Say Something Nice About For-Profit Schools

They allow for more credit transfer. My local CC would not take any of my credit in transfer, not even my RA credit. They wanted me to start all over. AJU a for profit, took all of my credit. When a school has a profit motivation they are willing to be more flexible. What does a local CC have to gain by you attending? Not a lot. What does a for profit have to gain by your attending? Money. A for profit has a motive to keep standers up because they lose students when they lose street credit. Is U of P really a bad school? If it is, that means all of the posters on this site that teach classes there do a crappy job. I doubt that’s true.

 

Didn't WaWa interview that fat guy and he said the he thought Obama was a sincere and nice person? I'm sure he did. Who's more stupid, the people on the right who watch Bimbo or the people on the left who make him into to something he's not i.e. a thorn in their side...they make him more popular than he should be.

Anyway, how about this: For profit's make money. Don't like it? Go to your local state school and learn how to ban water.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

 

I don't think that the for-profit/non-profit distinction is nearly as important as Degreeinfo thinks it is.

It may or may not be true that for-profits tend to be more expensive than other schools. Fine. But many programs are expensive. It's stupid and disingenuous to give expensive state and non-profit programs a free pass. We should be talking about expense directly, not using the profit/non-profit distinction as if it was a surrogate for expense.

It may or may not be true that for-profits are more apt to use misleading marketing. Fine. But many programs use dishonest marketing. It's stupid and disingenuous to give state and non-proft programs a free pass. We should be talking about marketing practices directly, not using the profit/non-profit distinction as if it was a surrogate for marketing practices.

It may or may not be true that for-profits tend to field weaker academic programs. Fine. But many schools put out weak programs. It's stupid and disingenuous to give weak programs at state and non-profit schools a free pass. We should be talking about program strength directly, not using the profit/non-profit distinction as it was a surrogate for academic quality.

It may or may not be true that for-profit programs get less respect from employers. Fine. But many programs don't get a lot of respect from employers. It's stupid and disingenuus to give state and non-profit programs a free pass. We should be talking about employer perceptions directly, not using the profit/non-profit distinction as if was a surrogate for program reputation.

It may or may not be true that for-profit schools are more apt to treat their faculty poorly. Fine. But many programs overuse adjuncts and what-not. It's stupid and disingenuous to give state and non-profit schools a free pass. We should be talking about faculty labor issues directly, not using the profit/non-profit distinction as if it was a surrogate for labor practices.

Sweeping a whole bunch of independent variables together into a single attack on the profit motive in higher education is a sign of weak reasoning in my opinion. Not only that, it's politically manipulative and tendentious.

I realize that the government is currently orchestrating it, at the behest of the teacher's unions I assume, but it's still misleading and simplistic.

To see a discussion board that's seeming 90% business majors and that habitually treats program choice as if it was nothing more than a matter of dollars-and-cents "ROI", turning right around and uncritically buying into the quasi-socialist thesis that the profit motive in higher education (and presumably more broadly) is corrupt and corrupting, is ironic to say the very least.

 

One of my favorite P&T shows.

 

Seething with anger are we?

 

Yeah, wow, no kidding.

As for staying on topic, I like AMU for their prices and the quality of education I feel I am getting by being a student there.

 

There are plenty of nice things to say about for-profit schools. Many of them are fine operations that are doing a great job of bringing quality education to many individuals who would otherwise have little opportunity. They offer flexibility that B&M institutions cannot match. They are doing a better job of bringing education to the people, where they are at, in a way they can handle.

For-profit schools also tend to keep up with modern technology more effectively than traditional schools. Because they are driven by market forces, they have a eye on the competition and tend to improve curriculum and delivery systems more rapidly. Because of this, it is possible that some profit programs will offer a better education than their traditional counterparts.

 

Something nice about for-profit schools:

They make it possible for us to know the difference between for profit and not for profit schools. Without them, we'd have no for profit bias.

 

Nope. If the smileys worked I could put a happy face after my stuff so as to not offend our more delicate members, I apologize.

 

I like the occasional clip, but have to agree with your pedantic assessment of the show. Your verbosity is impressive...in a sort of condescending way

 

For profits augment consumer choice. Look, for example, at the myriad programs offered by APU/AMU.

 

Or for some people even worse: You are the father.

 

I doubt anyone was offended by your post, you just seemed angry. It was just an observation I'm sorry if I made you upset....

 

That's so true. If your live in girlfriend tells you she’s on birth control don't always believe her

 

They are aggressive marketers. Fill out a form and get a call in 5-minutes. For-profit schools really know how to make you feel wanted.

 

Upside (typical, but by no means unique to for-profit schools):

-- Open enrollment
-- Use of practitioner-faculty
-- Graduation standards maintained
-- Flexible class schedules

Downside:

-- Open enrollment sets up many for failure
-- Those failures are subsidized by taxpayers via student aid
-- Use of student aid demand-driven--not controlled by owners (taxpayers)
-- Emphasis on practice fails to advance the fields of study by developing theory via research

Seriously, my biggest rub with the for-profits is their soaking up of tax-supported student aid in order to generate profits for their owners. This is a transfer of tax dollars to corporate coffers via subsidy. How is this different than the use of student aid at not-for-profit schools? Enriching owners at the for-profits at the expense of taxpayers.

There are many tertiary institutions--trade schools, primarily--set up specifically to take in student aid dollars, while delivering the absolute minimum in terms of education. The margin: profits.