State universities and community colleges obviously operate at a financial loss. They are subsequently supported with taxpayer subsidies and handouts to keep them operating and to prevent them from going out of business. Does their "for-loss" status make them inherently academically superior than "for-profit" institutions? at:
To a certain extent I would say that state universities are academically superior in one aspect - research. For-profits recognize that an extensive research agenda is counterintuitive to the goal of making profit, so they leave this to the major research universities. As a result, research universities can attract faculty who are interested in advancing the collective knowledge of a given field and give no consideration to whether or not their employers operate in the red or the black.
Considering how much federal grant money is out there, what reason is there that a proprietary university couldn't have a research arm that seeks out those grants? Are their faculty members not eligible to apply because of their tax status? Or is it just not not on any of their radar screens when all that Title IV and military tuition assistance money is there for the taking? -=Steve=-
Are you sure about Community Colleges. My college did not last year. Some did and some did not ( within the system).
Research in what field? STEM fields are usually not very well represented in for-profit higher ed. In these fields, well-funded labs are necessary, even beyond grant funding. I think the bigger issue is that research does not necessarily generate a lot of revenue. A for-profit doesn't have a direct monetary incentive here.
Here's an interesting article about the "for-loss" schools at the k-12 level: So on the one hand, subsidized for-loss state universities allegedly produce superior graduates on a national level (a citation would be nice), while subsidized for-loss high schools produce under-performing students at a global level. If all colleges and universities were required to be for-loss institutions, then would collegiate academic performance improve in the United States?
But that's categorized as an evil profit when for-profits take it. Conversely, it's not deemed to be evil when not-for-profits take tax subsidies to keep state universities running.
This is a fascinating thread with some great posts! Rather than creating a new post for each response, I have aggregated them below: ME AGAIN: State universities and community colleges obviously operate at a financial loss. They are subsequently supported with taxpayer subsidies and handouts to keep them operating and to prevent them from going out of business. Does their "for-loss" status make them inherently academically superior than "for-profit" institutions? TONY: What you say is technically true; however, what is occurring is that, while the costs of salaries, benefits, facilities and operations at private proprietary (for-profit) institutions are covered almost exclusively by tuition and fees, at state universities and community colleges, the majority of these costs are covered by state and local tax allotments, with tuition paying a smaller fraction of the actual cost. This is why tuition at state sponsored institutions is usually much lower than that of non-state institutions. If the tax allotments were no longer available, then the schools would, indeed, be operating at a loss and would have to severely raise tuition and fees. TRUCKIE270: To a certain extent I would say that state universities are academically superior in one aspect - research. For-profits recognize that an extensive research agenda is counterintuitive to the goal of making profit, so they leave this to the major research universities. As a result, research universities can attract faculty who are interested in advancing the collective knowledge of a given field and give no consideration to whether or not their employers operate in the red or the black. TONY: Also true…to an extent. The vast majority of state sponsored institutions are not research intensive universities, they are community colleges and comprehensive state universities, whose research output is vastly lower than that of “research 1” universities. Often, research does generate large sums of money, in both research grants and technology transfer (where ideas and products are copyrighted, incorporated and sold). The problem is that most for-profit institutions focus on teaching and the model does not include paying $150,000 per year for faculty who teach 1-2 courses a year and conduct research. However, at my (for-profit) university there are some professors who are expected to research, publish and present and have smaller teaching loads as a result. I do admit that, in many ways, my institution is different than many for-profits (which is why I like working there). STEVE FOERSTER: Considering how much federal grant money is out there, what reason is there that a proprietary university couldn't have a research arm that seeks out those grants? Are their faculty members not eligible to apply because of their tax status? Or is it just not on any of their radar screens when all that Title IV and military tuition assistance money is there for the taking? TONY: Most state and federal grants are only available to non-profit institutions, so the pool of grants is quite limited. You are correct that applying for grants takes time, expertise and personnel and may not be successful, so it is much easier to pick the “low hanging fruit” of Title IV and military funding. STEFANM: Research in what field? STEM fields are usually not very well represented in for-profit higher ed. In these fields, well-funded labs are necessary, even beyond grant funding. I think the bigger issue is that research does not necessarily generate a lot of revenue. A for-profit doesn't have a direct monetary incentive here. TONY: Excellent point. For-profit colleges tend to focus upon career fields, rather than degrees in the liberal arts and STEM. At my institution, degrees are only approved internally and sent to the state and SACS for approval after they have undergone a thorough needs analysis, including what is available at other institutions, what are the employment prospects of graduates and what is our capacity to development, deliver and support the program (which goes to your point about labs). STEFANM: For-profits are also indirectly subsidized by federal Title IV funds. TONY: The difference is that Title IV funds are not given directly to the institutions as subsidies and must be repaid. Students apply for federal financial assistance and the government, not the school, determines how much money students may receive to fund their education. The students then decide how to spend that money. In my case, I attended both public and private universities and spent much of my student loan money on insurance for my growing family. In the case of public colleges and universities, tax funds are given directly to the institution to cover its operations. Public institutions do not have to repay any of this funding. Also, for-profit colleges and universities must pay sizeable income tax (well over 2 billion last year), while public colleges and universities (as “non-profits”) do not pay any income tax.
*The land that your community college was built on was purchased with taxpayer monies. *The construction of the community college's buildings was done with taxpayer monies. *Payment of salaries for community college personnel is done with taxpayer monies. *Taxpayer monies keeps tuition at your community college significantly lower than at for-profit colleges and universities. *Your community college would not exist without taxpayer subsidies, unless a large private donation was made by someone to establish the college. *Community colleges exist because of taxpayer dollars. Private colleges and universities exist because of endowments and larger tuition prices. Nuff said! :scratchchin:
