PBS investigative reporting - FRONTLINE | "College, Inc." - For Profits questioned

FRONTLINE | "College, Inc." Trailer | PBS

YouTube - FRONTLINE | "College, Inc." Trailer | PBS

Full video:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid


COLLEGE INC., which was aired on 4 May 2010. RAINmedia, which produced the documentary for PBS’s FRONTLINE, describes the show this way:

 

There is discussion of this program here:
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/distance-learning-discussions/34050-college-inc.html

 

I just watched the hour-long video and it's a real eye opener! There's too much information to disclose here -- don't even know where to begin!

To answer someone's question (in that other thread): The expose' indicated that 10-15% of UoPs budget goes to salaries and benefits for instructors, while about 25% of UoPs budgets goes to sales and marketing to get more students. That's an interesting contrast!!!

It also indicated that only about 10% of students go to these for-profit universities, but about 44% of all defaults on student loans come from these for-profit universities. Since most of the loans come from the Federal government, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag, while the investors in the for-profit universities are making out like bandits.

Thanks for sharing the link to the full video!!!

 

I just watched the whole thing. The most concerning part is the default stats. I can't help but to think "buyer beware" on some of the stories like the APA Psy degree. Some responsibilty should fall on the student to be sure the degree will get them what they want/need.

 

Having been in the non-profit higher education arena for over 21 years and the for-profit for just under two, I watch the show with interest and read the full transcript of Martin Smith's interview with Harris Miller of the Career College Association. While there were some pretty well done sequences in "College, Inc.), I was disappointed with the quality of the research and the obvious lack of balance. After seeing which parts of Mr. Smith's interview with Mr. Miller were used and which were not, and the refusal to include interviews with satisfied graduates of for-profit unviersities, it was pretty obvious that there was no intention of producing a show that was anything other than a negative portrayal of the for-profit educational sector. While some substantive issues were raised and some bad practices were rightly criticized, I was disappointed in the completely inept way that distance learning was handled.

One of the programs major flaws was the complete exclusion of private proprietary colleges and universites, a major sector of the for-profit arena. By leaving the impression that all for-profits colleges are either part of Michael Clifford's "empire" or they are part of huge publicly traded corporations, like Apollo (U. of Phoenix), "College, inc. provides a skewed and inaccurate portrayal of the for-profit sector. This demonstrates either a lack of honesty in the portrayal of the subject or a lack of competence in the ability to portray the subject.

When regionally accredited colleges lose their accreditation, there is never a cry to shut down all colleges. However, if Phoenix is accused if paying admissions officers a sliding scale or another college has high default rates, then all for-profit colleges are painted with the same brush. After more that two decades in "non-profit" education, I can tell you that the same things that for-profits are accused of doing are done regularly in the non-profit arena. Overall, I would give "College, Inc.: a "C+".