"Time to Shut Down All For-profit Institutions"

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Gabe F., Sep 1, 2017.

Loading...
  1. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    According to this from the NYU Tandon School of Education, tuition alone for a four-year degree would be $195,000, not counting any other expenses.
    https://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/financialAid/documents/tuitiontandon.pdf

    According to NYU Tandon's demographics, a whopping 2.2% of their students are African-American and 2.2% are of Latino origin. Interesting that the former dean of a highly-selective school, with tuition higher than any for-profit, author lectures us about affordable education for minority students.
     
    fourdegrees11 likes this.
  2. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    One of the most common errors (made by the article's author and by most who write about for-profit education in Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education) is that ALL of the more than 2,000 private-sector (for-profit) post-secondary schools are publicly-traded corporations on Wall street with a myriad of stakeholders and that the only motivation for the existence of all for-profit schools is to maximize profits for the shareholders. That Dr. Ubell paints with this broad brush shows that his uniformed opinion and selective use of sources (while ignoring others) renders his article fatally flawed and one that should not be taken seriously.
     
    fourdegrees11 likes this.
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It's interesting to note that, while we appear to disagree on almost anything in this discussion, no one seem to agree with Dr. Ubell.
     
  4. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    In three decades of working for (not-for-profit) colleges and universities, serving in leadership positions within my professional associations, presenting at conferences, editing books, writing and editing articles for peer-reviewed journals and working on inter-institutional projects, I have worked with, co-authored and presented with numerous faculty and administrators with degrees from Walden, Argosy and Capella. Thousands of professionals with degrees from for-profit universities have achieved tenure, promotions and new positions. I know C-level and many mid-level executives at large corporations with degrees from for-profit schools. None of the anti-for-profit articles ever engage with successful graduates of these institutions. None ever cite any empirical data showing that graduates of for-profit schools know their subject matter less than graduates from not-for-profit schools.

    Now, I am a fan of all for-profit schools? Hardly. I do not like the publicly-traded model. But this is not the only model.
     
    fourdegrees11 likes this.
  5. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    Yes, it is very interesting. It does appear that some are in agreement with some of Dr. Ubell's views and that's OK, if those views are not informed by incorrect assumptions or contradicted by empirical evidence. I know a number of good folks who believe that for-profit education should not exist. They have that right and I respect it. When one makes silly statements in an article, I have no problem pointing out the flaws (which in this case I did at Inside Higher Ed).
     
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It is interesting that even in overwhelmingly public system in Great Britain, there's a role for for-profits. For example, for-profit law schools (University of Law and BPP) churn out (and place) healthy number of lawyers.
     
  7. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    I respect that you believe that students who are approved for federal loans should not be allowed to use that loan money if they select a for-profit school. Since the money is awarded by the lender to the student, it is the student--not the government--who selects the institution. Otherwise, there would be little to stop the government from mandating that students could only apply the first two years of student loans to community colleges--rather than being able to do their freshman and sophomore years at a university. The government could also mandate that loan money could only be used for tuition of public institutions. Frankly, I would rather that the student (who has to pay back the loan), rather than the government, decides where she or he will pursue post-secondary education.
     
  8. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, how do you know what others at this forum are doing for poor people? What are you doing for poor people, if anything?
     
  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Well, do you want education available for all?
     
  10. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, please share what you are personally doing to provide for the disenfranchised, as opposed to:
    - You asking the government to do what you will not.
    - You asking the taxpayers to do what you will not.
    - You asking others to do what you will not.

    Stanislav, what are you personally doing? Nothing?
     
  11. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Cheap ad hominem, me. I'm not surprised at this point.

    Also, please explain how having policy priorities different from yours are "asking people to do what you will not". Are you under impression I don't pay taxes? In Ontario?
     
  12. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    I am in agreement with you that students should attend any institutions they wish. My disagreement is that if the government is backing the loans then it should be only for public institutions. For-profits should take the risk of backing the loans for their students. The current system creates a moral hazards where the benefits goes to for-profits, and the cost to tax payers. So for-profits can sign up as many poor quality students with little or no risk.
     
  13. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    This is upside down.

    Why should for profit have "poor quality students" I think for profits can have high-quality students, its all depends on the school.
    And I'm sure public universities have their share of "poor quality students".
    Private for profit school can have an offering of different plans and services based on the client.
    Good professors will require good salaries, modern equipment and labs will require modern infrastructure. It all cost money.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I do. The difference is that I'm not ideologically incapable of seeing that there are non-governmental ways to reach that goal.
     
  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Fair enough. Are you capable of seeing governmental ways to reach any social good?

    All I'm saying is that tuition-free college is far from being a radical idea.
     
  16. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, one of the tenets of having a smaller government is performing things at a non-governmental level. For example, charity can be done most efficiently by individuals and churches, instead of by government. People are less inclined to be wasteful with their own money, while government is more inclined to be wasteful while spending other people's money.

    One of the tenets of having an ever-growing bigger government is performing things at a governmental level, instead of at the individual level. For example, when government starts giving other people handouts, it tends to be less efficient that when individuals or churches take-on that responsibility. People are less inclined to be wasteful with their own money, while government is more inclined to be wasteful while spending other people's money.

    Doing things at the lowest possible level (through the charity of people) is the most efficient. Doing things at the highest possible level (through government) is the lest efficient. People spend their money more efficiently than government; government spends other people's money less efficiently.

    From a historical perspective, charity for the poor was performed primarily by individuals and churches, until the advent of Communism and Socialism. Communists, Socialists and Democrats want bigger government with more government involvement. Constitutionalists, Republicans, Libertarians and American conservatives want smaller government with less government involvement.

    Are you personally doing anything to help the poor or do you expect government to do that job for you? It is a tough thought provoking question.

    Stanislav, who called you a name? You have only been asked simple questions. Is your conscience burning that hot?
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Sure, government does socially good things all the time. They're just not the best way to ensure those good things happen anywhere nearly as often as most people think, particularly when the federal level is considered the societal problem-solver of first resort when it should be the last.

    That's true. But then, the same is true for dropping bombs on the Middle East, so I'd argue that an idea isn't necessarily a good one just because it falls within the Overton window.
     
  18. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    It is how it should be, Public universities and government backed loans take the risk of financing good quality like you, and poor quality students like myself. If for-profits want to benefits on the backs of poor quality students like myself they should underwrite the students loans like the government does for public institutions. I don't think that I am an ideolog, but I am failing to to be convinced that governments should underwrite students loan for for-profit. Why can't these loans for-profits come from the market instead of the government swamp?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2017
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the problem is, in many cases, there are no proven success stories to these fab nongovernmental solutions. What's the general weakness to me again's arguments (except him keep saying "communism" while clearly having no idea what that word means)? He says that "historically" things were done in private way. Well, why aren't they done that way before? Because the old way either doesn't work anymore, or never really did. Like, universal K-12 education didn't exist before it became necessary in the Industrial age - and then the Prussians invented it as a public service. Similarly, a lot of "private" charity funds used to flow from the Church and the lords, which were like two branches of government back in the day. It's like people praising the Aga Khan for his enormous charity projects, from his own funds - but in reality, it's his function as the Imam of Nizari Ismailites, and he does collect a form of tax to do it. There is a reason people invented "state" in the first place.

    Yeshhh, a community college is just like dropping bombs in the Middle East. Saying things like this is why no one takes you Libertarians seriously.
     
  20. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, he may be a Libertarian, but he will always be something that you, as a Ukrainian-Russian foreigner (who is living in Canada), can only dream about becoming: a Constitutionalist American.
     

Share This Page