Shutting down for-profit schools could hurt more people than it would help

The Washington Post
Editorial Board
Sept. 10, 2016

NEVER MIND that the higher education plans of tens of thousands of students will be disrupted. Or that 8,000 people will lose their jobs. Or that American taxpayers could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in forgiven student loans. What is apparently of most importance to the Obama administration is its ideological opposition to for-profit colleges and universities. That’s a harsh conclusion, but it is otherwise hard to explain why the Education Department has unabashedly used administrative muscle to destroy another company in the beleaguered industry.

More... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/shutting-down-for-profit-schools-could-hurt-more-people-than-it-would-help/2016/09/10/3f6cb5ba-76b2-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html?utm_term=.212a036f3f14

Appropriately for the current administration, this from WaPo came unexpectedly.

The WaPo article came via one Hans Bader of Minding The Campus, itself an informative read: Obama Backs the Worst Colleges While Destroying For-Profit Schools | Minding The Campus

 

Do you know what's ironic? ITT Tech's credits are easier to transfer now than they were before. :lmao: ITT Tech taught a limited number of majors. I clicked on the article about the Cato study. It does not specify what the comparison was between the CCs and ITT Tech. Were they comparing AA and AS programs designed for transfer to ITT Tech's technical programs? There was a study years ago that estimated that, if you included the number of people who graduate with bachelor's degrees after attending a CC, then the graduation rates would be around 40%. A lot of people choose to move on with their credits without graduating with an associates. There was also another study recently that found that CC students make more money than for-profit college students in comparable programs despite CCs having lower graduation rates. The only field where for-profits did better was cosmetology.

 

I think it would require extensive interviewing of students, graduates and dropouts to get a fix on why people enroll in these different schools and why they drop out.

Some things just couldn't occur to me. According to one thing I've read, some military people enroll somewhere because they must show progress in furthering their education. But, according to who posted that, they needn't finish anything as simply enrolling checks that box. I have no idea how true that may be but I think it shows that the education game has elements that virtually no one could predetermine.

This is going back some decades but in NYC I knew of welfare recipients enrolling in programs as a requirement of maintaining their benefits. Furthering their education checked the 'looking for work' requirement.

And I'm sure there remains a thousand things that wouldn't occur to me, some making no sense.

 

Maybe B&M colleges will get more progressive and not stay regressive with education? CC's and even for for-profits filled needs that the old box did not? Will not?

 

I am a bit torn on this topic and while I feel as though pursuing a for-profit degree may not be in the best interests of many students, I also am a bit disappointed that there can be so little discretion given to students to come to their own conclusions on whether a program or school is good for them or not. There are a number of industries where certain organizations or entities have less reputable standing, but they don't face nearly the scrutiny or (pending) regulations that for-profits and others are now facing. Is it too much to expect a degree of accountability, personal research and insights, as well as personal reflection from prospective students as they decide on whether a for-profit is best for them?

 

Community colleges accept everyone with a high school diploma or GED. The only thing they do differently that most for-profits don't do is require placement exams to determine if the student needs remedial courses.

 

Because it's not common. The for-profit I worked at also had a placement exam, but it was meaningless. We still got students who couldn't read or write above the 3rd grade level. If we really wanted to assume that for-profits operate similarly to community colleges when it comes to admissions, then your stance of CCs boosting their numbers by screening people out is moot.

 

Were these students placed in remedial courses as they would likely have been in a CC or 4-year university? If so, is the problem actually with the concept of remedial courses in general as opposed to individual institutions?

 

The CC where I work only has a math placement test. The last one only required the math placement test if you were entering with zero credits. If you came in with three credits in Art Appreciation then you didn't have to take any exams at all and it was left to your discretion which math courses you could handle. Of course, they also encouraged you to sign up for math courses that you didn't feel confident in taking by reassuring you that you could always fail it, take a lower level math and then come back to retake the failed course at a later date.

Such pals.

 

I have a friend that you all know and love who went to Ashford University (For-Profit) and had to take a math and an English placement test.

Slightly off-topic... 7-Eleven's mini-tacos can be quite tasty in the morning. Try them.

 

I took a math test when I got to UofS as a Freshman. I'm guessing they considered your SAT/ACT (TOEFL for foreign students) to be your English placement test. But I'm also unaware of there even existing courses below ENG 100 (English Comp) which would constitute a remedial course.

But, of course, I only share this as it was my personal experience at a particular school. I don't want to be accused of using Scranton as a yardstick for higher education.

Taco Bell also sells a mini-quesadilla. It is delightful.

 

The people with low test scores weren't allowed to enroll in the nursing program. Those with extremely low test scores were told they only qualify for the criminal justice program. There was supposed to be tutoring offered to those who struggled with reading, writing, and math before they started their programs, but I never saw this happen. Instructors were expected to go out of their way to tutor students during class hours when we were supposed to be lecturing other students.

 

That reminds me, I need to get down there and buy one of those $5 boxes. I want a shot at winning a Playstation VR. I'm going to buy it either way, but $5 is a much better price.

 

Shutting down fraud is one thing but shutting down legitimate school because its for profit is non democratic, its something to expect in totalitarian tyrannical environment.
How can this be in USA?

 

If they did flirt with fraud then 'they' deserve punishment, not the organization or its students.

Not to bust chops but what is democratic will inevitably become tyrannical. So, how can this be in the USA? It can be because we've become increasingly democratic.

 

ITT Tech shut itself down. All the government did was pull Title IV funding. There are for-profit and non-profit schools that operate without participating in Title IV funding. Receiving taxpayer dollars is not a right businesses have.

 

Not a right anyone has, be they people of business or otherwise. But ITT had as much right to the privilege extended as any other business in its category.