Audio: FCC Pushes Faster College Internet Access and ‘Learning on the Go’

While I am sure that this is not the case for ALL for-profit schools, this is what I saw when I worked in that sector.

Older females
Veterans, male and female
Mothers with young children (often single mothers, many of whom had children in high school)
A significant percentage were minorities, (Latino and African American)

Of the population I worked with over a period of a couple years, most (>98%, and yes I kept track of this statistic) were what I would classify as functionally illiterate. These are people who needed at least a year of preparatory work before they would have been able to pass (barely) most 9th or 10th grade classes but were admitted into accelerated, online college programs.

The ability of these students to read and comprehend what they had read was negligent, if there at all and to presume that they would at some point, magically begin to benefit from being in college was fantasy. For this group of students, if they made it through the degree programs they were enrolled in, most will not find employment commensurate with what they have borrowed for their “degree”. This is due to several issues, including weak, weak curriculum and their lack of preparation to do the work, and benefit from college study.

Many had unrealistic expectations for what they would earn, citing numbers that I knew master’s-prepared individuals in managerial roles in the profession were struggling to make (e.g. $70,000 and up). Others believed that once they had “earned” that degree, that the employment offers would line up at their doors. I have to wonder at where this fantasy comes from. Some of it was probably cultivated culturally, having come from the “other side” and perceiving that this was the primary reason for lower levels of employment, but I have to wonder at the help that this cultural bias was receiving from the lovely folks in admissions/sales.

I see “average” and not necessarily bright, (but at least able to read and write at some level) students graduating from our non-profit university bachelor’s program struggling to find jobs that will allow them to make decent money in this economy. The days of graduating and walking into an obscenely-well-paid job are over. The kids getting the good positions are either very bright and hard-working, many of whom worked to secure internships during school so that they had a foot in the door of their industry OR are well-connected through parents or family friends, who are able to advise them well, AND pick up the phone to make an introduction.

The employment futures for marginal students with poor skills (reading, writing, etc.), large debt and a questionable institution of higher learning on their resumes is not bright. In an economy where college grads from institutions with selective admissions are struggling to find jobs, the success potential for students with degrees from institutions perceived to be diploma mills is going to suffer for that reason alone. When you factor in the reality that many students leave these institutions no more enlightened or skilled than when they entered, AND with incredible debt loads, the travesty only grows in scope.

While I am not surprised, this is truly despicable. It also explains a LOT! I would always wonder why 1/2 (or more) of the classes I taught would just never bother to submit even 1 simple assignment. Why go to all that trouble to apply for college and then blow it off? 

It is likely legal (surely checked out by the vast numbers of legal counsel on staff at these sham-schools) but is sure doesn’t pass the smell test.

Your challenge is well-taken, but it would be great if the public and non-profits would take the same challenge, rather than just expecting for-profits to carry the full burden. If those schools funded by public dollars would evolve and expanded the methods and times that they offer classes, maybe they would be able to serve students with multiple jobs, families and other obligations rather than leave that significant demographic to the for-profits. The investors in for-profits can find plenty of other places to invest their money should the student pool dry up, but as long as there is a portion of the population that isn’t being served by traditional education institutions, they will continue to invest in this fast-growing segment.

agree

The notion that poor people don’t know the difference between Harvard and less prestigious schools is insulting.  If only top-tier schools did a decent job of serving them they might have the option of attending one. 

It’s not particularly difficult to maintain a high retention rate and a low default rate if your student body is cherry-picked from among only the most successful students from the wealthiest families.

Can we for once have an honest dialogue about these issues instead of the same malicious spin over and over?

Am I the only one who doesn’t see anything wrong with this? I think that if these companies can make a profit of the less-intelligent, then more power to them! If someone is too stupid to know how to research an institution then they deserve to get screwed over in the end. Anyone who sees a commercial for a school that isn’t sponsored by the state deserves to get screwed over. I mean, come on sheeple. Wake up!

Aren’t you just re-stating what the article said?   Students from the “have” families know how to be successful (in some cases, by working the system) and know which institutions carry more residual value on a resume.  Students from low-income and first generation college families often don’t.

This isn’t really very different from how things have been for years – and the increasing tuition rates caused by reduced public support to major public research universities will only make it worse. 

Marketing sells.  Universities don’t do a very good job of it, but since the private schools make $ from every student, they know it’s their lifeblood and market accordingly.

The name-calling and demonizing absent any direct experience serves no useful purpose. The for-profit schools serve those ignored by other types of institutions. These students’ lives are more chaotic. They are less well-prepared academically and so their completion rates are worse. But the  performance of the students in this demographic attending for-profit schools is no worse than those attending HBCUs and community colleges.

But this is exactly what expanding access to higher education means.

It means dealing with the students that have not automatically enrolled in college because their parents did. It means dealing with the very difficult baggage of students without the means to stay in school when their daycare fails or when their car breaks down. It means dealing with the students that never learned what they were supposed to learn in high school.

The new regulatory tone would have these schools be more selective — that is simple enough to do and has already begun. But don’t kid yourselves that you can both increase post-secondary enrollment and help those without any skills gain those necessary to succeed in the 21st century workplace and still ignore these students.

Critics wish to believe that there is a quality difference. But the reality of the situation is that most large for-profit schools actually operate at a higher level of quality that most community colleges and struggling HBCUs. Tax status has no bearing on the quality on what goes on in the classroom.

The real issue that no critic of these schools cares to address is who should pay for failure. At community colleges, when students drop out, it is the state (and federal) taxpayer who pays. At a for-profit school it is the student who pays. Critics want to say it is the government but sooner or later the government through its enormous power gets its money. So in fact it is the students.  But isn’t that as it should be?

If students are being lied to. If there is misrepresentation or a poor understanding of the risks and challenges of attending school, then by all means correct the gap. But holding students harmless for their failure to complete a perfectly acceptable and accredited program? There isn’t enough money in the world to make that formula work.

Shame on you Penny. You would benefit from some in-depth research on this sector, its marketing tactics and its target audience. What seems like an obvious lack of responsibility on the part of students is far more intricate than that. The general public has reasonable expectations of honesty and decency when it comes to higher education. The for-profits take total advantage of this. They all too often prey on the naiveté of unwitting victims.

“Access is NOTHING if you are ill-prepared to accomplish the tasks set before you.”

Excellent! Ironically, this is all too often the failed result of public lower education and the overall deterioration of values in this country. As a nation we simply don’t value an educated citizenry like we used to and now the for-profits are capitalizing on this shortcoming.

“IF advocates for the poor and others who cannot access the non-profits believe that encumbering these people with 10s of thousands in non-dischargeable debt for a questionable “degree” is serving their best interests, I suggest they find another line of advocacy because they’re way off base.”

If only….

“What would you do with those people that can’t read at a third grade level?”

Teach them to READ.

Well said!

OK – answer me this, PLEASE.

When these illiterate students are admitted by you do-gooding for-profit institutions, and are placed into accelerated programs (referencing those like “Feenix” that cram an entire 15-week semester into 6 weeks) without a LICK of remediation, what in the sam hill are you doing for them that is so wonderful?!

They are NOT going to get anything out of it. If the instructor passes them along, terrific (and we all know this happens too often) – what can they DO at the end of their time in program? How are they going to get a job when they come out with a piece of paper and are still functionally illiterate? AND, if they fail out along they way because they are frustrated at instructors that actually require thenm to read and write, then what?

I have YET to get a good answer from ANYONE in the for-profit sector explaining to me how this is appropriate, ethical, or defensible. I’d MUCH rather see the non-profits turn these folks away than to see the for-profits line up to sign them up for non-dischargeable student loan debt.

Wonderful – you all let in the masses, but you do NOT address their deficits, and you charge them exhorbitant sums of money, and at the end of the road, they come out with a lot of debt and not much else.

That, my friend, is not an opportunity, it’s a scam.

One more thing.  Since when is it a BAD thing to say to someone, “I’m sorry, you don’t have the requisite skills and abilities that are needed in order to study at this institution. Please come back when you have acquired these skills.” ??

When I bought my house, I applied for a mortgage. The bank wanted to know how much money I made and about all my debt.  I would have loved to purchase one of the mini-mansions across town, but I did not make enough money at that time, so I settled for a nice Cape Cod in the middle of the road section of town.

A few years back we saw some shady characters convincing people not unlike the for-profit student target population that they were “entitled” to own their homes, and the only barriers were those pesky banks with too many questions (you know, elitist institutions).  What was the outcome of that?

No, I’m not original in my comparisons here, but it is VERY much like that whole messy episode. Just because you WANT something, doesn’t mean you are going to be able to get it. You want a college degree? You need to be able to read at a level commensurate with the workload, and write, and yes, do math. You want a better job: You need the skills and abilities that are required for those positions. You want a nicer home? You need the job that will support the mortgage each month, the credit score and the ability to be financed.

I’m SORRY – that’s LIFE.

That there are institutions who are willing to exploit those who are unwilling or unable to do the work is not surprising. That they hide behind the phony “we serve populations no one else will serve” is pathetic and needs to be called out for the sham that it is.

The description of the 90/10 rule in this piece is so inaccurate that it makes me think Mr. Donoghue shouldn’t be weighing in on the topic until he has done more research on for-profit education regulations. (Incidentally, this seems to be a problem that afflicts many of the opinion pieces from traditional academics on the Chronicle’s site.) Students are most certainly allowed to receive more than 90% of their funds from the federal government, and many do. The 90/10 rule governs for-profit institutions, not students. It says that for-profit schools may collect no more than 90% of their revenue (on a cash basis, which has important implications given that grants come in cash immediately while private loans only turn into cash over time) from Title IV, not “federal,” sources. There are many sources of government money (retraining grants, state income-based grants, VA benefits, etc.) that count towards “the 10″. Military personnel are not “exempt” from the 90/10 rule any more so than civilian students. The only difference is that military personnel have funding sources that are not included as Title IV financing. You know who else has access to non-Title IV funding sources: kids with rich parents. But of course, these are the kids who have been really well prepared in all kinds of ways to pursue higher education, and they can get traditional schools to fight over admitting them, schools that know there is little risk that these students will not graduate or that their parents will default on their loans.

I find it befuddling that some are taking this IHEP study (which itself was fairly perfunctory) as a yet another hatchet to use against for-profits. If anything, it exposes a shameful absence of not-for-profit institutions who see it as part of their mission to serve poor, nontraditional students who could really benefit from higher education precisely because they are so ill-prepared for it. Of course, that education wouldn’t look much like an Ivy League liberal arts degree, but why isn’t there a non-profit equivalent for DeVry? Is it really be outrageous to hope that the brilliant minds at Yale would turn their attention to the high school dropouts and barely-grads of New Haven and use their obscenely large endowment to fund a remedial education and career training institution that would improve the lives of these citizens and their children? Surely they could out-compete the for-profits in attracting these kinds of students, and graduate them at higher rates with less debt? Right? And yet they choose instead to use their money to open a campus in Singapore for the elite of that country. Not to pick on Yale, though: the number of non-profits with any real interest at all in serving nontraditional students can be counted on one hand. Until non-profits step up to the plate and start competing to offer education services to the working adults of this country I have a hard time condemning the for-profits as loudly as others do. They may be doing it for mercenary reasons and they may need to be held on a short leash by regulations, but at least they are serving the population that actually needs options for higher education rather than the ones who will be fine in any case.

Here’s a link to testimony I gave to the House of Representatives in 2003, explaining why they should not repeal the 90/10 rule
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/d/e/deh29/papers/House_hearing_transcript.pdf

Thank you “merita.” 

Underlying the debate about for-profit education is the assumption that “non-profit” education is good because it is not motivated by the profit motive. The Govenor of Ohio once scolded David Brennan for “making a profit on the backs of the school children of Ohio.” 

Of course, money is as important at non-profits as it is at for-profits.  The difference is that proprietary institutions don’t hide that interest.

The good news is that traditional non-profit higher education has paid no attention to expenditures and has now priced itself out of the market.  I look forward in the next five years not only to the closure of hundreds of non-profit institutions, but to closure of colleges in the University of California system. Traditional higher education needs a good purging of the greed that brought it to this condition.

Challenge accepted.

I work at a for-profit school. We do not have accelerated courses here. We give specialized associate’s degrees (rip that apart, as you will; I am simply answering your question), not certificates or dimplomas.

As for remediation, we have strict protocols from the State Department of Education we HAVE to adhere to dealing with Academic probation and SAP. We do not pass someone “just to get them to graduate” – numbers be damned. Well, hey now, I wonder if that could be a reason why our numbers are horrendous to the data you see? Perhaps it IS because we take in those the community colleges and state-run universities don’t want. The illiterate, the baggage, the chaotic, the minorities – and THEY choose to drop, withdraw, disappear – because they realize that this lifestyle is MUCH to difficult for them. Think it wouldn’t happen at Yale if you put one of “my” students in their course?

WHEN (not if, as you stated) a student fails, they are given the opportunity to re-take the course. However, they are put on Academic Probation. They have one and a half times the length of their chosen course to complete. If they do not – oh well. They may not return to our institution.

I love your ASSumption that we do not “address their deficits” – excuse me, but how do you know this? Where is YOUR proof (since you demanded mine)? We have a freshman Seminar class that addresses these very issues – managing lifestyle, work and school, time management, test-taking, stress, financial aid – AND we even employed a counselor (FREE of charge) for those who can’t cope.

We have done all we can to encompass our demographic. Lumping us all into one swamp and calling it good because of DATA is presumptuous. Knowing what actually happens behind our doors may perhaps be enlightening.

They are not profiting off the poor, uneducated students.  They are profiting off of you and I by admitting poorly prepared students to expensive programs that are being paid largely via federally-guaranteed loans and grants.  When students drop out and then default on the loans (as they do at much higher rates at many for-profit schools), you and I and every other taxpayer is paying for that loan.  The companies are profiting by rigging the federal student-aid system.

So yes…you may very well be the only one that doesn’t see anything wrong with this.  Well…you and the ad execs for some of the for-profits (not all…some are very reputable).

What’s the name of this honorable for-profit? We’d love to at least check out its website.

BTW, a small thing: Could Trace Urdan please get a new handle? Even though he’s a rounder-upper of capital for the for-profits and has an above-average interest in favoring them, I’d like to take him absolutely seriously. But it’s difficult when someone calls himself “turd.”

Again, you want to expand access?  Fine, do so.  But when a degree from a for-profit costs double or triple or more of what the local CC or state college can provide, who REALLY pays for failure?  And at what cost?

It sounds to me that you believe it’s perfectly ok for someone who needs “access” to be loaded down with $35k in debt for an AS degree that may or may not be worth the paper it is written on.  Why isn’t it OK for that same student to go to a local CC for a fraction of the cost?  Is it freedom of choice?  Then make it a real choice.  Put the real costs up front and pull federal aid from the for-profit AS degree.  Pull federal aid from the local CC.  Then see what choice they make.

In the end, this is what they face anyway.

You must be new here. I spent time in the trenches (as an adjunct) of the for-profit sector, so everything I talk about I observed firsthand.

It sounds that your institution is at least doing some of the things that I would hope are a minimum expectation if you are serving those populations.

Also, in many (MANY) previous posts, I have noted that the small for-profits that address specific niche markets (including, but not limited to cosmetology, aeronautics, specialty mechanics, etc) are NOT the focus of my posts. I refer almost exclusively to the large, corporatized for-profits who are running accelerated courses and deploying them online with reckless abandon and charging 15 prices.

You do act a bit like they do using the “ASSumption” referral, resorting to namecalling and personal attacks, which is a HALLMARK here of the defenders of the for-profit sector, so maybe you’re not one of the good for-profits. Doesn’t really matter to me – your karma, not mine.

It’s not the completion rates for me as much as it is the cost burden. The retention at the community colleges (public) in the developmental courses is also dismal and a topic of much hand-wringing at national conventions, but a lot of these students will simply not be able or willing to do the work.  At the dinner table growing up, my siblings and I learned things about society, life and work that many of these students have no clue about due to much different circumstances. This impacts their ability to be successful in college and in life. The DIFFERENCE between the public CCs and the for-profits, is that for the most part, the students who will drop out at either institution will have a significant debt load at most (not all) for-profits and few to none at the local CC due to the tuition being low and Pell and state grants covering most of it and the books.

Where did “PRISON” come into this? How about as studentperspective has noted, teaching them to READ? How about teaching basic skills? Why always insisting that they enter a “College Degree program” when they cannot read, or think critically, or write their way out of a paper bag?

I’ll tell you why. If you were selling “basic skills”, no one would buy. They are buying because they think it’s a ticket to the middle class. If you told them the truth – that they are probably not going to be a high-paid manager, in a white collar firm, and that they are very likely going to still be entry level, but entry-level with the ability to move up on a lesser scale, no one would buy. They line up to go into debt because they believe, hope against hope, that they will be the one in their family with the corner office.

Shameful

If your institution has admissions tests other than Pell Grant and federal student loan eligibility, then you can unruffle your feathers and move on – you’re not being discussed on here.

You didn’t answer my questions, but that’s ok – it’s what I expect.

Most publics, not to mention community colleges, DO “take the same challenge, rather than just expecting
for-profits to carry the full burden.” My mid-sized public institution enrolls hundreds of first-generation students from rural areas each year.

I wonder if there isn’t another demographic component to this. My impression (which may be wrong) is that for-profits are predominantly located in and serve students from larger metropolitan areas, while many of the public universities that have historically served first-generation students have been located in rural areas. It is difficult for the latter to attract urban students to their campuses, which are often geared more to traditional students. (There are not enough non-traditional students within driving distance to make evening and weekend schedules required by working adults feasible.) Perhaps we have a systemic mismatch between need and capacity. And, of course, the non-profits are typically much more nimble and creative in opening branches, developing “hot” new programs, etc.

Might be helpful to distinguish between cost and price.  Cost is what it takes to provide the education, regardless of who pays for it.  Most public colleges have a mix of revenue from state government, tuition, and other income.  The price is what the student pays.  The subsidy either comes directly to the student in the form of grants or indirectly through the institution, which in turn offers a tuition less than the cost of providing the program.  In both cases, the taxpayer picks up a portion of the cost. In public colleges, the majority is paid by state taxpayers and in the for-profit sector the federal taxpayer picks up the tab. 

Federal student aid policy depends on grants for access and loans for choice.  Apparently we are comfortable if a low-income student takes a loan to attend a non-profit college but not a for-profit.  Research suggests that roughly one-third of the students in for-profit schools have attended a more traditional college in the past and found that it did not meet their needs.  They have elected to take loans to attend a more expensive school that they believe meets their needs. 

When all of you went to school, including Mr. Donoghue, you learned that you must first assess the truth or validity of the purported facts before assessing their contributions to the argument. You also learned that you must determine if the facts at hand were the most germane and were sufficient upon which to base a valid argument. Despite the fact that both of these preconditions are shamefully faulty in this article, the predictable ideologues have placed subject matter over truth, racing to Alice in Wonderland generalizations. It is a shame that some of these individuals are permitted to teach our young. (Parenthetically, I note that Mr. Donoghue’s students find him to be a poor example of a professor. In the classroom as well, he is rated as dogmatic, biased, and unappreciative of diverging facts and perspectives.)

What is the net social benefit of the for-profits?  Are we as a society better off with their existence?  There is a precedent for beneficial for-profit education ventures such private music lessons, tutoring, publishing study guides, how-to videos,etc.  However, I am not seeing any benefit to the for-profit colleges for all the reasons already stated.

Please!  Get out of the Ivory Tower!   In AZ there are three bachelors programs for nursing; ASU just placed incredible restrictions on what students can be successful (none can transfer from community colleges, they must complete all of their prerequisites at the university).  The higher cost of the ASU education, compared to the community college and the inability of any of these students getting accepted to this ‘public/ standard/ traditional’ program drive students to seek out the higher cost of for-profits!!   If public educators and the apparent snobs of higher education wish to compare themselves to the mission of the for-profits…..This is a perfect example; and by the way, the admissions standards for the Phoenix for profit is comparable to national traditional schools……

I like questions like this that are empirical in nature. The problem is that they have not been asked and answered in a systematic way by segment and by type of control. 

There are about 1,000 degree granting for-profits and roughly three times as many publics and non-profits. The degrees offered by all types ranges from associate’s to Ph.D./MD/etc. While all of these empirical sub-questions are potentially interesting, it is likely that the greatest interest centers on the “net social benefits” associated to 2-year degrees. Within these distinctions, the greatest interest is likely to lie with the net social contributions to the underclass or disadvantaged, followed by other sub-types. 

For me, then, the empirical study of greatest interest is one that compares the net social benefit of for-profit education to low SES students. Since publics and privates do not generally accept these students, the comparison base would be community colleges and their for-profit counterparts. To be meaningful, the research would have to examine the contributions to dependent variables by degrees, comparing for example, the inputs, outputs, and impact of a 2-year community college degree in Respiratory Therapy with the same degree offered by a local career college. The research would systematically examine all degrees offered in common by both institutional types. Remember, virtually all career colleges offer only job-specific degrees because they are eligible for Title IV only for degrees that target specific federal SOC codes. Moreover, as of July 1, all for-profit colleges (regardless of degree level) must place these codes on their websites along with median debt, graduation rates, job placement rates, and earnings.

I am looking forward to this increased transparency because it will hasten the day when all institutions will be required to provide it. Only then will this ideologically driven debate begin to center on the relevant facts.

In the meantime, I would welcome and support an empirical study the answers to which you provided via armchair speculation in the absence of structure, control, and solid empirical data.

I think it’s going to take a refinement of all of higher education to acheive the goals we want to achieve. It’s absurd though to take just for-profit schools as needing “more reform” than others – especially when they only make up 12% of the institutions serving our student population. There are a huge number of students out there who are underserved and “sub-par” served at our public and non-profit institutes.

I agree with you that non-profit sector has issues and needs to be purged. I agree with you that the current for-profit models available do NOT have all the answers.
However, I do NOT agree with saying that we should just lay one set of expectations to one sector without applying them to all institutions of higher education alike. If non-profits and publics are doing as excellent a job as they claim to be – then they should have no qualms with falling under the same rules of compliance required of for profit schools – but many are also starting to feel the squeeze and are pushing back on some of the flawed concepts of the regulation from the Department of Ed that do affect them – such as the state authorization and definition of the credit hour. There are already bills on the floor to repeal these regulations… if you think it’s because of the for-profit lobbyists alone – think again. You had better bet that the Independent Association Colleges (non-profit) and public schools were instrumental in the quick response with these bills.

Speaking of studies… In addition to the one this blog was written about (and btw, the blog places a biased opinion on the findings of the report not actually inherent in the study):The actual report:

http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/Portraits-Low-Income_Young_Adults_Attendance_Brief_FINAL_June_2011.pdf

Others:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf

http://icw.uschamber.com/publication/college-20-transforming-higher-education-through-greater-innovation-smarter-regulation

http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Report_on_Taxpayer_Costs_for_Higher_Education-Shapiro-Pham_Sept_2010.pdf

http://www.air.org/files/WhoWins_bookmarked_050411.pdf

Others below have pointed out that Mr. Donoghue is an ideologue, not a scholar, and has badly distorted the IHEP report. Thanks for the links. I have read them and would recommend your links to anyone who has an open mind on this issue. All of this said, no study of which I am aware has conducted an all-in comparison by career-related degree of the degrees common to community and career colleges. Florida did a partial study with unbiased intent but the methodology was immature. In some respects such a study may not be a good idea. I think both systems generally do as good a job as they can, given their inputs, etc. Such a study would probably not favor the community colleges because their all-in costs are higher, their graduation rates lower, their job placement is about the same, and they educate a smaller proportion of the lowest SES than the for-profits. Unfortunately, those on the other side of this political divide would then jump on these likely facts to advance their case. The real problems are more organic and this fractious division over type of control serves no useful purpose; it interferes with dispassionate analysis and forestalls badly needed changes.

Ok, fine. Which college is it?

I still would like to know what is this wonderful for profit you work for.

So victimization is the proper punishment for stupidity?  Not in any world I want to live in.

Same set of students, but with one major distinction: at the end of their journey (whether that be graduation or dropping out), the Community College students can still have a life, while the for-profit students are strapped with what is often intenable debt.  You can recover from $2,000 – $4,000 mistake. Few will recover from a $40,000 mistake – especially one that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Some of these “fighters” you are referring to still can’t read and while they struggled mightily throughout their programs, they were passed along by lazy, ignorant or uncaring faculty OR faculty who needed the job to pay the rent, and were being pressured by their “:supervisors” to “work with the students”. and “meet them on their level”.

Whether from non-profit OR for-profit, having that piece of paper means very little BUT, many employers know the quality that emerges from the corporate for-profits and steer very clear from resumes listing these under the ”Education” category.  (I saw this happen again this week – well known for-profit institution listed on a resume and it went right into ”File 13″.  The conversation that followed was not among educators, but industry people.  VERY interesting)

ANSWER: No one in their right mind.

Frank Donoghue inclined to take the most cynical view of private sector colleges and universities? Hardly shocking. Donoghue is a persistent critic of our sector, and he is entitled to his opinion (patronizing as it is). The truth of the matters raised in his column is, however, quite different. Private sector colleges and universities bring an important alternative path to postsecondary education for many, including economically disadvantaged and minority students. This is a path too often blocked at traditional colleges and universities, institutions that dramatically under-serve this population despite fat taxpayer subsidies of tuition and related expenses. Although Donoghue claims to be heavily influenced in his view by the GAO report on PSCU marketing practices, he fails to reveal that the report itself has been largely amended (and arguably discredited) with several material misstatements and misrepresentations corrected. 

While holding the expansion of Post 9-11 GI benefits against the sector, he does not include the fact that numerous veterans groups lobbied to include PSCUs in the legislation’s purview. And while Sen. Harkin did issue a report questioning the role of our sector in military education, there is no disproportionate share of military students or dollars in our sector. To put the matter into perspective, the per capita amount in military tuition assistance for PSCU programs is not substantially different from spending at private non-profit postsecondary institutions. PSCUs programs account for 36.5 percent of Post 9-11 GI bill benefits and 23.3 percent of the students, or a 1 to 1.57 ratio. Non-profit private schools have almost exactly the same ratio, educating 15 percent of beneficiaries and receiving 23.7 percent of Post 9-11 GI bill dollars, or a 1 to 1.58 ratio. In dollar terms, PSCUs receive $8,337 per military recipient; private non-profit institutions received $8,410 per military recipient. PSCU tuition costs on average are actually less than the tuitions charged by private, non-profit institutions and the out-of-state tuition charged by public institutions.

Perhaps Donoghue views his fellow citizens as ignorant and easily fooled. We think they are attracted to PSCUs by the very attributes many traditional colleges and universities have long abandoned: small class sizes, flexible schedules, concentrated programs, support services and other elements that improve learning and the odds of graduation. Meanwhile, community colleges are rapidly becoming the postsecondary waiting room for universities such as where Donoghue himself works. 

Perhaps Donoghue’s liberal arts students can afford the time and cost involved in earning degrees which do not directly prepare them for the workforce. Many other students simply do not have this luxury. While this educator throws stones at the system, 3.8 million students have figured out a better way to make the system work for them. If that equates to more than a single entity in higher education, so be it.

Arthur Keiser, PhD
Chairman of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities

http://www.apscunow.com/2011/06/response-to-who-goes-to-for-profit.html

You make a good point, merita.  Allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a moment, though.  Is it be the responsibility of the non-profits, especially the elite non-profits, to provide remedial preparation for the types of students that the for-profits generally target?  It’s certainly a noble thing to do, but then again, they would be breaking apart from their historic role to educate the already well-prepared group of students, which just so happen to usually come from the middle and upper classes. 

Community college won’t decimate their financial life.

Way back up there somewhere, I asked a touter/employee of a for-profit with allegedly honorable practices to name the school. No luck. No there’s another saintly school mentioned, but with no ID.

You’d think that identifying these wonderful for-profits on “Brainstorm”–which wouldn’t reveal the commenters’ names–would amount to free advertising. So what gives? Do they real exist, or not?

Donoghue’s opinion is no more or less patronizing than yours. The truth of the matter is not anywhere near what you provide in your comment, which is only a repeat of the well-worn justifications that we have heard from for-profits over and over again. Yawn.
My small rural community college only gets about $2500 per FTES. For that “fat taxpayer subsidy of tuition” we are barely able, but do provide, “small class sizes, flexible schedules, concentrated programs, and support services.” Where is the evidence that so-called “traditional” colleges have “long abandoned” these “attributes?” Is it a fact, that more for-profits really do have these attributes than public colleges? Or are you just claiming it’s so?
Maybe these 3.8 million students are attracted to your member institutions by search engine optimization, by the proliferation of bogus “find a college” websites, with databases populated with nothing but for-profits, or by the very deeply moving and highly professional media ads, such as the “I am a Phoenix” series, the kind of media campaign that public and non proft colleges can’t afford to buy.

“No one can receive more than 90 percent of his or her financial aid from the federal government (Pell grants, guaranteed loans, etc.).”

I never knew this.  So where does the remaining 10% usually come from?   Why is this rule in place? 

Why doesn’t ACICS respond to well documented deceptive recruitment practices occurring at its member institutions?

Aside from the proposterous assumption that “everyone should have access to college” (I still contend I should have access to a mansion), this doesn’t wash.
Is school a luxury?  Other industrialized nations  don’t seem to think so.  For example, until just recently, most public schools in Europe provided a free or nearly free education to citizens.  

Creating public access to the university  system demands something from the student:  time, energy, effort.  It’s not a freebe.  There is a fair share required and given by both student and public institution. 

On the other hand, your request for access to a mansion, is a one sided give away.   You offer no return on the investment.  What is the value of an educated population?     

If you are presuming some societal benefit from students attending some of these schools (mostly the large, national for-profit, online scam schools), then you are seriuosly uninformed.

Large amounts of debt incurred for sub-par “educational” offerings, that lead to no additional employment opportunities are very much one-sided, to the benefit of the for-profit organization’s shareholders.

Hello everyone. I attend a for profit college, Walden University. I am 31 years old, male, married and set to garduate Novermber of this year and attend commencement in January 2012. I am obtaining a BS in psychology and I am in the process of applying to several PhD programs at non-profits, both traditional and hybrid in delivery systems. I have a 3.7 GPA, work part time and can certainly read, write and perform mathematical computations correctly. In fact, this summer I worked in a paid internship funded by the NSF at a public state University, in a psychobiology laboratory. My course work has been both challenging and relevant to my major. For example in my STATS-3001 course we have 3-5 assignments per week. We cover in great detail, statistical methods, the rules of how and when to apply a given application, and we discuss in detail in discussion forums real world applications of the aforementioned methods. We have weekly homework assignments, quizzes, a final exam, and a application paper to write as well. If you do not study, fully participate and otherwise put in sincere effort you will not pass the course. Although Walden University is a for profit owned by the Laureate International University network, neither Walden or LIU is open on the stock market and thus is not answerable to public investors. Also, as an aside we have former President Bill Clinton as our chancellor, so irrespective of your politcal views, we are aligned well, with the right people.

I also want to say that I had an opportunity to take early master’s courses at Walden from the Forensic and Cognitive Psychology programs which were both excellent. I began my academic journey at a public community college and continued on with my Walden University education which is absolutely top notch and on par with the top, non-profit institutions, if not better. I have had opportunities to tour many college campuses, meet students from these colleges and even tutor students as well, so this is not just an empty claim. I would never dismiss non-profit education, but neither should for profit or online education be  dismissed either. Thanks for your time.

Ignore duplicate post above.

So called non-profits are all about profits themselves. For example research based universities pressure many faculty to obtain grant money and publish or perish. Now I am not arguing that non-profits are all bad, but they are certainly not truly non-profit either. Typically, traditional professors make more than an online professor as well. In regards to market control the CATO institute’s journal has some solid empirical work published. I am not suggesting that there be no government oversight/regulation whatsoever, but looking at the  bloated funds and wasted money at “non-profits” maybe you should reconsider your defnition of a profit making institution and why it may be bad.

You might want to broaden your reasoning to include the fact that perhaps 1% of for-profit colleges are publicly traded and thus the main target of your conclusions. Most of the remainder are small community organizations. These schools are in most ways identical to the local floral shop, dance studio, or private physician’s office. They are successful, or not, depending on how well they serve their community. Any small businessperson understands what I just outlined but few professors do because they live off of the profit-making work of others. They are insulated from the challenges of leading and growing an organization, delivering services that meet the needs of students, making payroll, paying state and federal taxes, SUTA, FUTA, FICA and MED, unemployment insurance, workmen’s compensation, group health, 401K contributions, sales and use taxes, property taxes, and more. Your Hollywood characterization of for-profits suffers from uncritical acceptance of the attention-grabbing headlines pertaining to less than a dozen publicly traded institutions. Conclude what you will about the giants based on the news but your brush is so uncritically broad as to be nonsensical. I would suggest that you might want to generalize from your own expertise. Ask yourself how accurate are press reports regarding a specialized area of life that you understand well. Now, apply your answer to what you have learned about “for-profits” from the media.