For-profit colleges have spent millions of dollars on an advertising campaign opposing the Education Department’s “gainful employment rule,” which would cut off federal aid to programs whose graduates have high debt burdens and low loan-repayment rates. Now, supporters of the proposed regulation are fighting back with an ad of their own. The 30-second spot, which will run tomorrow and Wednesday on MSNBC and Fox News, accuses for-profit colleges of ripping off students and taxpayers.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
11 Responses to For-Profit Colleges’ Ad Wars Heat Up
goxewu - January 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm
We at Murray’s Discount University (formerly the Oxbridge College of All That Is Great in Western Civilization, Especially Marketing) are offering to the advertising campaign for for-profit education–free of charge and free of any threat of prosecution for copyright infringement*–some of our best slogans, including:
“Your student loan interest is one of our principles.”
“Everybody profits from your education.”
“What’s wrong with a little going-out-of-business education sale?”
“If you’ve got a pulse, you’ve got a place with us.”
“Want a little more legroom in lectures? Try our Business Class tuition.”
“Our degrees are so worth the paper they’re printed on.”
…and many more.
* CI is one of MDU’s most popular majors.
frankmccluskey - January 19, 2011 at 6:00 am
That’s right, for profit is bad and the accountability of non-profits is good. Let’s do some articles with this point of view.
studentperspective - January 19, 2011 at 8:02 am
Perhaps it would have made more sense for the powers-that-be in Washington to focus on accountability all the way around, not soley on the for-profits. What would their defense be then? Simply crying that what is wrong with them is wrong with all of education and that it’s not fair to single them out does NOT diminish the power of their practices and its impact on students, taxpayers and higher education in America. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the numbers. For-profits educate a small percentage of the population but are funded by a disproportionate share of government money with an even further disproportionate share in the default rate on these loans.
I would love to see some accurate expenditures of the for profits on their three ‘Ls’: Lying (a.k.a. marketing), Lobbying, and Litigation. Does anyone else find it amazing that after so much money is spent on all three of these, these corporations (schools?) make such high profits?
Speaking of litigation, why hasn’t anyone investigated the number and nature of these in the for-profit sector. Oh…I know…that’s because these are generally settled with undisclosed terms. Doesn’t that bother anyone other than me? What are these corporations (posing as schools) have to hide? Even accrediting bodies tell students to make informed decisions before enrolling in a school but how can then if the information is hidden?
pokerpoodle - January 19, 2011 at 8:13 am
The most recent CNBC offering on For-profit Education, while one-sided and unfair at least talked about the controversy between Not-For-Profit and Non-Profit Education. The previous one had debated the 1950′s contoversy of Federal Aid to Education with a guest who was from the For-Profit sector. This from reporters who only know personally of education at the Ivy Leagues both public ones and private ones–Yale, MIT, Northwestern.
A few points they missed were that: The cost of education is the same at any school-the question is–who pays. At public institutions, the state-Georgia, Califoria, Maine, Virginia, South Carolina pays. At For-Profits, the student pays unsubsidized by the state in which the school is located.
To deny For-Profits is to doom to poverty every nontraditionally aged student who has a family to support. State colleges do not seek students with life challenges for the most part, unless those students can afford to not work, go to school during the day, have been an A or B student in a very good K-12 school. That is, students who are truly prepared for college.
Community Colleges funded by the state often lose 50% of their students before graduation. They may be trying to educate 30,000 students a year with students who are in need of extra help, just not getting it until they give up and drop out.
For-Profits cannot fund tenure track professors with school paid trips to conferences a couple of times a year for everyone. For-profits cannot fund bringing in three candidates from the opposite coasts to interview for one opening with most of the involved departments over a three day period which is customary at public institutions. Tax payers pay at the state level for these extravagances.
Do away with the For-Profits and the result will be underwriting the education of all students all the way through their education K-16 to K-Ph.D. The cost to society of fewer health care professionals because there is no longer any entry point for LVNs who may later become RNs, Vet Techs who may later become Veternarians, Dental Assistants who may later become Dental Hygients. Nursing Crisis now? Take a look in another 7 years, even without Health Care Reform.
Try as a business to hire employees who are good at Excel when there are no For-Profits. Public Colleges train lots of students to be international emerging market development coordinators, jopurnalsits, and liberal arts majors–nonemployable intellectuals in short, not in the trenches, show up every day, hard-working educated employees.
Rather than CNBC, Fox, and MSNBC being concerned with the public interest, they are reflecting the outlook of the haves who resent paying federal taxes to support all these poor people. Moreover, they are reflecting the elitism of journalists who are finding themselves no longer relevant in the age of YouTube and Blogs that are free.
We have elected as a culture to have private healthcare benefiting the monied, but we are electing to have public education, benefiting only the monied and the intellectually superior.
studentperspective - January 19, 2011 at 8:34 am
Pokerpoodle – you stated: “For-Profits cannot fund tenure track professors with school paid trips to conferences a couple of times a year for everyone. For-profits cannot fund bringing in three candidates from the opposite coasts to interview for one opening with most of the involved departments over a three day period which is customary at public institutions.”
Are you kidding? Have you seen the salaries of the top dogs in these schools? Have you guesstimated the cost of their lobbying and marketing? Have you considered ‘why’ such efforts are critical to the education of students in the first place? Consider the professional schools in the for-profit sector, for example – psychology. Hiring adjuncts and the easiest, most cost-effective find over true talent hinders the school and the students AND the public the school’s graduates serve.
saasaa - January 19, 2011 at 9:14 am
Thank you pokerpoodle. I could not have said it better myself. Ihave worked at Public NFP, Private NFP and Private FP (single entity), and Publically Traded FP. So far, the concern about the education of the student is better at the Private FP. the NFP were too tied to what the board thought was respectable and the PTFP was too tied to its profits!
All around accountability is needed.
moongate - January 19, 2011 at 9:58 am
“To deny For-Profits is to doom to poverty every nontraditionally aged student who has a family to support.”
B.S. The point is that the FPs are actually ripping off people with worthless degrees, misleading advertising, and super-substandard instruction while encouraging students to dig themselves into debt to pay for this sham which generally costs as much as a real education and will “doom to poverty” the vast majority of FP students. These are the issues, not some holier-than-thou hyperbole from someone who is quite likely Dr. Thomas in disguise.
goxewu - January 19, 2011 at 10:21 am
We at Murray’s Discount University (formerly the Ayn Rand Academy of Economic Darwinism and Alleged Self-Sufficiency) think that pokerpoodle has an excellent point in saying, “At For-Profits, the student pays unsubsidized by the state in which the school is located.”
That’s why as many of MDU’s campuses as possible are reachable only by private toll roads which are unsubsidized by the state.
tgraham13 - January 19, 2011 at 11:09 am
I, for one, would be grateful for respectful commentary, regardless of which sector is being represented.
cwinton - January 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm
To describe for-profits as not subsidized is disingenuous. Without the Federal student loan program most would disappear overnight. I for one find it a bit disturbing that a few people are gouging the government to line their own pockets while saddling “nontraditionally aged students who have a family to support” with unconscionable and unforgivable debt, often for “degrees” that have little or no value.
11191947 - January 19, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Our NFP university has been educating nontraditionally aged students with families, many of whom are of underrepresented minority status, since 1990 at a reasonable rate and with a convenient delivery model. And we are not alone. We would like a little credit. Also, pokerpoodle, it doesn’t do much good to teach someone to use Excel if you don’t teach them what to use it for. That might be something a little intellectual.