"There are far too many for-profit, private, post-secondary education institutions which are all too eager to take students who qualify for Cal grants and Pell grants and other federal programs then do very little to actually provide any education, said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco." Sounds like government officials are focusing more on the for-profit's and their appetite for federal funds to pay for college without an education in return.
And you can say the same about some non-profits. They will take $100K for an art history degree and wish the new graduate luck in finding a $25K a year job just as quick as a for-profit.
I've worked for two for-profit corporations in controversial, public-serving industries: corrections and higher education. There were intense similarities in both. At the ground level, both were almost exactly the same as their public and/or not-for-profit counterparts: people working hard to deliver expected outcomes. The prisons I worked in delivered correctional services and security. The for-profit university I worked for had teachers guiding students through curricula towards earning degrees. No, the differences were elsewhere. In both situations, management was disproportionately concerned with raising revenues and cutting costs (mostly the latter since affecting the former was very difficult). This emphasis put pressure--lots of it--on the staff to maintain standards while holding down costs. High turnover in both organizations was typical. That meant in neither situation could quality be improved--everyone was scrambling constantly to replace lost staff and maintain basic standards. No one had the "ownership mentality" necessary to create and maintain long-term improvements, quality, etc. Can a for-profit university deliver a sufficient process resulting in an adequate degree? Sure! I truly feel that graduates of these schools have earned real degrees and learned sufficiently. (But don't look too closely at quality at entrance--they let in everyone, then the system weeds out a lot.) Can a for-profit university be great? No way. Not a chance. Where a not-for-profit would invest in something that may not improve revenues but builds quality, the for-profit can't, re-directing those funds to the bottom line. The University of Phoenix is the largest university in the U.S. Why hasn't greatness emerged in its 40 years of operation? Maybe it has to do with the fact that education-related expenditures are purposely limited to 8% of gross revenues. That's not happenstance. It's a target. The government gets involved in the private sector in many ways. Through these choices it creates winners and losers. Personally, I like the government doing this. It gives fledgling technologies a chance to flourish. It creates infrastructure no for-profit company could. (Robert Wade explains this in his wonderful Governing the Markets.) But the recent trend towards privatizing government functions doesn't seem to provide better services for our tax dollars (private prisons, charter schools, etc.). It's just a shift of tax dollars towards for-profit enterprises. So where does the for-profit education industry fit in all of this? With these schools (a) seeing as much as 90% of their revenues coming from Title IV funding and other sources of student loans and (b) their profit margins are filled with your tax dollars, it's a question worth answering. And that's even before we get to the question of whether or not they're really delivering a quality product resulting in degrees students can use.
I think I'd agree with this when it comes to publicly traded for-profits. When it comes to those that are privately held and run by families, however, I'm not sure the same dynamic applies. Tony Piña has spoken of Sullivan University's commitment to slow growth and maintenance of quality, for example.
I appreciate this nuance and the possibility it raises. And if successful, it would not be the first business that built wealth on excellence, outstanding quality, and commitment to its roles and responsibilities to the public. But it would be a first in for-profit higher education. (And that's keeping in mind some good for-profits we've seen.)
Its nice to see democrats finally showing their colors in their distaste with the free market system.
To veer slightly further off-topic for just a moment-- Democrats do that every so often. You just have to wait for it. To be fair, not all democrats are socialists or communists. There's no way that the richer ones could make the same living (e.g. entertainers) in a completely non-free market. Don't expect the Democrats to pick on business too much this particular calendar year, either-- they're indirectly as well as directly dependent on big business for campaign donations and with elections looming they want to be careful about making enemies.
Do you seriously believe that Republicans, as in those who actually make policy, could care less about the free market system? Both major parties are big corporations hand in hand with big government.
Color me unimpressed. These for-profits derive the vast majority of their revenue from government funding in the form of loans and grants. If the free market could sustain the institutions, I would have no problem with them. If you are providing a service for which people are willing to pay tuition dollars, have at it. In these cases, however, the M.O. of the for-profit educational industry seems to be to aggressively recruit students with access to financial aid or veterans benefits, offer little in terms of quality, and direct most of their revenue to recruitment and profit, not to educational activities. If a for-profit institution wants to go without government funding, I applaud it for doing so. I would also bet that such an institution would have dramatically lower tuition.
Yes CA is funny; the non-profit state universities are about the most corrupt money holes in existences. However, since so many people work in the CA university system, this is a good topic for a politician to take up to get some votes.
Originally Posted by SteveFoerster I think I'd agree with this when it comes to publicly traded for-profits. When it comes to those that are privately held and run by families, however, I'm not sure the same dynamic applies. Tony Piña has spoken of Sullivan University's commitment to slow growth and maintenance of quality, for example. Well, my own experience has been with an institution that has spent millions on creating a state-of-the-art College of Pharmacy with a brand new building, nanotechnology labs and doctoral faculty who were on board nearly two years before the first students were admitted. Recently, the first graduating class had a 100% employment rate (nearly all starting at six figures). When the ACPE (the agency that accredits pharmacy schools), sends its candidates for accreditation to a small 50 year-old private sector University to learn how a pharmacy school should be run, I find it hard to give credibility to statements that ALL for-profits sacrifice quality to increase profits.
Frankly, I find very few entities that have a greater appetite for funds than state or federal legislatures. As soon as Senator Leno in California and Senator Harkin in Washington start running their own operations within their budgets, then they may begin to have a shred of credibility.
Let's apply this same standard to public community colleges and state universities and see how many days they would last
