Now, those with experience in both settings please identify a glaring difference...me, me, me! Yes, Billy do you have a difference? How about college sports? How much money, time, facilities, faculty(seen a Big 10 coaches' salary lately compared to the President of a F-P university?)is spent on fielding college/university sports teams by N-Ps? How much corruption/violations continue to occur where students are enrolled, promoted, exploited, injured and graduated for their physical agilities and collateral academic inabilities? AND, have you ever observed the universities best and brightest students who populate the "grand" stands at these events? Is this not the marketing ploy used by many N-P colleges/universities to attract alumni influence peddling, recruit questionable students, and sell sports "products" to the major networks??? Maybe the University of Phoenix will field their team-The U of P Phantoms (a virtual sports program) playing in the Internet Western Conference.....