Yet another bad rap for "For-Profit Schools."

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Koolcypher, Aug 3, 2010.

Loading...
  1. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator

    Hear, hear!!
     
  2. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    The biggest errors that I see in the reporting and discussion of these issues in in painting all for-profits (or all non-profits) with the same brush. The fact is that, with the exception of highly selective institutions (usually with astronomical tuition rates), most for-profit and non-profit institutions engage in enrollment management and are concerned with maintaining enrollments. At non-profits, lower enrollments equate to lower local and state taxpayer-funded subsidies, which affects the institution's bottom line (particularlly faculty and staff salaries and benefits).
     
  3. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator

    But it is so much easier to find fault in others rather then look in the mirror.
     
  4. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    True. Didn't someone once say something about a mote and a beam? Or maybe it was a pot and a kettle :)
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Ironic, perhaps, but it is an irrelevant red herring.
     
  6. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    I think this overgeneralizes the problem.

    In publicly-traded for-profits, the goal is generally to increase enrollment at all costs. Why? If the quarterly reports reflect any sort of decline, then the shareholders will either bail or start asking major questions.

    Non-profit institutions are generally quite different. They do not have quarterly reports to file, and shareholders do not have any influence on them. IMO, this enables a more long-term strategy than for-profits can afford.
     
  7. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Did you mean "public"?
    I'm not sure that not-for-profits (such as Stanford or USC) get much govt financial support apart from freedom from certain taxes.
     
  8. mcjon77

    mcjon77 Member

    And therein lies the problem. These salespeople are not called salespeople, they are referred to as "admissions advisers". At every university I have attended, the admissions adviser was there to provide me information about the school, opportunities available to me, and to help me determine if this school is a good fit for me. In fact, I could (for the most part) trust that I was receiving honest information from a person much more knowledgeable about the university than me.

    However, in the case of SOME for-profit schools, I would be dealing with someone with the exact same title, whose sole concern in getting as many sign ups as possible. To top it off, these pseudo-admissions advisers are dealing with a populace that is probably the LEAST informed about how higher education works and is MOST in need of guidance. They are exploiting these people's ignorance and fear to line their pockets. It absolutely disgusts me.

    There is a reason why virtually all professional organizations have an established code of ethics.
     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    1. Title IV funding is a subsidy for them, just as it is for the for-profit schools.

    2. The higher tier schools fight for publicly funded research grants, which are non-trivial to the bottom line.

    -=Steve=-
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    I have experience in for-profit and in non-profit environments, and I believe your post is spot-on.

    Although our admissions advisors (at my current place of employment, a non-profit) would like as many people to attend our university as possible, they also recognize that sometimes we are not the best fit for them. When appropriate, we regularly refer students to the local community college when we do not offer a program that meets their needs. I have never seen anyone try to convince students to attend our university with high-pressure tactics.

    Our general approach is this:

    "We'd love to have you here, and we'll be happy to provide you with the information and assistance you need to make the best decision."

    At UOP, recruitment was more about getting people in class by any means possible.
     
  11. CargoJon

    CargoJon New Member

    And this is why anyone with an IQ over 80 should treat every transaction in their lives, be it education, medical, etc. as though they are a consumer. There are thousands of colleges out there all competing for your education dollar. Each one of them is out to get your name on their rolls. Some are for more unscrupulous than others in their tactics.

    By approaching everything from the aspect of a consumer, comparisons can be made, the truth can be discerned, and mistakes can be prevented.

    Which is why anyone who approaches a commitment such as a college education which can costs thousands to tens of thousands of dollars without the seriousness that it deserves gets little sympathy from me.

    All admissions counselors are salespeople, their tactics just vary.
     
  12. foobar

    foobar Member

    I see it differently - their objectives vary.

    Many for-profits are looking for warm bodies while the non-profits generally look for the "right" body.

    An analogy to illustrate this point: no car dealer sales department would have their sales staff meet on a weekly basis to decide which of their qualified customers will be allowed to buy a car.
     
  13. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    Originally Posted by Anthony Pina

    TONY: Of course, we would need to start with the most egregious example of fiscal irresponsibility and questionable business ethics: The U.S. Congress. It is ironic that it is this same body that is so busy finding fault with others. If our legislators were really so concerned about safeguarding our taxes, then they would modify many of their own practices.


    STEFANM: Ironic, perhaps, but it is an irrelevant red herring.

    TONY: I can see why you would think so, but I respectfuly disagree. Perhaps the rest of the public will weigh in on this issue during the next congressional election.

    Originally Posted by Anthony Pina

    TONY: The biggest errors that I see in the reporting and discussion of these issues in in painting all for-profits (or all non-profits) with the same brush. The fact is that, with the exception of highly selective institutions (usually with astronomical tuition rates), most for-profit and non-profit institutions engage in enrollment management and are concerned with maintaining enrollments. At non-profits, lower enrollments equate to lower local and state taxpayer-funded subsidies, which affects the institution's bottom line (particularlly faculty and staff salaries and benefits).


    STEFANM: I think this overgeneralizes the problem. In publicly-traded for-profits, the goal is generally to increase enrollment at all costs. Why? If the quarterly reports reflect any sort of decline, then the shareholders will either bail or start asking major questions.

    TONY: You are correct that it is an overgeneralization, since the majority of private sector (i.e. for-profit) educational institutions are not subsidiaries of publicly-traded corporations. I will not defend the actions of Phoenix, Kaplan, etc. exposed by the GAO, since they are indefensible (and the perpetrators deserve what they get).

    However, when someone states (as is most often the case) "for-profts ______" that person is likely making a generalization. Your post is superior by separating out publicly-traded for-profits, but your statement is also an overgeneralization. Do you have evidence that, say, Capella, Walden and ALL the rest of the publicly-traded crowd increase enrollments at ALL costs? Perhaps they do--I have never worked for any of them.

    STEFANM: Non-profit institutions are generally quite different. They do not have quarterly reports to file, and shareholders do not have any influence on them. IMO, this enables a more long-term strategy than for-profits can afford.

    TONY: I respect your point of view, particularly since you have had experience in both public and private sector education (for-profit & non-profit). Having worked for non-profit colleges and universities in four states and having helped author and prepare the quarterly and annual reports for trustees, legislators, departments of higher education, accrediting bodies and faculty unions), I have witness numerous occassions where those "shareholders" have exerted quite a bit of pressure regarding enrollment levels and practices (and the funding that is dependent on these levels). It is my observation that those who believe that non-profit higher education institutions have less concern about enrollment levels than for-profits have likely never been an administrator at a state college or university having to deal with this issue (I have).

    The number of non-profit educational institutions that have lost accreditation, have been forced to merge with other institutions, or have shut their doors, is indication that long-term strategy is a concern for both public and private sector higher education.
     

Share This Page