• August 28, 2015

Loan-Default Rate at For-Profit Colleges Would Double Under New Formula

Data released by the Department of Education today show that while the official loan-default rate for students of for-profit colleges who entered repayment in 2008 was 11.6 percent, the rate would be more than double that, or 25 percent, under a stricter measurement standard that begins to take effect next year.

Under the new standard, colleges will have to track borrowers for three years once they begin repaying their student loans, instead of the two-year window that's in place now.

Colleges whose default rates are too high over several years can lose eligibility to participate in the federal student-aid programs.

Congress changed the measurement period in 2008 in response to concerns that the two-year rate didn't adequately capture the depth of the loan-default problem, because colleges and loan companies could use "default management" techniques to push many borrowers with repayment problems beyond the two-year window.

The new data follow the department's release a little over a year ago of "trial" three-year rates for students who entered repayment in 2007. As before, the department said it was providing the trial data for 2008 for  informational purposes only, so colleges would have an idea of trends that could affect their eligibility for federal student aid.

In the aggregate, rates for public and private nonprofit colleges also rose, but not by as much. (See table below.)

According to the department's figures, of the nearly 3.4 million students entering repayment status in 2008, 466,000 would be considered in default under the three-year measurement, while just under 239,000 were in default under the two-year calculation. About 222,000 of the defaulters in the three-year calculation attended for-profit colleges, 186,000 attended public colleges, and about 58,000 attended private nonprofit colleges.

Under the two-year measure, for-profit-college students account for about 43 percent of all loan defaults in the 2008 cohort; under the three-year measure, they would account for 47 percent.

Unlike the official default-rate numbers, which colleges can appeal before they are considered final, the three-year calculations released today are informational only, and department officials warned that in some cases, they may not be accurate.

Under the current rules, colleges with two-year default rates of 25 percent or greater for three consecutive years can lose eligibility for federal student aid, a particular concern among for-profit colleges where such aid is a lifeblood. Under the new rule, colleges with three-year default rates of 30 percent or higher for three consecutive years could lose eligibility.

According to the newly released data, nearly 200 degree-granting colleges, most of them for-profit institutions, had three-year rates of 30 percent or greater for students who entered repayment in 2008. (See table with sortable data.) More than 40 of those colleges had rates above 40 percent.

Once the new law takes effect, if a college's default rate goes above 40 percent for any single year, it also would lose eligibility. At least 15 of the institutions with rates above 30 percent, mostly operating under the Everest brand, were institutions owned by Corinthian Colleges Inc., a California-based company that had as recently as this week boasted to stock analysts about its success in reducing loan defaults.

For-profit college officials have long maintained that their students default at higher rates because they are generally poorer, and face many more life challenges, than the college-going population at large.

In recent weeks, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the trade association for the sector, has also suggested that a mishandling of some loan portfolios by the Department of Education has created communication mix-ups for some borrowers, which could be contributing to higher rates of default.

In a briefing with reporters Thursday, department officials said loan-servicing issues did not have a significant effect on the rates.

The data released today do not have a direct connection with the loan-repayment rates the department has proposed using as a cutoff measure as part of its controversial "gainful employment" rule. But with for-profit colleges lobbying feverishly against the gainful-employment proposal, department officials suggested in their briefing that the significantly higher default rates among for-profit colleges indicate that some of them pose bigger problems than other types of institutions.

Alex Richards contributed to this article.

Default Rates Grow With Use of 3-Year Window
  Official 2008 fiscal year, 2-year window Trial 2008 fiscal year, 3-year window
  Default rate Borrowers in repayment status Default rate Borrowers in repayment status
Public 6.0% 1,720,664 10.8% 1,721,050
Less than 2-year 6.7% 7,736 14.7% 7,621
2- to 3-year 10.1% 487,436 17.9% 485,038
4-year or more 4.4% 1,225,492 7.9% 1,228,391
Private 4.0% 761,129 7.6% 759,938
Less than 2-year 14.1% 3,794 26.1% 3,783
2- to 3-year 8.2% 14,157 16.7% 14,000
4-year or more 3.8% 743,178 7.3% 742,155
Proprietary 11.6% 889,034 25.0% 887,682
Less than 2-year 12.4% 123,454 27.6% 122,647
2- to 3-year 12.6% 272,215 27.9% 272,299
4-year or more 10.9% 493,365 22.7% 492,736
Total 7.0%* 6,741,654 13.8%* 6,737,340
* Includes foreign and unclassified institutions not listed separately.
Source: U.S. Department of Education

Correction (2/4, 4:05 p.m.): Because of erroneous data provided by the Education Department, the overall official two-year default rate for the 2008 fiscal year was incorrectly listed in the table. The correct rate was 7.0 percent, not 6.7 percent, and the table has been changed to reflect that.


1. feudi - February 04, 2011 at 08:02 am

The proof is in the numbers. For profit schools do not produce gainfully employed students at the same rates as not for profit schools. With a $14 Trillion dollar national debt, we must slash all ineffective public funding. The Republicans would do well to back off in their attemtps to undermine gainful employment rules. It makes them look fiscally irresponsible which, given the past ten years, was surely the truth.

2. saasaa - February 04, 2011 at 10:31 am

feudi - I am happy to see that your crystal ball is working. I am with a proprietary school and I can prove to you that not all proprietary schools are painted with the same brush. I know of more not-for-profit and public schools that have higher default rates and non-existent placement rates than ours. Based on "the proof in the numbers," I can provide a list of dozens of schools that need to be closed based upon poor performance. Do not be so harsh to judge all by the covers of some.

3. balthazar - February 04, 2011 at 10:38 am

I am appalled a the lack of wisdom being applied to this new hose job assault on education and FA. All under the guise of doing humanity a favor. Fulfilling unreachable pipe dreams led to thousands of signatures on loans for houses that would never be paid for. Same with the education pipe dream--signatures to release the money baby. The government needs to get wise to the schemes of our nations heroic bilkers. Either set up a federal"on-line" educational system that serves the interest of tax payers or make the "for-profit" FA suction machines show due diligence by producing a result before taking payment. This would obviously not work because the reality of the situation would set in. That reality? There is not a work field for the educated poor to just walk into, at least not until I become president. So, there probably never will be, so get back to the grills and trash trucks. Obama's idea of an educated America is nice, and the poor obviously have listened--which is a good thing. It can help in improving mannerism and etiquette if anything. Higher education should be free to the poor anyway, and as I said it will be beneficial in the long run even if it is just a tremendous reduction of crime, where there is not enough money in the world to repair. Education must be available just for this basic overall benefit!!

4. softshellcrab - February 04, 2011 at 10:42 am

feudi, where did you get the information that Republicans are trying to undermine or defeat the gainful employment rule proposals? I had not heard that. I am as conservative as anybody, and I fully support those rules and I think that for-profits are simply "fake schools" out to make money with no standards and passing students through to keep their government subsidized tuition money coming in. It seems it is the Democrats who like the for-profits, which tend to be more heavily populated with minorities and lower income people, as the article above notes. It is the Democrats who push for lenient loan repayment rules, also. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like the Republicans have been on the other side of this issue.

5. director19 - February 04, 2011 at 11:53 am

The problem here, folks, is that you cannot compare colleges & Universities to for-profits. They deal with completely different segments of society and are funded in very different ways.

Traditional colleges are just not set up to handle for profit students. They need far more one-on-one instruction. large classes spell disaster. Why? That's a whole different rant.

For-profits, for the most part, help many people get their lives back on track. All of us are not spectacular but neither are all traditional colleges either.

Be careful which brick you use to throw through the window.

6. atana09 - February 04, 2011 at 12:18 pm

The problem is only partially resultant from the proportionally small number of for profit schools which may be collecting loans and not providing a useful education.
For years the edudebt industry has wanted to keep short term tracking of loan defaults because that has hidden the machinations they have produced to make these loans difficult to pay in any reasonable terms, and thus inherently prone to default. A condition which, until recently the lenders could really cash in upon, collecting default remediation payments from the government, collections and etc. Granted these 'default management' tactics were and are rampant abuses of students and their families, but they have been massively profitable to these lenders.
Obama, Duncan et al have made some progress, but in the case of extending the default tracking it is a good thing. However the for profit schools are being labeled as predatory mainly as a means to raise support for some reforms. If Obama, Duncan et al were being more direct the people who'd need to be pilloried are the sectors of the student lending industry who've been ripping off the government, students and families for a generation.
But that would entail illuminating just how perverse the American model of funding higher ed has been, which would also light how many members of congress and the executive branch have been bowing to that dyfunction corruption for too long.

7. henr1055 - February 04, 2011 at 12:41 pm

My colleague teaches English Composition I at University of FEEnix. The students attend 3 hours 1 might per week for 6 weeks. They learn the parts of speech during this time. I learned the parts of speech during grades 6-8. I guess FEEnix is accredited by the Western States regional association. Maybe these Educationologists need to start looking at something instead of student satisfaction, or the self reporting on the NESSEE test where students often claim they have written more than twenty 40 page papers.


8. gsudduth - February 04, 2011 at 01:10 pm

Some very interesting comments, especially henri1055. Makes me smile! I saw Louis Black in a stand - up routine refer to the financial geniuses in Washington is having received their degrees in mathematics from Phoenix University. I think he was probably referring to the same FEEnix as henri1055.

I think it was Charles Bukowski who said' no one suffers like the poor.'

Having worked in both venues I think we should all try to remember that everyone deserves an education. Maybe the question should be, ' who's doing the educating?'

9. 08230010 - February 04, 2011 at 01:42 pm

"For-profit college officials have long maintained that their students default at higher rates because they are generally poorer, and face many more life challenges, than the college-going population at large."

I've never understood that argument. Lending to people who do not and will not have the means to repay is, at best, irresponsible. Such a practice should not be funded by or encouraged by government programs. A loan with little hope of repayment is a grant. It would save everyone a lot of misery if we matched the aid with the need at the outset.

10. kindrickfletcher - February 04, 2011 at 02:01 pm

"For-profit college officials have long maintained that their students default at higher rates because they are generally poorer, and face many more life challenges, than the college-going population at large."

From my experience as a for-profit college admissions advisor this not exactly true. These students may face many more life challenges but are not poorer than the college going population.

Now the higher default rate can be associated with the admissions practices at for-profit colleges. Admissions managers threaten advisors jobs to get them to meet and exceed for-profit enrollment and start goals. If the advisor builds the dream good enough the student will find a way to enroll.

Another big factor in the for-profit's higher default rate falls on the financial aid options. At for-profit colleges a student gets FAFSA and a lender option for sub and unsub loans and maybe a student cash payment agreement all depending on their credit score or co-signer. Compared to the abundance of payment options a student can get at a non-profit college.

A for-profit associate degree is not cheap and its estimated to be $35,000 and can be completed in 1 and a half-2 years. If you look at your local non-profit college you may find the cost to be lower. Also a student can get more payment options to help cover college cost.

To conclude this comment for-profit colleges have grew so fast in the past ten years by enrolling anything that has a pulse. Out of all these students there are the success stories and achievers. For-profit students default at a higher rate because most of these students fall under the gainful employment rule and are not getting the return on there investment in their degree due to the legitimacy of their education. They just could not afford it plain and simple because the cost at for-profit is expensive compared to non-profit.

11. goxewu - February 04, 2011 at 02:20 pm

Softshellcrab is not "as conservative as anybody" on these threads. Softshell's achilles heel insofar as conservatism is concerned is a certain reasonableness. He's got a long way to go to catch up with the likes of livefreeordie2 as a red-meat conservative.

That Republicans (though not all) "are trying to undermine or defeat the gainful employment rule proposals" should not, however, come as a suprise to softshell or anybody else--conservative, liberal, or in The Rent's Too Damned High Party. Republicans believe in free enterprise, that the market sorts things out, that Big Government is harmful, and that overregulating the free market is one of the most harmful things that Big Government does. So, Republicans don't like Big Government over-regulating free-enterprise for-profit schools.

But the howler on this thread is kindrickfletcher's "...for-profit colleges have grew so fast in the past ten years..." That ain't no typo, folks, and it ain't no solecism, either. Kindrickfletcher must have taken henri1055's colleague's English Composition I class, and flunked it.

12. navydad - February 04, 2011 at 03:17 pm

I've come to the conclusion that some enterprises are not suited to a for profit model. Education is one and insurance is another.

13. feudi - February 04, 2011 at 03:29 pm

A poster asked why I thought the Republicans were against gainful employment reules. Here's the position of Virgina Foxx, who heads the Education Committee in the House: Foxx recognizes the need to hold institutions that receive federal aid accountable, but said that she is not certain that the proposed gainful employment rule makes sense. She also suggested that it might make more sense to apply the rule to both nonprofit and for-profit institutions.

14. feudi - February 04, 2011 at 03:33 pm

Should we be spending taxpayer money on massage therapy schools? Cosmetology schools? Law schools? Biz Skoolz? I'm glad we have these schools nut I'm not sure the public should be footing the bill for them for as mush as 90% of their revenue.

15. jdoylesan - February 04, 2011 at 03:43 pm

The point of this article and it's related "statistics" is the tax payer burden for defaulted student loans, with for-profit students apparently costing tax payers more than their fair share. If this is truly our main concern, then the presentation of these statistics in no way depict reality.

In reality, tax payers fund each and every public university student to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. In California, the number is close to $7,000 per UC or CSU student per year with California tax payer dollars. Now multiply that by the 5 years it takes most students to get through the system. Now, multiply that by the attrition rate. Add the cost of the university infrastructure that is paid for with a separate pot of long-term debt paid for by tax payers. Add the additional tax payer obligation to university employee pensions. Finally add the cost of their students' defaulted loans, which occurs in far greater numbers than with for-profit students. You begin to get a true picture of the cost of educating one student to graduation in the public system.

In short, the tax payer cost of for-profit student defaults is a literal drop in the bucket compared to the public college sink hole of endless tax payer obligation.

Lastly, gainful employment upon graduation is a different issue, and one the for-profits can readily demonstrate (with hard data) that they provide significant and positive overall value.

16. seaworthy - February 04, 2011 at 03:49 pm


17. seaworthy - February 04, 2011 at 04:11 pm

UoP, aka Feenix, graduate here. Wow, stereotypes run amok in such a, supposedly, learned environment. My experience with one for-profit institution....all the people in my 2004 undergraduate class were employed and intelligent. Amongst the group was a VP of a multi-national company (3rd largest in that sector), a marketing director for another multi-national company, and a director of human resources for a nation wide company. I was fortunate enough to be teamed with two of those students. The remainder of the class was career oriented, working parents like me, many of whom were being sent to school by their various employers.

I concurrently completed an A.A. in Liberal Arts from the local JC while beginning my studies at UoP. I financed my way through UoP with private student loans. I pay my student loans...on time. I know...shock! Six years post-graduation, I earn an income just shy of six figures and roughly $50,000 more then my pre-undergraduate earnings AND I was able to switch career fields. Huh, go figure. My current position does not require an MBA, yet I went on to earn my MBA from a CSU. Yes, yes, I know, more shock.

The benefit? Smaller class sizes, individual attention, mature students, and experienced teachers and fellow students with whom I could chat about business.

The drawback? Academic snobbery. I work in the SF Bay Area and am surrounded by Stanford, Berkeley, and Davis graduates...sigh.

18. mikpap - February 04, 2011 at 06:14 pm

I agree with seaworthy. I have two degrees, undergrad and MS, from traditional public universities and two degrees, Ed specialist and doctorate, from Argosy U, Sarasota Campus. My classmates included the superintendent of one of the largest school districts in the country, several high ranking Naval officers, principals, counselors and teachers from around the world. The experiences at all of my institutions were about the same. I chose Argosy/Sarasota because of the professors, reputation and their ability to accommodate my schedule. I attended summers and worked 1:1 with profs for a few courses during long semesters. At the time, online courses did not exist. If the program had not been of high quality, I would have left. My dissertation yielded several publications and a book. My major professor was an elected officer with AERA. I borrowed money to earn my doctorate because I was a poor kid who became a teacher. Fortunately, I earned my undergrad degree on scholarships and the state I taught in payed for my masters. I don't think I borrowed any more money than my colleagues who have attended other schools in the Houston area where I now live. I earn a six figure salary as an educator in Texas, consult for a major publisher, teach when time permits at local universities, review for a journal, and serve on the board of directors of a non-profit. Lastly, I would estimate that for every student with a problem at a for-profit, there are many who are satisfied and receiving great educations. The mistake is to not take a closer look at classes at traditional schools. I don't think the for-profit and traditional experiences are all that different. People will continue to attend school at schools that accommodate their schedules. All that being said, I think a distinction has to be made between the large for-profits and vocational and trade programs, just as in the non-profit sector.

19. jkhcpa60 - February 04, 2011 at 09:01 pm

I have held high level management positions at both for-profit and nonprofit institutions of higher education. There are good and bad players in both sectors. In fact, if you want to be honest, there are three sectors - government institutions, non-profit institutions and for profits.

Many of you are way oversimplfying the entire discussion. There are many real differences that need to be considered in any reasonable comparison.

Government and nonprofit institutions have funding sources that are simply unavilable to the for-profits. The common sense result should be and often is (but not always) artificially lower tuition and housing for their student body when compared to for-profits since either donors and/or taxpayers, ironically including the for-proifits themselves, fund the goverment and nonprofit institutions. The result is higher borrowing needs at for-profit institutions. If one has a higher borrowing need, one one is in more debt and more likely to default.

Regionally accredited schools which are mostly goverment and nonprofit schools typically don't even have to report employment results. The somewhat lame explanation is that the focus is academic education (education for education's sake) and not necessarily career/employment education. At the same time, most nationaly accredited schools are for-profits and as such have had to report employment statistics for years. The issue is how you measure career success. As a CPA, I could have made a lot more money a lot sooner by staying in public accounting or industry but I fell in love with education. That thing about touching lives is real. So, I guess I was a failure in terms of employment as I am not in my field of training.

If you dig down a little on how financial aid works it will give you some insight into the student body of each sector and add additional insight into default rates.

Many goverment schools such as community colleges are able to have such artifially low tuition that their student body can graduate with little or no debt. The poor can get grants to cover their entire tuition so how can they default?! The middle class and rich may be able to pay cash. The result is artificially low default rates as a result of higher taxes on all of us, including the for-profits. Then again, maybe we should see this as 100% default rates as we have already had to pay 100% of the education cost in the form grants paid for with taxes.

At nonprofits a similar effect is achieved via endowments that help fund education for the poor. They can also offer scholarships that, if offered by the for-profits, could be considered discounting and illegal. At the same time, the middle class and rich pay full price.

A related common complaint about the for-profits is that they suck up more that their "fair-share" of grants such as Pell. That is result of their serving a larger percentage of the poor which is a bit ironic since one would think that by definition, that was what the government and nonprofits should be doing but thier admissions requirements such as SATs serve as societally accepted barriers to their acceptance.

Interestingly, without the for-profits, this sector of the population would likely go unserved and uneducated with no opportunity for advancemment.

I could on and on until I write a book on all of this - direct loans versus the old bank loans, government imposed overborrowing that is almost impossible to prevent which ends up resulting in higher default rates... sound a lot like the housing market, doesn't it?

Maybe what we should be doing is working together to get rid of the bad players in all sectors, actually figure out how to improve education and how to do it at the least possible cost.

20. lizziec - February 05, 2011 at 11:09 pm

I agree that broad-brush painting any one sector is not useful. I also agree that there are plenty of non-profit institutions that need their houses cleaned. However... as someone with faculty experience in both sectors, I can tell you that one consistent theme is that in the for-profits, I routinely had illiterate students in my classes who - quite frankly - were never going to get a job in the field they thought they were working toward. It is sad that they are facing a lifetime of burger flipping or other menial labor, but that reality is made worse by the addition of mountains of debt and false hopes that will be dashed soon after graduation.

After observing more than a decade of both well-intentioned institutions and greedy for-profits businesses try to rehab people who never got the education they needed in K-12, I stand convinced that if you are 30+ years old, are still illiterate and basically ignorant to basic grammar, quantatitive concepts and other general education concepts, you are NOT college material, and (with RARE exception) you are never going to be.

We need to make it OK for people to NOT go to college and still be able to earn a decent living in a job that is respected for what it contributes to society and STOP with this insane notion that you are not a worthy human being until you get that darned piece of paper. This stupidity is contributing to what many are calling the education bubble, and along with being a financial travesty, I feel that it is a moral outrage.

21. goxewu - February 06, 2011 at 08:10 pm

It's probably just my bias* whispering to me, but there's something just a little fishy about some of the stuff in the comments of seaworthy and mikpap. "I earn an income just shy of six figures and roughly $50,000 more then my pre-undergraduate earnings AND I was able to switch career fields" and "I earn a six figure salary as an educator in Texas, consult for a major publisher, teach when time permits at local universities, review for a journal, and serve on the board of directors of a non-profit" have the ring of those infomerical testimonials about the money people have made running their own businesses...from home!

(Hmm. Both use the "six figure" generality--a benchmark that, for most readers, separates the salary-wise successful people from the also-rans--instead of a number. Why wouldn't a pseudononymous commenter say, "I earn $123,000 [or some such] a year"?)

I'm not suggesting a Scientology-like coordinated comment barrage, but there's something a little, well, canned, about the sound of seaworthy's and mikpap's comments. Without blowing their covers, is there anything that seaworthy and/or mikpap could add to make the salary-success stories sound a little less like advertising copy?

* As a compensated spokesperson for Murray's Discount University, a competitor of those other, bigger, colder, more impersonal and less Joe-the-Plumber for-profit universities.

22. fruupp - February 06, 2011 at 08:41 pm

lizziec wrote: "We need to make it OK for people to NOT go to college and still be able to earn a decent living in a job that is respected for what it contributes to society and STOP with this insane notion that you are not a worthy human being until you get that darned piece of paper....I feel that it is a moral outrage."

Agreed. Unfortunately, U.S. employers have decided that American workers are expendable (as are, increasingly, American consumers) and that only a low-wage, high turnover workforce is in their interest.

Meanwhile, it's in the interest of Higher Ed, Inc. to continue promoting the idea that one's life is useless without a college degree, an egregious scam.

23. prof_truthteller - February 07, 2011 at 09:59 am

First, of all these comments I find 15. jdoylesan's line of thinking almost frightening, and I wonder if those who agree have considered what the consequences on society would be, should these assumptions be followed through to their bitter end. What would happen if there were NO taxpayer-funded support for education? What if the only education available to anyone was private and had to be paid for by the individual or their family?

When I was an undergrad, finanacial aid staff at my local public college advised me to seek grants and scholarships first, look for on-campus work related to my major, and not use loans until I was absolutely desparate. Seems a no-brainer now, but at the time, it was all news to me. Do you think that advisors at for profits really give that same advice? What would possibly motivate them to do so? It's the financial aid money from loans that keeps these businesses in the black. They will make money even if the student defaults, and by that time, the student is no longer costing the college anything.

Do you really want a "buyer beware" mentality to prevail in higher ed, where it becomes the student's fault if they make poor financial decisions?

The federal government, as the provider of the loan guarantees, has every right to examine default rates and how they are defined and what is really happening to that money, which is, after all, our money. I'd have thought that all of those "no tax is a good tax" Randians out there would welcome more stringent accountability. Somehow, it's OK when taxpayer money is siphoned off into business, and not OK for anything remotely having even a whiff of a scent of a public good. Meanwhile, the stink of corruption and self interest pollutes the air.

24. 12100026 - February 07, 2011 at 11:00 am

Lizziec, (20 above)

We've differed in an earlier series of comments but here you are absolute right! As are you GOXEWU, FRUUPP, and Prof-Truthteller.

Also regarding the testimonials about the high quality of for-profit education, a Well Fargo broker, who handles my Mom's retirement and is a family friend tells me that they get very good course from Kaplan for their continuing ed. But I suspect that the great unwashed mass of For-Profit students fit the description given by Lizziec. In other words, the for-profits offer Macy's courses and Walmart courses to different groups of educational consumers.

Another observation, in all the comment strings that I have ever read about for-profits, I can recall no instance where someone who has taught for a for-profit has praised the product.

As for the person with the Argosy/Sarasota degree, we have a graduate from that program here at my university. Let's just say, the quality does not inspire the slightest confidence. What does that tell us?

25. viwap - February 07, 2011 at 11:01 am

Balthazar, your misinformation and bigotry are appalling.

26. seaworthy - February 07, 2011 at 01:57 pm


To satisfy your curiosity, I earn $95,736/ year + benefits as an operations analyst. Previous to earning my degree, I was a retail manager making approximately $45k/year. I truly loved that job as it provided plenty of free time at "off peak" hours for skiing and surfing...however, we all have to grow up sometime.

I worked with a graduate from UCB with a law degree from USF Hastings...she was a train wreck of an attorney. Book-smart, maybe. Capable of functioning in the working world, not so much.
I worked with an MIT graduate whose budget methodology was so pathetic that she was fired. I worked with a CSULB history graduate whose grasp of financial situations is amazing, I learn something new from him every time we interact, and he is well respected in our industry. Point being...never judge a book by its sheepskin, there are good examples and there are bad examples.

27. quicksilver - February 07, 2011 at 03:55 pm

For profits make me ill, as they prey on the very segments of our population who are the most desperate and the least savvy, fiancially and socially. Just like realtors and mortgage brokers prior to the housing crash, these outfits are staffed by charletans and thieves pedalling their worthless educations to suckers who are naieve enough to fall for their BS.

28. viwap - February 07, 2011 at 04:40 pm

Quicksilver, your generalization and your unsupported accusations are disgraceful.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.