Comments on: Study: For-Profit Colleges Offer Weak Job Prospects, Pay

By: why college is not a quick fix for poverty » weird things

why college is not a quick fix for poverty » weird things — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:09:01 +0000

[...] by agencies with no standards, they spit these students back out with unsustainable debt, and just as few job prospects as they had before. While what many for-profits do is usually legal, except that fraud on financial documents part, [...]

By: For-profit Education: Darkness Fell Fast | Avid Investor Group

For-profit Education: Darkness Fell Fast | Avid Investor Group — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:29:54 +0000

[...] by the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment (CAPSEE). As reported in Education News, almost 25% of for-profit students default within 3 years, which is 10.5% higher than students from [...]

By: Get Ready For The Edu-Debt Crisis | FavStocks

Get Ready For The Edu-Debt Crisis | FavStocks — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:35:00 +0000

[...] recent study on for-profit colleges concluded that graduates from these programs “find it harder to get [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:06:40 +0000

It looks like Joe and Kevin are the only ones that can discuss things. There are members of my family (me included) that work both at state schools and for profit schools. They both have their strengths and for profit schools are getting better and yes….more ethical in their business practices as public scutiny increases. Judging by the current landscape it seems like the for-profit sector will be in a better position to offer a quality product at a lower cost as most of them are not state funded and therefore can survive state bankruptcy and sweeping cost cutting.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:43:24 +0000

Kevin, I think we might have a chance to find out soon enough. Have you seen this article?

http://www.educationnews.org/online-schools/durbin-calls-for-careful-review-of-university-of-phoenix/

By: Kevin Wolfman

Kevin Wolfman — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:29:17 +0000

I totally agree that too many adjuncts, part-timers, and grad students are teaching at non-profits as well, and that many full time professors, especially at major research universities, focus more on research than on teaching, to the detriment of students. I went to a well-regard R1 school, and the quality of classroom instruction was mediocre at best overall. This is a problem at non-profits and for-profits alike. However, I still maintain that for-profits are that much more willing to “phone it in” re: teaching quality, because their stated mission and purpose is making money, not educating or advancing knowledge. They’ll do whatever they have to do to turn a profit. In many cases, that means hiring inexperienced teachers on part-time, non-benefits bases. Instructional quality is an issue at all schools, but the realities of business make it that much more of a concern at for-profits.

By: tiredteacher

tiredteacher — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:35:22 +0000

joe referencing my opinions as biased, pot kettle black

for profit by its very nature implies the primary concern of the institution is turning a profit. Education is not a product, children (even young adults like in college) are not a product. you can not address education like a business it will invariably lead to failure.

or like in this case, ripping off the students

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:44:00 +0000

Kevin, I think a more valid comparison would be how often do non-profits use non-tenured, or non-tenure track teachers for actual instruction. After all, most tenured professors dedicate less time to their teaching duties than research, from which the school gets both funds and prestige. Actual instruction seems to be strictly secondary. Recalling my own education, I think it wasn’t until the last year and a half of my major that I had classes that weren’t mostly taught by adjuncts, lecturers or assistant professors who were all amply assisted by graduate students. I’m not prepared to admit that non-profits are comfortable ahead when it comes to teaching talent.

By: Kevin Wolfman

Kevin Wolfman — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:24:58 +0000

Clearly there’s a risk of over-generalizing for-profits as delivering poor-quality education, but the concerns are legitimate. For one, for-profits are–by definition–providing education solely for the money. This can lead them to take steps that help the bottom line but significantly hurt the quality of instruction. For example, for-profits often rely heavily on adjunct/part-time instructors with little teaching experience. As someone who’s taught for a living, I can say with total confidence that teaching is as much a “profession” as doctoring or lawyering; it takes years of experience to get truly good at it, and most adjunct/part-time instructors don’t have that experience. There’s a big difference between “doing” and “teaching.” That’s not a knock on teaching, just a fact. Do non-profit colleges use part-time teachers? Of course, but not to the extent that for-profits do.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:48:24 +0000

For an example of such biased opinion, see tiredteacher comment above.