Slashdot Mirror


Can For-Profit Tech Colleges Be Trusted?

snydeq found a story questioning "the quality of education on offer at institutions such as University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT Tech, and Kaplan in the wake of increasing scrutiny for alleged deceptive practices [PDF] that leave students in high debt for jobs that pay little. 'For-profit schools carry a stigma in some eyes because of their reputation for hard sales pitches, aggressive marketing tactics, and saddling students with big loans for dubious degrees or certificates,' Robert Scheier writes. 'Should IT pros looking to increase their skills, or people seeking to enter the IT profession, consider such for-profit schools? And should employers trust their graduates' skills?'"

557 comments

  1. as always depends on the person by alen · · Score: 2

    i know someone who went from zero to a good java dev after going to a similar college with a tech program. otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

    1. Re:as always depends on the person by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've known people on both sides of the spectrum, but I can definitely say that if you come out of a University of Phoenix or DeVry program you're going to face a hiring stigma. Deservedly or undeservedly, these programs have a reputation that ranks decidedly below basically any traditional four year institution. They don't seem like a great deal considering the high cost, but when you compare that to what a candidates other options are (or lack thereof), it still might be a good plan. It sure would suck to have to pay back those loans on a desktop support kind of job salary.

    2. Re:as always depends on the person by floop · · Score: 2

      You should change that to "...never go to college for FREE". It's true that if you test poorly the government doesn't give you a free ride. You can sill pay. Heck you can even come to the US on a student visa and attend ITT. You would be better off buying a few books, a good laptop, attending local programming user groups and trying to work on open-source or mechanical turk projects.

    3. Re:as always depends on the person by koyangi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It can be a foot in the door (albiet a rather expensive one). We have a pre-sales support engineer from DeVry. He did not have the grades/money to go to GA Tech, so he worked as a test technican while he went to DeVry. He is very good at what he does but I mostly attribute that to his intelligence rather than anything he learned at DeVry.

      His degree allowed HR to "check the box" for college education and thus his manager was allowed to interview him and find out that he could be trained as well as tie his own shoes. The customers love him and he often finds very creative solutions to difficult problems. Had he not attended DeVry then he never would have made it past HR or, if he had gotten a job here, it would have been on the production floor.

    4. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, you could do labor, manufacturing, or other societies other necessary nontechnical functions, and live comfortably. Back then our society was a little more self-sufficient (relative to extra-national pressures). Of course, what we need now is more degrees, programmers, more profits, more debt, and some overseas slave labor to do all that stuff for us.

      Wait 15 years, when programming is cheaper to do with AI. Then all the heavily indebted graduates of these programs will be cut out of the job market just like the college graduates of the 90's and 00's are now. They've been up-selling education as the path to the American dream for decades, but we're behind the curve. Now millions of twenty somethings graduate college with tons of debt (it was all gonna be worth it, they said) and no jobs. Graduate programs were the next necessary thing (masters is the new bachelor's, they said). The debt is, unlike every other kind of debt (corporate, credit cards, pretty much everything), is non-dischargable.

      Unemployment is 9%, unless you count the people past their 99 weeks, or the people working part time jobs and using food stamps. Then it's more like 20% And what's next? They're going to raise the fucking retirement age. Add 4 or 5 years of the largest generation to the workforce. Brilliant. Here's news, if you're in your 20's, you're royally fucked. And it's all because of the the wasteful, irresponsible, and selfish governance of your parents' generation, and their parents'.

      They ought to lower the retirement age to 60. Get old, out of date people out of the workforce, divert defense into social security (their wars, their money, let them pick one), and help the next generation get into the workforce.

      Look at the middle east and ask whether you want a whole generation of young people unemployed and bitter. It doesn't end well very often.

    5. Re:as always depends on the person by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. A Tech school can work out even with the bad stigma of it. If you send out a resume some HR will simply round file you if you have nothing after high school listed. Even if they saddle their students with too much debt sometimes it helps to get your foot in the door. On the other hand 10 years ago I had two options. I could go to BSU which had the reputation of putting out CS majors who couldn't program to save their lives or a Tech School. I picked the Tech School rather then wait for BSU and the other local collages to get their acts together. I unfortunately didn't have the money to go out-of-state.

    6. Re:as always depends on the person by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Any open admissions institutions has the problem of accepting students and then not delivering a product. It is the nature of beast, Ethically, open admission institutions have the obligation of insuring that the student can succeed within the parameters of the school. This is even the case a good private K-12 schools. Students are asked to leave if they do achieve success.

      What has traditionally been the case is beyond this. ITT has been in trouble for at least 15 years because it appeared that they aggressively recruited students, encouraged the students to maximize student loans, without any regard to the ability of the student to enjoy any level of success in the program. It seems that University of Phoenix merely expanded this model of student loan harvesting from the technical school to the University. I am sure that ITT and U of Phoenix both provide a valuable educational experience. What I am not so sure of is if they should be allowed to use federal student loans to provide such services.

      Here is the thing that I am sure is never told the incoming student at ITT or U of Phoenix or any of the private diploma mills. A federal student loan never goes away. The student has to pay it back. No bankruptcy, no forgiveness. And the loans are relatively high interests rates, which accrues always, even if one has a delay in payment. The 50K many of these instituions charge can easily become 100K. It is easy to argue that such institution exist solely to transfer money from the federal tax payers purse to the coffers of private corporations. I would not do so. I would only say that in a free market in which these private for-profit institutions are competing, why would we need a federal loan program if they were in fact providing value. Sure, for non profit school such things can keep things fair and allow all qualified students to get an education. But if we are not talking qualified student, and any student, I think the private market would make much more reliable decisions. At least the student would be able to declare bankruptcy, and institutions with a high rate of bankruptcies would not longer receive loans. The free market, in this case, would work.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:as always depends on the person by garyok · · Score: 1

      During my engineering degree in the UK (still a part of Europe - for now...), we had a couple of students in my courses who hadn't got the requisite qualifications for course entry in high school but went to local colleges (only universities grant degrees in the UK), got Higher National qualifications and used those to apply to university. They got grants (not worth very much but we had them then) and student loans no problem, and they had a base of significantly better maths and electronics ability than the people who came straight from high school (like me). The two things I learned are 1) never look down on someone just cos they didn't get into the degree course first time, and 2) sometimes a second chance can salvage some very talented people.

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    8. Re:as always depends on the person by Gradius · · Score: 2

      Add this stat: The fact that 10% of the U.S. Population makes almost 90% of the wealth and the other 90% makes only 10% at an average wage of 31,000 dollars a year; and you now see what maybe the next huge political crisis in the next two decades. Plus no real social safety nets of any kind and no jobs but only given to those that have "connections." You end up with a nightmare scenario for anyone born after the year 1980.

    9. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying his degree was worthless and he got $5k-$10k a year pre-tax for it? Man the last 2 years of a 4 year degree costs me as much as a decent sports car, and my salary hike after cutting taxes off for it would be... enough to pay it off in a decade. By then, the sheer volume of experience I have makes up for the gap, and my degree is so old it's worthless in the job market. Not to mention the quality of living drop; the cost is too high, I can't live like that without the ability to actually have a life and afford things (I live alone, no room mates, in a small 1br; a 2br costs twice as much, plus the heating bill, never mind a house). Buying a used car off a dealer lot was a mistake enough.

    10. Re:as always depends on the person by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

      Um, what? Who told you that? I can't speak for other European countries, but you can complete a high school degree as an adult in Sweden, and go on to college.

    11. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college

      HAH! I can't speak for the continent, but here in the UK, we've currently got a problem with far too many people going to university for pointless degrees (Hairdressing! Lawn management!), devaluing degrees that actually require effort for both the students and the university (the physics department at my almer mater recently closed, not due to insufficient students but simply that it cost more to run for the same number of students than the humanities department), and received no greater degree of funding for it). The push for "a university education for everyone" in the 90s/2000s has fucked up our further education system completely.

    12. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      A community college degree is $9000 for a 2 year AA, plus about half as much in textbooks (fuck McGraw Hill). Text books average $100-$150 at that level. The next 2 years in a university cost about $13500/year plus $250-$300 textbooks per course (9 per year == $2250), making $27000 plus textbooks. "Too much debt"? You're best off with a community college AA degree.

    13. Re:as always depends on the person by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I got a degree from one of these schools. Not so much because I needed the knowledge, but more because I needed the piece of paper that said I had it. The schooling was nearly useless and luckily I got a gov't grant to go otherwise I would have walked out within the first 2 weeks and demanded a full refund plus compensation for my time. I have a great job now, not because of my mickey mouse degree but because of my own personally accumulated knowledge. When I look back at the a lot of the people I went to school with and graduated with, I'm pretty ashamed. Some of the people that were passed through that system could probably not tell the difference between and ethernet cable and a phone cord and still have a degree that in theory puts them on par with me. For profit schools are nothing more than diploma factories, but when you have HR people that don't know dick about the jobs they are hiring people for the diploma mills win. The long and the short is that the real problem with this situation is the business climate where business major idiots are running the IT departments instead of IT professionals.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    14. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you consider the UK to be "Europe", then that's not really the case. Although the A Levels you take at 17-18 will determine if you can get a place at university(College) immediately, even if you do fairly bad at them, you can likely get a place somewhere. In fact, it's possible to get a place at a fairly good university with really quite bad grades, by taking an extra year of basic training, called a Foundation Year.

    15. Re:as always depends on the person by Kohath · · Score: 2

      So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.

    16. Re:as always depends on the person by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      We have an entire industry built around this box-checking requirement. Does anyone else think that's a huge waste to time and money?

    17. Re:as always depends on the person by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.

      Yours doesn't?

      Where do you work? I'll put in an application tonight.

    18. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you are way out. If you don't do well on school tests, you can still get into college, you merely start at a lower level that those that did left with better certificates. Furthermore, this is for academic examinations. There are many other extended education options available, such as technical colleges were the angle is on skills, not advanced school subject matter. If you can demonstrate aptitude for a subject, you can even get into universities by bypassing college, you just have to make up the ground for things like mathematics if it's needed.

      Even those that drop out of school early have options to revisit their education in evening classes. As a mature student with a family and mortgage, you can pay a nominal fee or around $120/year for a subject and have tuition with others like yourself at local schools and colleges with the same teachers you'd get if you remained in the education system when young, and they lead to the exact examinations those still in the education sit at the end of the academic year. Quite often these night classes have regular students trying to get a leg-up or cover their weaker areas too.

      There's no scam schools, no fake degrees as seen on TV, and no $30,000 college fees.

    19. Re:as always depends on the person by eriklou · · Score: 1

      As an ITT grad I'm sad to say that the education there is equivalent to a degree mill. And lough out loud at their "Job Services," I have to call them every week to get put back on the job e-mail list...

    20. Re:as always depends on the person by Anrego · · Score: 1

      So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.

      Sadly it's been my observation that large companies which don't are the exception.

      In some cases it's not even the employers doing, but the customers. In big contracts, it's common for a customer to dictate the level of formal qualifications the people working on their project will have. This also drives a lot of the useless certification stuff.

      The real fun starts when they need 5 years experience in a technology that has only existed for 3.

    21. Re:as always depends on the person by wickedskaman · · Score: 2

      I know someone who works at a large firm where they actually place a higher value on the DeVry candidates because of their history of working with them. It really depends where you are applying.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    22. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's more of the problem though. University of Phoenix has a 5% graduation rate. For every 20 students that attend, only 1 will ever graduate. Thats a big problem.

      I know this firsthand. I work in a University of Phoenix building, on a rented non-education floor. I interact with their students every day. I hate to put it so bluntly, but these students are not intelligent enough to be at a school for higher learning. I have never dealt with so many people who can't figure out an elevator. I'm embarrassed for these people, because every week I have to explain the UP and DOWN lighted arrows. Do people deserve to be in college when they are still learning the most basic concepts of how an elevator works? Isn't a glowing arrow pointing in a direction intuitive enough?? 5% may well be an accurate number for how many students earn the diploma, but it shows an issue where they aren't filtering unqualified applicants out.

    23. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how it's in most of Europe. Here for example about 50% of new students are selected by performance on entrance exam alone. For the other half of the quota it's entrance exam + past study record in relevant areas.

    24. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't sound like from experience.

      I can definitely say it's not like you think. Even before I started going to University of Phoenix, I went and talked to several hiring managers for IT admin jobs...they all said University of Phoenix is not an issue.

      I got my network admin job 2 months before graduating.

    25. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hardly call 2.9%APR a "relatively high interest rate"

    26. Re:as always depends on the person by Gribflex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future"

      When I first moved to France, it was the season when test results were just coming out.
      A major paper ran a story about 'What do do if your kid doesn't get into a Top 10 school?'
      The answer: enroll them in an IT program, or ship them to America.

      Kinda took the wind outta my sails a bit to read that what I'd considered a good career choice (Ok, I went to a Canadian school but still) was the second rate choice here. After spending two more years here, I've realized that it was only partly a jab. While it's true that IT careers are not typically highly regarded over here, it's also true that in both North America, and IT worldwide, your test scores are not considered a primary qualifier for success.

    27. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My university is one of the bests in Germany when it comes to high engineering studies, always scoring in the top3 along with others like TU München, Darmstadt, Karlsruhe and Stuttgart (find which one is missing ;) ).

      There is no numerus clausus for engineering studies, i.e. the amount of engineering students is not limited. Anyone can enter. The first 4 semesters act as a filter. Usually between 1200 and 1500 new students enroll in mechanical engineering only every year. In courses above the 4th semester you have less than 300 students. For electrical engineering, CS and civil engineering numbers are lower (under 1000 new students per year in each field).

      So yes, in Europe you don't have to do well in high school to go to the best universities, but your performance in the university has to be excellent in order to get a degree in one which such a program.

      I was really surprised when i did an exchange with an university in the states. The first thing that the girl of the International Office said was something like "A big part of our student come from outside the US so you are not going to be treated differently to the rest of our students (explanation: when europeans go in Exchange with the Erasmus Program they are usually treated differently in Europe because of the languages). Our programm here is very difficult and demanding, only 90% of the students that enroll this university finish their degree in the standard time."

      I was thinking something like "what the fuck, in my university around 0% of the students finish in the regular time, and around 1% finish their studies there at all....". Another student of my university was sitting there and she could held the laugh.

      (In did it was like a walk in the park. I took all the credits I was allowed too, 10 courses in two trimesters, 3 of them master courses (I wasnt allowed to take more because they were really difficult). Study nothing, get straight A's, party hard every day, and travel a lot. Kind of surreal for me, if you do the homeworks right you have passed already...

    28. Re:as always depends on the person by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The real tragedy of the 'university education for everyone' political mindset is that it caused the closure of a lot of very good polytechnics. These places used to offer some first-rate vocational courses, but then suddenly vocational courses were seen as inferior. All of them then rebranded themselves as universities, and started offering third-rate academic courses instead.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:as always depends on the person by robot256 · · Score: 1

      We have an entire industry built around this box-checking requirement. Does anyone else think that's a huge waste to time and money?

      There are more. How about the tax law industry? They're the ones lobbying against simplifying the tax code because it would put them out of a job.

    30. Re:as always depends on the person by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, if I was able to mod your points up right now I would. These schools are doing a service. Why must every school be the "highest" standard and serve the same population that more traditional colleges do? Also, if they continue to mislead students like the article states, nobody will go to these schools and they'll go out of business - problem solved! Lastly, these people attending these colleges have a right to choose to attend or to not attend and there is a risk that their education won't provide them any additional job after graduation. This is true of traditional colleges as well that cost a lot more than these tech. colleges. As an example, I could go to MIT and study history or religious studies and still be as unemployed as someone who didn't go to college at all.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    31. Re:as always depends on the person by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      " I can definitely say that if you come out of a University of Phoenix or DeVry program you're going to face a hiring stigma. "

      Mod Parent UP!

      That's the real problem. UoP and DeVry turned themselves into diploma mills. They accepted everyone and gave everyone a degree if you paid $80,000+.

      Of course every student is different, but the ones that end up at UofP or DeVry are usually the less desirable type.

      Before you decide on any college call (or email) the places you want to work and see if they hire those graduates! But you have to word it right, if you say "Do you hire University of Phoenix students?" and they say "NO" that could open them up to a lawsuit so HR will never say a direct "no" to any college. So you have to say "I would like to work for XXXXX after graduating from college. I am considering XXXXXX, XXXXXX and UofP. Which of these schools would be the best to attend when I apply to XXXXX?" Hopefully they'll be honest, and if they don't directly say UofP then don't bother going. Also call the accreditation board to make sure where you're going is accredited.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    32. Re:as always depends on the person by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Great. I know someone with a MBA from UofP... from 4 years ago. They still can't get a better job then cashier.

      You got lucky, and thankfully now that you can put network admin on a resume UofP doesn't matter, you have a bachelors and experience which is all HR cares about.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    33. Re:as always depends on the person by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      In the UK at least, if you do badly in your high school tests you can often resit the exam at a later date, although universities will often demand that people resitting exams score higher on the resit than during the first sitting. If you fail twice then you are not likely to be good enough for university anyway.

      There are other routes however; people who did not do well at school can do courses at a community college to gain the equivalent of a high school diploma, which they can then used to apply to universities. There is also the Open University, which is a well respected institution offering degree level courses to anyone, which you study for in your spare time. People often take this route if they want to further their education without giving up their job.

      I do not like the idea of these for-profit colleges as they will cut corners in order to reduce costs and will exploit their students.

    34. Re:as always depends on the person by operagost · · Score: 1

      What parallel universe are you posting from? That doesn't sound like the USA I know. How about this: 90% of statistics are made up in Slashdot posts.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:as always depends on the person by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "The fact that 10% of the U.S. Population makes almost 90% of the wealth and the other 90% makes only 10% "

      No one cares. As long as that 90% can live the American dream: white picket fence, 2 car garage, 2.3 kids, etc. They don't care if the garage houses a Camry or a Lambo, long as they can live their lives, they're happy with 10%.

      Problem is with 10+% unemployment and another 20+% underemployment you now have 30% of the population that can't live the american dream. If this trend continues to increase we'll see Egypt in front of the White House.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    36. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to Westwood for their IT degree. The reason I went with them was of financial in nature, due to my poor credit I didn't qualify for any student loans. Westwood was able to get me financing through another company that I pay monthly. I also didn't work in IT when I started, and felt that I needed a degree to even break into the field. Since then I've gotten my first part time IT position and realized how utterly pathetic the education here is. Honestly, the only thing I've learned from the IT classes was some facts and things I didn't know about prior, but had all the knowledge to look up if need be. I also got a job as a tutor for my program to help out my part time salary. I am amazed that people who don't even know how to use the command line have made it to their final year, and need tutoring. I give an example of "cd /path/to/file" and that is exactly what these people type in. It baffles me. And upsets me. My goal now is to finish school (i have less than a year left, might as well) then when I get a full time job pay off the debt ASAP and start going to a brick and mortar college in my off time.

    37. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the hiring process was going to throw a false-negative, which he had to pay a lot of money to avoid. I prefer companies that interview and hire individuals rather than collections of checkboxes. Given that 20% of America's millionaires never even attended college, let alone received a degree, and that the college dropouts on the Forbes billionaires list have an average net worth double that of the Ph.D's on the list, I'd say most companies requiring a college degree are being pretty negligent in their hiring process. For certain jobs, college is such a standard route to take that you couldn't imagine anyone finding another way. But for many, many jobs that is not the case at all. Like, any job in the entire technology industry for example.

    38. Re:as always depends on the person by nullifi · · Score: 1

      When I was hired in my first IT job, I talked to my boss about how unhappy I was with the technology education I was receiving from my online college. He went to a university and had the exact same complaints as I did. My biggest issue is that they teach how to do something instead of why.

      Click here click that, then that. If one item has changed since those books were published, the stupid students would be totally lost.

    39. Re:as always depends on the person by brainboyz · · Score: 2

      Having attended DeVry (I stopped because I ran out of money 3/4 through) and seeing what passed as senior level students, I wouldn't hire a DeVry graduate unless they had other credentials. I gained some knowledge there, but only because I actively sought additional information from professors and helped with several extra-curricular activities revolving around more advanced topics.

      For example: one of my classmates was stumped that she couldn't get her Java project to compile. Instead of a .java text file, she had a MSWord document in the solution. When I told her she'd need to convert it to a plain text file, she couldn't figure out the "invalid character at line Y, position X" errors from the MSWord quotes and hyphens left in the text. And she was a CS major on her last term.

    40. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I understand it, it used to be possible to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying students loans. What ended up happening was that lawyers would declare bankruptcy as soon as they graduated (Which is technically possible, since you don't have a job yet and have lots of debt).

      Being lawyers, any attempt to discriminate against law students would quickly go up to supreme court, so that was a no-go.

      So the law was changed to this. You can get a student loan. You can't declare bankruptcy. Yeah they screwed the rest of us.

    41. Re:as always depends on the person by 1729 · · Score: 1

      otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

      I don't know what this has to do with for-profit colleges. I flunked out of high school because I was bored and lazy. Spent a couple of years getting my act together at a community college, then transferred to a public university. Went to grad school and got a good job: nobody even asked about high school. All of this without the cost or stigma (deserved or not) of a for-profit school degree.

    42. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know someone who went from zero to a good java dev after going to a similar college with a tech program. otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

      Say what?

      I can't speak for all European countries, but practically everyone has the ability to go into University in Finland (This works for several other countries as well, but I can't list them with 100% accuracy offhand). You only need to have upper secondary education* before you apply. Basically any upper secondary education works, as long as you have finished it. The Universities can ALSO take exceptions if you can prove by somewhat reliably that you know the gist. If you did not finish your upper secondary education in your youth, you can backtrack and finish it with very lenient terms in comparison to what was required of you when you were young. An increasing amount of students gets into the School by doing an entrance test. This test is same for those with good numbers and for those without. Only a portion gets straight into the school via their good test scores.

      Do not spout that generalized nonsense, your disinformation poisons the well.

      (*) Primary school (grades 1-6), secondary school (7-9), upper secondary (10-12).

    43. Re:as always depends on the person by Skater · · Score: 1

      For example: one of my classmates was stumped that she couldn't get her Java project to compile. Instead of a .java text file, she had a MSWord document in the solution. When I told her she'd need to convert it to a plain text file, she couldn't figure out the "invalid character at line Y, position X" errors from the MSWord quotes and hyphens left in the text. And she was a CS major on her last term.

      To be fair, I saw some of that sort of thing at my traditional, not-for-profit, state-run school.

    44. Re:as always depends on the person by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say I have some mixed feelings here. I started out doing design work 16 years ago, and fell into the programming. At this point, I'm probably about as high as I am going to go. Not without a programming degree, but without a business/management degree. Getting in the door, if you have any experience isn't that hard. If you participate on OSS projects of any level, you gain some exposure and experience. The company I'm working for is interviewing for a few entry-level programmer positions, and the biggest desires are self-motivated, and can actually think about how the software works.

      When you code up a demo, the UI is as important as the backend code. Does the flow make sense, are you putting buttons in the middle of the screen, when they should be anchored to the bottom corners? Are you separating workflow in a single screen into distinct panels/divs/groups? Not all dev projects have full design specs in place before hand, and having to file for "fixes" to broken interfaces is not fun. The irritation often makes me ask, have you ever even *used* a program.

      In any case, I agree with the parent post... actually doing something, and something meaningful is far more important than not having anything but a tech/trade school behind you.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    45. Re:as always depends on the person by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

      Pretty well referenced for Wikipedia. The graph that charts the disparity over the last 50 years is particularly illuminating.

    46. Re:as always depends on the person by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You really have to do your research, an institution should be accredited, and receive the accreditation from a respected body. If it's not accredited, you really shouldn't even consider going there as there's no ability to transfer the credits and little assurance that the paper will be worth anything at all to anybody.

      But just because a college is accredited by a recognized body doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to count, if the accreditation isn't by the right body, you might not be able to get money back from employee development programs.

      And just because an institution isn't itself accredited, doesn't mean that it isn't legit. My current schooling is being done through a small private school which issues credits through an accredited institution. The coursework itself is legitimate and very hard, but they don't have the resources to issue the credits directly.

    47. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get better HR.

    48. Re:as always depends on the person by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's typical from my experience. It is somewhat understandable, there often times aren't the resources to look at thousands of applications in greater depth. But allowing HR to make those sorts of decisions is an excellent way of ensuring that you don't employ any actual competent professionals.

    49. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true, in the U.K. Anybody can go to college at any age and there are various ways to qualify for entrance.
      We also have a university called the 'Open university' that allows you to study at home for both graduate and
      postgraduate degrees. I don't think you know anything about European education systems.

    50. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because things like proper grammar and punctuation are totally outdated...

    51. Re:as always depends on the person by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      It seems ridiculous that a check box is what holds back good people from jobs.

      My wife has *10 years* hands-on experience in Project/Product Management but no college at. She applied to a Fortune 500 manufacturer and got a call back in under 24 hours. HR said she was perfect for the job, but could she explain where my wife got her degree from; she didn't see it on the resume.

      My wife said that she didn't have a degree but had been doing this same type of work for the last ten years.

      HR said that she should reapply when that problem has been fixed.

      So it's more important to have someone that can read books and have theoretical knowledge, than someone that knows what they are doing and can prove it. All for the sake of a check box.

    52. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am back in school after working 5 years. The thing about your last two years of undergrad is you get to do whatever you want all the time. In just under two semesters of grad school I have completed two research projects and will complete an even bigger one this term. You can do these things as an undergrad (albeit to a lesser degree). I have probably gained more technical expertise than I would have in 2 years at my job.

    53. Re:as always depends on the person by Altus · · Score: 1

      Of course it probably would have been a lot harder to get that 10 years experience without a 4 year degree to get you in the door. While the grand parents company might have been willing to take someone with a 2 year degree, many are not, fair or no.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    54. Re:as always depends on the person by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      In their last term/quarter/semester? Sure, I've been stuck with some clueless people in group projects in university CS, but by the time you get to the senior level, those people have either gained a clue or quit.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    55. Re:as always depends on the person by drmemnoch · · Score: 1

      Just wait until you get your first "full-time" IT job and realize those people you are tutoring are your boss.

      --
      Those who can do... Those who can't get a certification from Cisco or Microsoft.
    56. Re:as always depends on the person by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Oddly I had the same issue... 10 years ago... Ran out of money for my final year at DeVry... All this talk now makes me feel I so wasted all that money I've been paying back since...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    57. Re:as always depends on the person by Byrel · · Score: 1

      I also saw this at my not-for-profit private school. Lousy students are amazingly good at just passing all courses. No school (that I know of) is so good that any graduate is worth hiring. That is why grades (for folks fresh out of college) and work experience are extremely important criteria. Which school just gives you a clue about the grading scale.

    58. Re:as always depends on the person by Byrel · · Score: 1

      While I will be the first to admit that a college education (by itself) does not prepare you to work in the field, I must disagree with you. The entire reason for the 'checkbox' is to save time and money. There is simply not enough time to evaluate every candidate on his/her own merits.

    59. Re:as always depends on the person by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it makes sense to ask job candidates to spend 4 years in school so that a recruiter can save 30 minutes not considering candidates without degrees. It's hard to imagine that works out to the benefit of society. Especially when you consider how many qualified applicants they overlook because of the requirement.

    60. Re:as always depends on the person by obarthelemy · · Score: 0

      your broad and false generalization of how things are set up in Europe is so over-reaching and uninformed it boggles the mind.

      for example, in France, universities are (kinda) free, and open to anyone. there's also a bunch of private schools, and more selective Grandes Ecoles.
      each European country has its own system, i wouldn't know how others' are set up.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    61. Re:as always depends on the person by BlueWaterBaboonFarm · · Score: 1

      If you're paying $1000+ in texts per semester you are do it wrong. I made it through my last 2 years paying $500 (nope not $500/semester, $500 total over 2 years) doing a math degree. It would have been less but I prefer not to sell most of my texts back.

      Buy your texts as ebooks saves you roughly 50%
      Borrow them from the library save 100% (pay some late fees and keep it the full semester save 90%)
      Buy the "international edition" (questionable legality?....oh well like you said "fuck McGraw Hill") I paid as little as $17 for a softcover international shipped when the book store wanted $150 (hardcover edition). The pages were thiner, and there was some chinese characters on the front but it was otherwise identical on the inside.
      Buy/borrow from a friend
      Buy used from Amazon, you can sometimes even make money doing this. I bought a physics text and then sold it back to the book store for more than I paid.

      The book store is only for if you really want to take the plastic off or you put off buying book until classes started (even still there rush shipping on almost any site).

    62. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Man the last 2 years of a 4 year degree costs me as much as a decent sports car, and my salary hike after cutting taxes off for it would be... enough to pay it off in a decade. By then, the sheer volume of experience I have makes up for the gap, and my degree is so old it's worthless in the job market.

      I think there's a bit of a "bubble" in higher education. I use the air quotes, because I'm not sure that it can burst like the housing market (or dot-com stocks, etc.), but it has many of the same components:

      1. Lots of hype. (People who go to college make $BIGNUM more than people who did not, over the course of a lifetime! But did you ever stop to think that the type of person who goes to college is probably the type of person who would have been successful anyway, even had he or she not gone to college?)
      2. Most students pay for university with other people's money, so they are insulated from its true cost. Similar to the housing market, where people get ever larger mortgages, but who cares? it's the bank's money, anyway.
      3. Government is pumping a ton of money into the market for higher education. See Sallie Mae.
      4. Loans at artificially-low interest rates. Sound like FHA loans?
      5. Payments are low (interest only, or even zero) at the beginning, but they go up at a later date. Sound like one of those clever mortgage products that were designed to allow unqualified people to qualify for loans that they can't afford.

      The fact that consumers are not exposed directly to the cost, and everyone is encouraged to go, is driving up prices like crazy. But by the time you graduate with $100k in debt and have given up the opportunity cost of working for 4 years (another $120k-$200k, give or take), you've plowed a ton of money into that sheepskin! Hope you plan on getting one seriously kick-ass job when you graduate! By the way, if you fail to graduate, you still have to pay your loans back, but you won't even have that diploma. Ouch.

      Personally, I worked my way through state school (this was quite a few years ago), waiting tables and doing freelance programming work. It was a valuable experience, but I'm not sure how feasible it is anymore, given the "bubble".

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    63. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So your HR people systematically screen out good people based on useless qualifications.

      Probably the only thing dumber than allowing HR to dictate a job's requirements is letting some random slashdot commenter dictate them. Even if the commenter is the single best PHP Engineer in his world.

      I think screening for a bachelor's can be useful, depending on the position. But I agree, HR shouldn't be able to force this on the hiring manager!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    64. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      We have an entire industry built around this box-checking requirement. Does anyone else think that's a huge waste to time and money?

      I've found that it's mostly large companies that insist on a bachelor's degree. Small and mid-sized companies will usually look past a lack of a university degree if the candidate's experience is a fit.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    65. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I don't recall ever seeing a job posting with an "associate's degree or higher" listed as a requirement. I agree that starting off in CC can be a great way to save money, though.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    66. Re:as always depends on the person by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      4 year of open source programing, or even personal indie programing is a better deal, less predictable (if it can be considered at all) but much cheaper

      --
      warning pointless sig
    67. Re:as always depends on the person by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      It's really common to see large corp filter people according to their grades, in areas where we all know it doesn't matter as much as experience.

    68. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

      Europe is rather diverse. Let me tell you at least about Germany (which is pretty diverse within itself, but anyway):
      If you either fail in elementary school or the final exams ("Abitur") of "Gymnasium" (which is pretty much high school + 1-2 years of college) you end up with "Mittlere Reife". This still qualifies you for many, many trades which in the U.S. require college education - physical therapist, medical-technical assistants, lab workers, etc. come to mind. Note that to become accredited in these trades you still have to go to "college" - we just still call it trade school ("Berufsschule").

      And if you want to turn your life around in your later years, you can still attend so called "Abendgymnasien" (evening Gymnasium) or "Fernschulen" (Telecolleges) to reattempt the Abitur, thus gaining access to our universities. There are also some other ways to obtain a so-called "Fachabitur" (basically gives you access only to certain faculties of our universities), but I won't detail them here.

      There are still some problems with the system - e.g. many trade schools require considerable monthly payments, while University is essentially free; there is a very strong social selection process going on in high school, etc. - but all in all it in my opinion a rather fair system, that allows hard-working, motivated people of whatever age to go back to university. It is significantly harder to do if you did not reach/failed the Abitur, but it is very much possible.

    69. Re:as always depends on the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future"

      This aptly sums up all that is bad about the American education system. The two ideas that everyone should go to college; and if you don't go to college you are doomed to failure, are destroying American education at enormous expense.

      Most people shouldn't be going to college: they get no observable intellectual benefit from it (Sarah Palin anyone?) and the jobs they eventually acquire have no need for that level of "education".

      Demanding a college diploma from job applicants is a crutch for lazy recruiters who don't want to take the trouble to actually assess the skills and abilities of candidates. They assume that if you don't have a diploma it is because you either are not very intelligent or you lack character since anyone who has qualities these would go to college. This even if the job actually does not require more actual knowledge and analytical competence than comes with a high school education. Let's face it most people forget what they learned in college as soon as the exam is over; and honestly, who ever really has found what they learned at college important in their real jobs. You learn what you need on-the-job. So at best, and at enormous cost and waste, demanding a college diploma as a prerequisite for a job can perhaps only indicate some potential while filtering-out many other perfectly suitable applicants.

      The cost to the integrity and quality of the education system as a whole having thousands of students taking up space in universities and colleges who don't really need to be there, learn little, and contribute nothing, is enormous and immensely debilitating. Universities and colleges should be "elite" institutions. Europe figured this out a long time ago.

      I am not talking about mathematics and the high sciences such as physics, nor about the trades such as medicine, engineering, computer science and law; these are subjects which require long years of study and apprenticeship

    70. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      An Associate's Degree is 2 years, a Bachelor's is another 2 years. So I can get the first 2 years for about 1/3 the cost of the next 2 years. In other words, it's like I spend 2 years on an AA and 6 years on a BA ... which, if I'm paying out-of-pocket instead of sending myself into debt hell, might actually happen in terms of actual time.

    71. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, or get the book used, etc ... oh wait, no, they released three new editions this year, with renumbered pages and rearranged problems, and professors assign from the book so you really need the book (or photocopy problem sets from classmates). No, you need the new one.

    72. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      An Associate's Degree is 2 years, a Bachelor's is another 2 years. So I can get the first 2 years for about 1/3 the cost of the next 2 years. In other words, it's like I spend 2 years on an AA and 6 years on a BA ... which, if I'm paying out-of-pocket instead of sending myself into debt hell, might actually happen in terms of actual time.

      OK, fair enough. For whatever reason, I read in your last comment that the associate's was of value, in and of itself. I was just observing that I didn't think it held much value in the corporate world, anyhow.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    73. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It is of value, of course. An associate's degree is cheap, and leaves you a lot of play at the end with "I need X Y and Z and can't go full time because I can't take them concurrently" (for whatever reason, i.e. 3 maths, DO NOT). Electives can be played with to round out your education in a very customized way (unlike public grade school where they decide what you should learn). Electives and extra courses can be combined to get "certificates" (useless) or come close to dual-degrees, which leaves you a few classes away from just getting them anyway so go for it.

      The coursework in 200 level classes is easy enough to work part time (or full time, if you can stomach it) while going to class. This means you can get an okay foundation with personal experience and a little education, then start working something very entry level while continuing to study. You can shape and target your studies to match your actual work experience, and your experience helps you understand the college classes.

      Once you have an AA, you should have no debt; work experience; and a degree that says, "Well, I did something." That you have work experience somewhat makes up for the fact that you don't have a BS. You know it's true: BS programmers with 4 year degrees and no experience; networking students with a CCNA but no experience; you can't even get a job as a doctor or get a legal license as a lawyer without nursing and apprenticeship experience. Programmers with experience and 2 years of compsci study are functionally better, and more capable; networking kids that have passed the Net+ and spent the lats 4 years as cable monkeys are vaguely useful, moreso if they've studied a little data communications and can diagram a network topology all on their own (research, ask the right people questions, pull configurations, put it together... if you can do that, you're worthwhile).

      Getting an AA is not worthless, in the same way that getting a BS is not an employment strategy. If your resume says "BS in software engineering; hire me, please! -- Balki" then you will get binned in File 13. If you have a weak education, say AA in programming but with some decent prior experience building Web applications, database applications, working on open source projects, etc, you will get a second look at least. If you're ALL experience, you might get a second look too; but the education says, "I can talk at least competently and formally on the subject, to a degree." It says you won't be totally lost with the foreign language your masters-degree peers are speaking when they talk about your field.

      I honestly wish I got more formal foundational experience, maybe doing software quality assurance testing. I'm good at that because I can and will break shit you give me. It tells people, "Hey, this guy finds things nobody else finds, and knows how to explain what he finds to people so shit gets done." That means I either understand what's happening or I can communicate well enough to explain it to someone who does; and maybe both. It would be extremely valuable. If you can pull it off, landing a job where you're skilled enough to go from "jr." to "Sr." (trust me, I could hit Sr. Quality Assurance Specialist at a firm that differentiated, it's just something that clicks with me) is probably worth more than getting "BS" instead of "AS" on your resume. It says you're both notably skilled and a hard worker; you don't get there by waiting for someone to give you work.

    74. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to take anything away from your chosen career path. Going to community college is a great way to get your start in a field, a university education, or career change. I'm a big fan of community colleges.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is let's say I'm evaluating two resumes that are identical in every way (how often does this actually happen?), with the exception that one candidate has an AS in Comp Sci. Bottom line is I'm going to interview both candidates or neither. There will never be a situation where I interview only the candidate with the AS. That's not to say that the AS was a waste. All I'm trying to say is that it's not going to make or break a resume, in my mind.

      I certainly agree with you that experience is much more valuable than education. Learning is very different from doing. Your impression of B.S. candidates with no meaningful experience is correct, but only to a point. A BS in Comp Sci is going to be highly trainable. My company is tiny, so I would never hire such a candidate, but when I worked for a mammoth consulting firm, I would definitely consider a BS with no experience if he or she could demonstrate a solid foundation and understanding of the theory.

      In reality though, I haven't seen many BS resumes with zero experience. Most university students recognize that they need to do some type of internship, or they're going to get clobbered by the job market when they graduate. I graduated with a BA in Computer Science, but I had a small data warehouse company, a regional insurance company, and IBM on my resume. I landed plenty of interviews. :)

      My company does a lot of performance reengineering (system is feature-complete, but performance targets are not being met) projects. There is just no way I can hire someone who doesn't have the theoretical background to recognize and understand the basics of complexity theory and growth rates. There is a huge difference between O(n^c) and O(c^n). One might scale well, the other cannot scale using any known method (most cryptography is based on solving problems that are in O(c^n)). Obviously, we prefer designs that are in O(n) or at least O(n log n).

      That, of course, is the difference between an AS and a BS. AS gets as far as data structures, which is great for most programming tasks. An AS with solid experience is a strong resume for a programming position. Of course, so is a resume with solid experience and no post-secondary education.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    75. Re:as always depends on the person by stoned_hamster · · Score: 1

      i was lucky to get a job at my high school for 2 years, but cutbacks forced them to drop me. Now, I can't get a job anywhere.

      --
      Smoking cures cancer. Smoking also cures stupidity. check darwinawards . com for some stupid stuff
    76. Re:as always depends on the person by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Bottom line is I'm going to interview both candidates or neither. There will never be a situation where I interview only the candidate with the AS. That's not to say that the AS was a waste. All I'm trying to say is that it's not going to make or break a resume, in my mind.

      But a candidate who spent 4 years getting a BS in programming and never wrote one line of code for any practical application gets the +1 for review, while a "hire me, please" candidate gets sent away?

      That, of course, is the difference between an AS and a BS. AS gets as far as data structures, which is great for most programming tasks. An AS with solid experience is a strong resume for a programming position. Of course, so is a resume with solid experience and no post-secondary education.

      This is my point. The BS carries a huge amount of theory, but it's all BS if you have nfc what you're doing. The guy with an AS will have a better intrinsic understanding of what he's doing, having had knowledge and experience both combined; whereas the guy without the AS will "have a feel for it" but, unless he's done some self-study, will be lacking a lot. He may be useful, and in fact you may want to hire him and then pay for his education because it will definitely pay off; but the education is valuable well before you're in the 300 level range.

      I would love to study at the 300 and 400 level, but I don't want to pay for it and can't find a community college that goes beyond the 200 level; but I think my community college education is quite valuable. I'm not discounting higher level study; just saying that, as you said, banking entirely on a degree is silly and it's not a magic piece of paper that says you actually know what you're doing. You don't know the game until you play the game, regardless of how many books you've read about the game.

    77. Re:as always depends on the person by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      But a candidate who spent 4 years getting a BS in programming and never wrote one line of code for any practical application gets the +1 for review, while a "hire me, please" candidate gets sent away?

      I don't know many such candidates. Most university students understand that the job market is unkind to those who actually have zero experience. As you note, there is a good reason for this job market unkindness!

      The guy with an AS will have a better intrinsic understanding of what he's doing, having had knowledge and experience both combined; whereas the guy without the AS will "have a feel for it" but, unless he's done some self-study, will be lacking a lot.

      Having a feel for it is valuable most of the time, but when the processing requirements get large, what you feel is insufficient.

      Does the system exhibit linear scaling or polynomial scaling? Both will give the "feeling" that the processing task can be done in the time allowed, but we could be talking about a difference in hardware cost that's in the millions of dollars. So which is it? Management needs to know so they can plan and budget.

      Don't get me wrong. I love systems that were designed using the "I just feel it" level of rigor. It's good for my business. :)

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    78. Re:as always depends on the person by kievite · · Score: 1

      I think he can get the same result going for two years to community college and then for two year to state college spending 1/5 of the money he spend unless the company paid for DeVry. And if he is that bright he might even get scholarships from both.

  2. It's hard to gain credibility... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2

    ... when the creators of Robot Chicken make fun of you in their latest series, Titan Maximum:

    Willie: I can help! I have a diploma in mechanical engineering!

    Palmer: *sarcastically* From DeVry.

    1. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      It's also hard to gain credibility when you quote robot chicken.

      Good thing I was quoting Titan Maximum, eh?

    2. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also hard to gain credibility when you quote robot chicken.

      Robot Chicken is the snarky critic of our time, in a few centuries it'll be the Shakespeare or Chaucer that everybody uses to see what life was REALLY like.

    3. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Seth Green! I didn't know you read slashdot.

    4. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Apparently you were trying to 'build them up' and give that program more credibility by saying it was made by the creators of Robot Chicken, eh?

    5. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Apparently the creators of Robot Chicken don't realize that DeVry doesn't do ME degrees... A ten second review of their web site would reveal that. Who lacks credibility now? Wake me up when a company that actually hires/employs engineers has a comment; the ramblings of a television show on late night cable TV are hardly high profile.

    6. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Apparently the creators of Robot Chicken don't realize that DeVry doesn't do ME degrees... A ten second review of their web site would reveal that. Who lacks credibility now?

      Maybe they will 200 years from now, after humanity has terraformed the entire solar system.

    7. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Or they were just making a joke, which doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be funny.

      Sheesh. Does someone have a DeVry degree?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    8. Re:It's hard to gain credibility... by Chronus · · Score: 1

      You lack humor credibility. Way to go. I would tell you to go to DeVry but they don't do CE (Comedic Engineering) degrees, either. Looks like your just shit outta luck.

      --
      And this long long speach comes to one point... That-- OOOO! QUARTER!
  3. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, and No.

  4. Non-Profit? by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All other colleges are non-profit? Harvard is non-profit? Really?

    1. Re:Non-Profit? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

      Harvard is a private non-profit. Colleges are either public (state run, taxpayer subsidized) or private (no state funding, money comes from tuition, donations, endowments). Private colleges can either be for-profit or non-profit, which is a tax designation. non-profit colleges will gladly help you rack up 6 figures of debt for a completely useless degree.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Non-Profit? by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is an entire new class of educational institution that Wall Street has dreamed up. They basically use college students to suck up government and private loans. The money from the loans get deposited into the university. The students get an online degree that probably doesn't get them a job. But the student in 100% liable for the loan. You cannot even escape with bankruptcy. But the investors who never gave the student nothing more than a worthless sheet of paper is protected. This scam artist like Phoenix University are mere doppelgangers, they lack the substance of a reputable University like Harvard.

      --
      Think global, act loco
    3. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      A tiny group of indviduals make emense gains from the status and continued oporation of Harvard. It isn't fair to call an orginization that pays their empoloyees well over market rate a non-profit. Harvard falls into this category. It's official tax status may be non-profit, but idealogically speaking, it definitly is for-profit.

    4. Re:Non-Profit? by Artraze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      THIS. Where are my mod points? The entire point of a college is to make money; even for state schools. This has become particularly bad in recent years where college has become less about higher learning and more about getting that piece of paper that shows that you payed and are now eligible to do anything beyond grunt work.

      I, for one, welcome these "for profit" schools: They are like a parody of the existing system, showing how a diploma is really just about paying the money and playing the game. I am cautiously optimistic that the weakness of their 'shovelware' degrees will wake people up to the fact that every other institution is fundamentally the same.

    5. Re:Non-Profit? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Right, at Harvard it isn't the investors who make the money, it is the administration. That is much better and more reputable.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Non-Profit? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Exactly

      There's nothing wrong with being for-profit.

      But they probably won't charge you 10 years of debt for that, as opposed to the 'big-name' non-profits.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    7. Re:Non-Profit? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      A lot of this has to do with the legal definition of what makes profit and non-profit. You won't find Harvard being publicly traded on the NYSE for instance, but you can trade in DeVry stocks (NYSE: DV).

      Nonprofits don't share their surplus profits with share holders.

    8. Re:Non-Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to take out a loan to attend Havard. Their endowment will pay your tuition.

    9. Re:Non-Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to take a critique of Harvard seriously from someone who has this many spelling errors (individuals, immense, operation, organization, ideologically, definitely...) in the post.

      That aside, how to you judge the "market rate" for faculty employed by Harvard? Isn't the "market rate" whatever one buyer (Harvard) and one seller (the employee) agree to?

    10. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      There is nothing that states that non-profit organizations cannot pay their employees competitive wages to get the cream of the crop.

      I have friends at World Bank and the IMF who get paid way more than they would working in the industry, because these organizations want the really smart and capable candidates, and it is inevitable that you pay well to attract and retain them.

      And judging by the stupidity of your argument and the quality of your language and communication skills, I have to ask -- are you twelve?

    11. Re:Non-Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The.. entire point of a state school is to make money?

      haha, did you ever. go to a state school? or.. university in general?

      let me assure you; the premise and the execution of the financial administration at a state school vs. a "for profit" online school are like night and day......... COMPLETELY and UTTERLY unlike each other!

    12. Re:Non-Profit? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with being for-profit.

      Unless of course, you're a non-profit college, and you're worried about having to compete for those financial aid dollars and union jobs.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    13. Re:Non-Profit? by eepok · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://www.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/04/for-profits-data/

              * CEOs of for-profit colleges receive up to 26 times the amount of pay that the heads of traditional universities do.

              * Many of the schools make up to ninety percent of their revenue from U.S. taxpayers, through the Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, and other federal assistance used by their students. 91.5 percent of Kaplan's revenue comes from the government, along with 88 percent revenue at the University of Phoenix.

              * Just 11 percent of higher education students in the country attend for-profit schools, yet they account for 26 percent of federal student loans and 44 percent of student loan defaults.

    14. Re:Non-Profit? by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 2

      If I had mod points, I'd mod up. I came to this conclusion a couple years ago (a couple years after I graduated from a public university) when I noticed more and more 'hobby-like' liberal arts programs, along with much fancier classrooms and hotel-like dorms. Colleges realized that they can sell students on a promise and a dream, and leverage their payment with federally endorsed loans co-signed by the parents. The coming realization for US High Schoolers is going to be that college isn't for everyone, and with the cost continuing to rapidly outpace inflation, you're going to have to have a firm game plan in place before you even apply. It's far from guaranteed to be worth the money. Yeah, the Ivy League will always open doors, but a general "college degree" is becoming a very expensive and poorly defined label.

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    15. Re:Non-Profit? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      True, but in that case, being not-for-profit is little more than a status that exists for tax purposes.

      The people running the institution are making a lot of money. They want more money. Therefore, the leadership of the institution makes it a goal to have a high income relative to its expenses so that they can pay themselves well. This is the case for many schools and hospitals

    16. Re:Non-Profit? by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      For-profit schools will gladly pass failing students if it means they keep paying them money. Non-profit private schools and state schools will just fail your butt if you aren't keeping up. They have a reputation to uphold. For example, a college of education that churns out students who subsequently fail their state teaching exams won't remain accredited. So they have to ensure that their graduates remain high quality. My best friend just finished the state veterinarian board exams, a grueling 7 hour test that students only get two opportunities to pass before graduation. Her school has a 98% pass rate - whereas other schools in the state sink as low as 50%. So the reputation of her vet school remains very high.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    17. Re:Non-Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The student may well not even get a degree...part of the overall problem is that the for-profits that operate like this don't even emphasize degree completion...in fact, they may even discourage it since a student can theoretically graduate with a degree but still be eligible for additional loans and if a student can get additional loans, the for-profit school is losing money if that student graduates rather than takes more classes (and takes out more loans).

    18. Re:Non-Profit? by Americium · · Score: 2

      So the problem is government guaranteed loans, which allows students to rack up lots of debt, and lending institutions on Wallstreet can 'invest', in student loans. Hell it's guaranteed profit, who wouldn't. So instead of money being invested in profitable business, it's going to shitty public and private schools. And obviously it hasn't been working, crappy degrees, and high prices.

      Without the loans, far fewer people could afford to waste money on useless degrees, and maybe finally tuitions would drop.

    19. Re:Non-Profit? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Many of the schools make up to ninety percent of their revenue from U.S. taxpayers

      Those are LOANS that must be repaid... with interest. Besides, how many students pay their way through ivy league colleges which are "non-profit"? I'm sure the number is about the same, as if it matters.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Non-Profit? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Never heard of the "gentleman's C", eh?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Non-Profit? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That aside, how to you judge the "market rate"

      This is why it is always a bad idea to complain about spelling on the internet. You eventually end up being a hypocrite.

    22. Re:Non-Profit? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Using a medical graduate as an example of a colleges in general is a poor choice. There are certain jobs that really do need access to something like a college. doctors, lawyers, that sort of thing. Now compare your averages Arts major, or Business major to the for-profit schools. This stop looking as rosy for the traditional schools.

    23. Re:Non-Profit? by secret_squirrel_99 · · Score: 1

      True, but in that case, being not-for-profit is little more than a status that exists for tax purposes.

      Not just in this case, in EVERY case. The only difference between for profit, and non-profit is accounting rules.. period.
      All business exist to make money. The only question is what to do with the profits, either return to your investors or spend to further your mission.

      --
      If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
    24. Re:Non-Profit? by eepok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the problem is not flatly "government guaranteed loans", but the predatory for-profit schools who have mastered the acquisition of government-basked student aid (grants and loans). They will accept anyone and inflate their expectations just so they can enroll them in classes (without care for the quality of the classes or the education actually received) so that they can receive government funds through the student.

    25. Re:Non-Profit? by eepok · · Score: 1

      While I don't have hard numbers, Ivy League colleges have massive trust funds from which they pull the money to partially or completely fund (via grants and scholarships) student education. That's why some people find it cheaper to go to a private school-- they can offer more money from their own coffers.

      Also, it's not just loans (which must be paid), the government grants (need-based hand-outs) are sucked up by the for-profits even quicker.

    26. Re:Non-Profit? by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      The entire point of a college is to make money; even for state schools.

      I don't know which college you went to, but the college I went to (Washington State University) is a research college as are all the universities in the Pac-10 (soon to be Pac-12). They don't tend to make money to do anything other than educate and do more research. You don't see a lot of this research as an undergrad unless you ask, or have a professor who talked about it. I fortunately had both.

      Also, a lot of people are talking about how expensive college is. I will say that Washington and Oregon are raising tuition, I know that it's about $9k per year for tuition for the state/public schools in both states. Sure it was only $3k when I started college in 1995, but it's still a great deal for a top-quality education. Meanwhile, It's not like ITT or DeVry are cheap alternatives, they are at about $20k per year for tuition. If money is really a problem, you can always go to a community college for the first 2 (or less if you are smart and driven) and then on to a university for the remainder. Even with student loans, you could probably get out of there with less than $20k of debt and a degree from a respected institution.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    27. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing the ability of an educational institution to teach and incidentally make money with an educational institution whose sole existence is to make money.

      The mission statement of Harvard does not involve money -- money merely enables it to succeed at being one of the very best schools on this planet, to educate the best and the brightest, and do kickass research in the arts and the science. In contrast, a place like DeVry or ITT Tech are concerned primarily with making money, and education merely enables them to succeed at making more money.

      *That* is the difference.

    28. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      A companies mission statement rarely has anything to do with their actual business practices. From my perspective, Harvards exists to make rich people richer and has little, if anything, to do with education or furthering science. "being one of the very best schools" based on what metric? How are you comparing Harvard to ITT? The arbitrarily assigned grade point averages of the students that attend? The amount of money the parents of the students that attend donate to the school? The jobs they get with their degrees at companies with extremely biased managers?

    29. Re:Non-Profit? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      That aside, how to you judge the "market rate"

      This is why it is always a bad idea to complain about spelling on the internet. You eventually end up being a hypocrite.

      Actually, his post was complaining about the number of errors in the short post; he wasn't complaining about one simple typo. But your point is a good one. If one is complaining about someone else's spelling, it behooves one to proofread one's own post extremely carefully. I do think his basic point is valid notwithstanding.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    30. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      A company's mission statement has everything to do with its business practices, and also what those practices mean to investors. The sole purpose of the company then is -- to use a clichéd expression -- to enhance shareholder value. The sole purpose of a non-profit, in comparison, is not to enhance shareholder value, but rather to use the funds to further its mission and charter. That is a significant difference.

      If you think that very little furthering of science happens at Harvard, I can only pity you. Look up the number of Nobel laureates from Harvard and compare that against the number from ITT Tech. Harvard is one of the best schools for a variety of reasons, not the least because it is picky about its students, but also because it provides its students with a world-class environment, both in the form of the educators and in the form of resources.

      How about looking up the average SAT and GRE/GMAT scores of Harvard and ITT grads? I can bet you dollars to donuts that the average SAT score of the Harvard freshman will beat the knockers out of the average SAT score of the ITT Tech freshman. Oh wait, does ITT even require taking the SAT?

      And what about the number of ITT Tech grads that won the Nobel prize? Pulitzer prize? Fields medal? Turing award?

    31. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      You're living in a fairytale.

    32. Re:Non-Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the students actually get an education and there is a focus on prestige, unlike a for-profit private school where, like everything in corporate America, the motto is "CUT COST CUT COST CUT COST MAKE MORE MONEY", whether or not that helps students.

    33. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting to hear how you think that Harvard's mission does not include education or furthering science.

    34. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      Harvard is the epitome of wealth condensation. If Harvard only chose to accept the smartest student then 90% of the students that attend would be at or below middle class. That's not the case. It's hard to measure their efficiency at furthering science, but anyone group with a shit load of money, the clout of Harvard, and a fair amount of reasonably smart people could produce all those things you listed.

    35. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      But that is the point -- Harvard's goal is not *only* furthering science. If Harvard accepted only the uber smart students, then it would turn into the University of Chicago (shudder). The idea is that Harvard looks for leaders in its students, people who can make a difference in the world. That is not always translated into academic scores.

      Chicago looks for smart people, Harvard looks for smart and *interesting* people who have the ability to break the mold -- and kick ass.

      My wife goes to school there, and so do/did several of our friends. And not one of them is particularly wealthy -- a few well-off kids, and a few upper middle class. But the vast majority? Middle class.

    36. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      Or look at it this way, Harvard accepts people who are willing to take advantage of others for their own personal gain and the gain of other Harvard graduates.

    37. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      You are being absurd and populist in your opinions -- sour grapes, perhaps?

      Harvard is a good school with great people, and like any other institution, there are people of all natures and predispositions. Generalizing your ridiculous notions to the entire institution is not only crazy, but also reeks of unbridled and irrational hatred tinged with jealousy.

    38. Re:Non-Profit? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      You sound like someone paying huge sums of money for something they know deep down isn't worth it.

    39. Re:Non-Profit? by metlin · · Score: 1

      For one, I'm studying something I truly enjoy, benefits notwithstanding. For another, I'm getting reimbursed for my studies, so it's not my money.

      But at the end of the day, I am having a blast studying at one of the best schools in the world -- what's not to like?

    40. Re:Non-Profit? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Harvard's grade inflation is notorious to the point that an A+ (4.0) at Harvard is worth about a C- (2.0) at someplace like RIT/MIT/CalTech/Stanford, and that it's been noticed and reported on in mainstream media more than once.

      Also, it needs to learn how to pick better presidents than the last few yahoos it had in there.

      Besides, parents don't send their children to Harvard for the education, they send them to Harvard for the contacts they will make.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  5. For profit schools are not the only ones by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that leave students in high debt for jobs that pay little

    The majority of liberal arts programs would fall into that category.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    1. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by exhilaration · · Score: 2

      Is that you, Garrison Keillor?

    2. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter whether you go to the Ohio State University, Harvard, DeVry, ITT Tech or ANY higher education institution. They ALL want your dollars.....they ALL try and get you in there no matter what including getting you to accept student loans. They ALL do this.....whether they are for profit or not. Anyone who doesn't think so is kidding themselves.

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Well it's your choice

      Like it's your choice to buy a hundred thousand dollar gaz-guzzler giant SUV

      At least the SUV is cheaper and you can torch it and pretend it was stolen (not that I'm advocating insurance fraud)

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    4. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I attended both a 4-year liberal arts university and a 2-year tech school. One of the most valuable things I received from both institutions was a network of connections. Thanks to my time at the 4-yr school, I know people all over who will help me find a job, a place to stay, etc. And my connections at the 2-year school were invaluable for helping me find employment in the city where that school was located.

      I think utilizing those networks has helped me stay well-employed enough to pay back my student loans.

    5. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Liberal Arts programs aren't there to help people make money. In fact, most university degrees weren't (and shouldn't be) designed to create workforce-ready individuals. They exist to create intelligent, educated people who are capable of learning even more after they graduate and putting that knowledge to use in improving life on Earth. (Mileage varies.). The modern Liberal Arts (History, Language, Literature, Political Science, Sociology, Anthropology, Philosophy, etc.) are there to explore humanity for what it was, what it is, and in an effort to prevent past mistakes from repeating themselves.

      Ya, that sounds "high fa-lootin'", but that's why universities exist and that's why the curriculum is as it is. It's idealist in that its purpose is to make a better (interpretable) world just by giving people information and teaching them how to analyze and act on it.

      Vocational training is completely different. DeVry and ITT Tech (for-profit, vocational colleges) may genuinely offer more reliable, quicker means to getting a well-paying position than a State University liberal arts degree, but they, again, do to different things. DeVry can teach you how to become an electrician's apprentice after which you learn a bunch of skills and make money in the future. Cool. The liberal arts degree can help you understand the world around you. It all depends who you are and what you want from life.

      It's also worth noting that there are some very close overlaps between vocational schooling and university training. For example, nursing schools train their students along very similar lines of master's degrees in biology, but just with less expectation of in-depth knowledge and a greater focus on responsibility and accountability. A program in electrical engineering will have very similar concepts taught to a vocational series on becoming an electrician, but the two final products (the more-educated individual) are competent in two very different fields.

      There are even certain fields where subjects outright overlap in their academic and vocational training: Teacher training vs. academic studies in Education, Business, Accounting vs. Economics, etc.

    6. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Yold · · Score: 1

      that leave students in high debt for jobs that pay little

      The majority of liberal arts programs would fall into that category.

      Depends... Remember folks, mathematics, statistics, chemistry, geology, and even computer science are available at liberal arts colleges.

      Don't hate on the liberal arts. Sure there are plenty of bullshit majors, but I do feel much more well-rounded in my education. Technically-minded people forget that you don't need to make a living based off what you went to college for. People skills can be just as valuable as programming skills. College is simply a rite-of-passage into the adulthood for some, rather than a vocational school. And to be blunt most people are too dumb (and socially capable?) to be engineers.

      (my liberal arts experience)
      The uni that I graduated from allowed you to take any of those majors for a B.A. (liberal arts) or B.S. (college of engineering). Liberal arts math was actually harder; much more theoretical and you were allowed only a basic scientific calculator. Instead of taking 2 semesters physics, which isn't of tremendous use to non-engineers, you were allowed to take 4 semesters of foreign language. Finally, I got to choose the upper-level classes I wanted to take for CSCI, rather than having to take a predetermined emphasis/track, e.g. "Computer systems programming", "Web programming", which actually allowed me to take harder graduate-level classes.

    7. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Garrison Keillor?

      wish I had mod points +1 funny

    8. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK: How about (1) high debt + (2) false promises + (3) unsatisfactory outcome == grounds for harsh criticism
      People getting degrees in English are not crunching the numbers very hard. Are there many for-profit liberal arts schools?

      Colleges being overpriced is one (very broad) problem, colleges lying to their students is quite another.

    9. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when I went to college (late 70's/early 80's), I was able to major in Liberal Arts with a concentration in Computer & Information Sciences. This allowed me to take a broad mix of classes across the University. Also, I entered under the CLA Honors program, which removed most of the "distributional minima" requirements as long as I maintained GPA and took a certain number of Honors courses.

    10. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference is that at Harvard (and even OSU) there are people who can't get in because the administration doesn't think the potential student will be able to finish the program. Places like ITT and DeVry will take anybody's money, even the ones who have little chance of finishing.

      dom

    11. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful.

      One of the dirty secrets of the university system is that with few exceptions, a bachelor's degree is generic - employers are more interested that you have the degree than what the degree was in. (Obviously there are a few notable exceptions.)

      Just looking around my office - our facilities manager is an ex-sales rep whose degree is in education. The last guy in charge of the warehouse went to school for chemical engineering. And so on. The office manager was a theatre arts (drama) major.

      Regardless of the school, it's all a matter of getting bodies (and dollars) in the door (and then preferably kicking the bodies back out the door as soon as possible, sans cash). The private schools just don't have the cover of "research" to justify why it costs $60,000 to run three hours of class for sixteen weeks.

    12. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Jainith · · Score: 1

      I'd add military training as well.

      In college (university) I used to be able to go point for point down the slides/notes used for my Army ROTC classes and match them up with the ones used for my Business Administration ones.

    13. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's all in how you parlay it. I know of some companies that preferentially hire liberal arts students because they can at least be trained. Companies that need actual meaningful thought tend to go for liberal arts students first, unless they're poorly run or have a need for specialists.

      The bigger issue is that colleges focus very little on helping students transition from college life to work life. It's understandable for small schools, my current one only has a couple hundred students at any given time and so doesn't have the resources. But it's also tightly focused enough on a high demand field that it's not going to be much of a problem when people graduate the next year. People are still going to be needing to learn English as a second language.

    14. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classical educations are awesome -- but ultimately I have known a tremendous number of Liberal Arts majors who are incapable of reason, didn't learn anything about the world or its people, literature, or art, while at University or College.

      In many instance a Liberal Arts education becomes "I need my kid to be baby sat for another 4 years."

      At the same time, I have known many people go through engineering programs and also have a well rounded background.

      As others have said here, it is the person not the institution or education.

    15. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Sort of true. It's about the money, but not necessarily loans(but given that the loans are guaranteed...).

      If you can play sports very well, or you show promise to pump out impressive looking published papers, universities will give you a free ride. Of course, the point of either academic basis for a free ride scholarship or an athletic one serves the purpose of hoodwinking big alumni donors and philanthropists into dumping money into the school. if you can play ball or get published, there's a good chance you're worth more to the school than just the free ride scholarship.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post was written by someone with a liberal arts degree trying to justify the 4 years they wasted reading classic literature and talking about it. That would be all fine and good, and there is a place for those people, but they had to go talking about how technical degrees are the same as technical vocational programs. I call shenanigans. Saying an electrical engineering program has the same material as an electrician training program is just not true. Being able to wire a building is not in the same league as being able to design and more importantly analyze complex circuit systems. The fact that both titles have "electric" in the name does not mean the concepts being taught are "very similar". I'm not trying to knock electricians, I have a lot of respect for what they do and what they know. I am trying to knock people with liberal arts degrees that spout off about technical things. Stick to your last set of examples; Teacher training vs. academic studies in Education, Business. If you still want things like cell phones, and automobiles, and microwaves, you need to start respecting people who have technical degrees and do creative design. Reading "war and peace" won't make your TV work.

      More on topic, I think more respected targeted technical education programs are exactly what we need these days. Having spent 5 years getting an electrical engineering degree at a major university,(which is pretty normal time these days), I could gotten the education I was looking for in more like 3 years if I wasn't forced to take all the underwater basket weaving classes. I see tech colleges as a solution to this problem of curriculum bloat, if only one would step up and be more reputable.

    17. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by eepok · · Score: 1

      I think you misread some of what I wrote.

      You say:
      "...but they had to go talking about how technical degrees are the same as technical vocational programs."

      I said:
      "A program in electrical engineering will have very similar concepts taught to a vocational series on becoming an electrician, but the two final products (the more-educated individual) are competent in two very different fields."

      Note: "same" =/= "two very different fields"

      You also said:
      "I am trying to knock people with liberal arts degrees that spout off about technical things. " and "I could gotten the education I was looking for in more like 3 years if I wasn't forced to take all the underwater basket weaving classes" ... which makes you sound dumb. And that's honestly disappointing because aside from your obvious disdain for the areas of education that aim to create a better society, I agree with your sentiments.

      I think tech (vocational) colleges should be part of a solution in creating a more utilitarian educational system. We shouldn't force students through high school and then tell them that their only realistic option to career success is to attend a university focusing on academia-- because academia doesn't prepare people for life in a workforce. But, as you say, the prospect of reputable vocational colleges isn't high.

    18. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venti capacino, dry. Double time it and I'll throw in an extra buck.

    19. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by metlin · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'll learn to spell cappuccino right the next time?

    20. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Most good universities reject two thirds of their applicants. ITT has never turned down a person who qualifies for a loan. The key difference is that a school with integrity won't accept a student who has zero chance of succeeding.

    21. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter whether you go to the Ohio State University, Harvard, DeVry, ITT Tech or ANY higher education institution. They ALL want your dollars.....they ALL try and get you in there no matter what including getting you to accept student loans. They ALL do this.....whether they are for profit or not. Anyone who doesn't think so is kidding themselves.

      Man, where were you when I was doing college applications? I didn't think Harvard would be so eager to take me!

      Wait, no, that's wrong, and so are you. They don't "ALL try and get you in there no matter what". Some are very competitive. Most decent universities are pretty selective in their admissions and only admit people they feel have a decent chance of succeeding in school. Yes, they take money, but that's not their primary objective. Many good universities receive significant financial support from alumni, and consider alumni to be a valuable resource. On the grad level, their marketing is in the form of papers authored, impact, and rankings by places like US News & World Report.

      For-profit colleges, on the other hand, will usually take anyone. They know they're going to make a ton of cash in aid from the government, and they don't care if the students are likely to succeed. Additionally, they know the student loans are either guaranteed by the government or will not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. This creates a pretty obvious incentive system.

      In every quantifiable metric I have seen, for-profit schools are worse than both public and private non-profits. Your argument that "they're all the same" is bogus largely because it ignores, well, everything important.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    22. Re:For profit schools are not the only ones by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The majority of liberal arts programs would fall into that category.

      If you get good grades, you can do very well with a liberal arts major.

      My wife majored in Religious Studies at a state school. It doesn't get much more liberal artsy than that. But she graduated with some ridiculous GPA and became an analyst with a large, national bank.

      She's done very well for herself there, and that's with a major that you would have definitely laughed at.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  6. No you cant by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

    But you also can't trust public colleges, and for the same reason.

    Public colleges in general cost SIGNIFICANTLY more than these tech schools, and the job prospects for 4 year grads are dismal. Go to grad school (especially in something like English, Art, and the Humanities), and your only job prospects are probably working for the same school that gave you the degree.

    Even formally "instant upper class" things like law school are not a good payout anymore.

    1. Re:No you cant by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your prospects for salary are based on how rare your skillset is multiplied by how useful it is to a private firm that exists to make money. A doctorate in philosophy might be rare, but it isn't useful to a lot of software companies. A software company might need secretaries, but there are many millions of people who have that skill set. Having one of the two doesn't mean you deserve a great starting salary, you have to have both things going for you, and as people try to achieve that, salary structures change in some industries over time. They only remain the same for jobs where entry barriers are always relatively high or relatively low.

    2. Re:No you cant by jayme0227 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't agree with your statements, and neither does this chart.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    3. Re:No you cant by Gaijin42 · · Score: 0

      I agree, and this somewhat reinforces my point.

      Liberal arts colelges, for the most part, dump out hundreds of thousands of interchangeable people with no real skills. There are of course exceptions. Doctors, engineers, some of the scientists (although many are just recycled into faculty), some of the tech people (although in my experience any person with a masters or phd in comp sci is 100% worthless on the job)

      Tech schools are focusing on areas where there are more shortages of workers (or at least the impression of shortages of workers). Now, they of course have a perverse incentive to make the shortage appear worse than it is, and continue its existence even after the shortage is no longer there. But they are responding to at least some level of market dynamics, which by and large traditional schools are insulated from completely.

      There is a reason all schools (private and public) do not publish good salary or job sector data. They just give the number of people having any job. You might have gone to school for engineering, and be serving fries - thats a win to the school

    4. Re:No you cant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That chart seems biased. It only counts the earnings of full-time, salaried employees, but I'd be surprised if it counted part-time employees as unemployed in it's unemployment rate.

      Furthermore, the fact the people who currently have PhDs currently have better employment prospects doesn't mean that this fact would hold true if everyone started obtaining PhDs with little demand in order to get better jobs.

    5. Re:No you cant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That chart doesn't exactly disprove the economic argument made above. It shows that in general the higher your education, the more money you make (and the more likely you are to have a job in a downturn). It would have to make a distinction between a doctorate in basket weaving and a doctorate in an engineering discipline to disprove that what you study isn't as important as the level of degree... but it doesn't.

      Supply and demand determine pricing. It's as simple as that.

    6. Re:No you cant by Khue · · Score: 1

      I am not calling bs on your statements, but do you have any proof that public/state schools generally cost more then tech schools? Typically, from what I've seen, going to a local college is fairly cheep by comparison to these tech schools from what I've seen. I have known some people to have run up a significant amount of debt for their tech school degree which financially seems comparable to a private institution. I went to a local state college and I don't recall spending any more then 10k for the entire experience.

    7. Re:No you cant by Nailer235 · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your statements, and neither does this chart.

      Two questions. 1) Which statements do you dispute? 2) How does the chart you linked dispute those statements? You basically said, "Of your ten statements, every single one is wrong. Here's a bar graph." Annnnndddd?

    8. Re:No you cant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you also can't trust public colleges, and for the same reason.

      Public colleges in general cost SIGNIFICANTLY more than these tech schools, and the job prospects for 4 year grads are dismal. Go to grad school (especially in something like English, Art, and the Humanities), and your only job prospects are probably working for the same school that gave you the degree.

      Even formally "instant upper class" things like law school are not a good payout anymore.

      They cost significantly more? In FL, tuition is around $100/credit (guesstimate, I haven't enrolled in an undergrad course for about 10 years). How much are the for-profit schools?

    9. Re:No you cant by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree that education leads to higher earnings and better employment options. My point (perhaps poorly made) was that even accounting for your 2-3x better job prospects, employment in the chosen field (especially for "soft" degrees) is still bad (even though you are better off than someone with no degree), and the cost of that degree was huge.

      My fiance has a masters in art history and metalsmithing. 80k in debt, and her one department (highly ranked and respected) turns out about 10-15 people like her every year. A few thousand of them across the country.

      Nationwide, there are a handful of (mostly academic) positions, some industrial positions, and the rest are the proverbial "starving artist"

      Other departments like english, the humanities, womens studies, etc are the same, except they don't have the industrial positions.

    10. Re:No you cant by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      Average nationwide tuition at a 4 year public school is 7.6k per year (30k total)
      4 year private school averages 30k per year (120k! total!)
      google says ITT costs 30k per year
      google says devry costs 14k per year

      Traditionally people at public/private schools are also going to pay for room and board as well, which many places double the cost. However, Since everyone has the option to stay at home or rent we can ignore that.

      So these schools are more expensive than state school, and up to as expensive as the average private school (but significantly less than the elite private schools)

      So i will admit my cost estimates were off, but I still hold that job prospects for the public school people are pretty bad too. For the masses/sheeple, going to community college or straight out into the workforce is quite often cost effective.

      Those who can specialize in areas with shortages will be better off.

    11. Re:No you cant by Bengie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not all public education is bad. I paid only $1800/semester(that includes free book rental) for my public college. Over the past 15 years of them teaching CIS, they had 100% of their graduates from CIS found a job in their field within a year and with an average starting wage of $78k. It's a smaller department, but they do well. Something like 20 students per semester. I even got to enjoy a few alumni guest speakers from Microsoft, some large world wide insurance company, and one that works with banks and the government to use heuristics to discover money laundering. Many of our alumni go onto top companies.

      ~$3.6k/year was a decent trade.

      Heck, my state's primary college would have only cost me $2k/semester, and they're so well known for genetics/law/CS/Computer-engineering that large portions of my in-state tuition was paid for by bio-engineering patents and second-semester freshmen computer engineers get contacted by Intel/AMD/IBM. Actually, my state uni has listed many years in top 10 world wide in several research and engineering fields.

    12. Re:No you cant by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      This post is a perfect illustration of why I can use attendance at a for-profit as a signal that a candidate's critical thinking skills are deficient. They didn't consider the options and choose the one that offered the best value or best job placement opportunities, they chose the one with the best sales pitch. I wouldn't hire such a candidate, and I especially wouldn't hire that candidate if the job called for making purchasing decisions.

      You'll pay more in tuition alone for a disreputable degree from a for-profit than you would for everything –books, room and board, fees –at a state school. My local community college charges less per credit hour for an out of state student than U Phoenix does for their AA credit hours! Residents pay a third of what out-of-staters pay!

    13. Re:No you cant by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      A liberal arts degree shows that you have the ability to put up with BS, a very valuable people skill in and of itself. Someone with an English degree probably won't get a job working in publishing - they could be like me and work for a tech company that needs someone with solid writing skills.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    14. Re:No you cant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! My libertarian ideology is just as good as your real world "facts".

    15. Re:No you cant by martyros · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to find out where the PhDs are getting all their money. PhDs in engineering fields are useful, especially for R&D arms of companies. (I have my PhD in CompSci, and am doing advanced OS development.) But where to PhDs in history / classics get their money? Are they really paid more than people who just have an undergrad degree?

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    16. Re:No you cant by Ruke · · Score: 2

      Is this some how the college's fault? Did the college fail to adequately prepare your wife for life in the artistic metal-smithing field? Did they give her a sub-par education, which should have been heavily discounted? Or did she choose to focus on an area which has, and has always had dismal economic prospects? Surely it isn't her institution's fault for offering a program that she couldn't really afford. I understand that the "American Dream" involves going off to college to pursue your passions, but the sad truth is that sometimes you can't make a great living doing what you love. In those cases, it's probably not a great idea to rack up tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, and I have a hard time blaming the schools when that happens.

    17. Re:No you cant by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation.

      With the exception of certain "hard barrier to entry" degrees, I'd venture to say that most people who get degrees already were in the top 20% IQ wise and would have earned far more than median salaries, even without any kind of degree.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    18. Re:No you cant by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      You just made my overall point - people are making stupid decisions. But they are doing it in public, private, and for profit schools. And the for profits shouldnt be singled out when the problem is endemic to the entire system/industry.

    19. Re:No you cant by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      Yes, and California is broke. You're suffering from blindness to externalized costs. Next...

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    20. Re:No you cant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't think it's endemic to the system. You are placing the onus on the system, instead of the students. The students should be responsible for their decision making. If they choose foolishly, they should accept the consequences instead of looking for someone to blame for their woes. However, colleges should still offer the crazy stuff that dumps students into a field with ultra-high unemployment, because a student should have a choice of what they want to attempt or do.

    21. Re:No you cant by MoriaOrc · · Score: 1

      I believe the point the GP was trying to make is that there are differences between the type of poor choice exemplified by (no offense to your fiancee) a degree in artistic metal-smithing from a prestigious private institution, and by a degree in computer networking from ITT or DeVry.

      With the expensive liberal arts degree, realistically you know what you are signing up for in advance. You will be getting a degree in something that you love to do and are willing to make sacrifices for. It might turn out in the long run that a more practical degree would have been better, but you know in advance what you are getting. To the degree that the university promotes the degree at all, I doubt they promote it as a great career starter.

      With a for-profit, they are almost always selling the degree as a vocational training, or a stepping stone in a career path. Whats more, the big for-profits heavily market the degree to the point of TV spots and the like.

      So the point is, a liberal arts degree is sold as "do what you love and get a degree" while a for-profit degree is sold as "start your career and increase your earning potential". If after taking the liberal arts degree, you find yourself unemployable and with loads of debt, you could still have gotten what you paid for. However, if after a for-profit vocational school you find yourself in that situation, you haven't gotten what you paid for at all, in fact quite the opposite. The bad choice was different. With the liberal arts degree, the bad choice was pursuing a liberal arts degree, and it should have been made with a decent degree of fore-knowledge of the likely down-sides. With a for-profit degree, the bad choice was trusting the for-profit marketing materials when there may not be as much information about the potential downsides available.

      All this sidesteps the issue of who the two degrees accept. I'd bet that the artistic metal-smithing degree took a lot of work both to get accepted and to complete the program. The for-profits on the other hand have a reputation of accepting almost anyone with a pulse and a student loan.

    22. Re:No you cant by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks to me like that chart shows that schools like DeVry perform close to a University; Community colleges' associate degrees far outperform them.

      Let's take a look at the cost of a university: $13000/yr for four years. For a moderately-skilled student, that's going to be at 8% per year, for a total of $58000 when he graduates. A 2-year Devry degree will cost you $40000 when you graduate. But if you live at home, and get a 2-year degree at your local community college, you owe $5000 when you graduate.

      Now, although your BLS chart doesn't show underemployment, consider your chances of getting a job in your field. Currently, underemployment is at 20% in many parts of the country. It's going to be worse for new graduates. Then throw in unemployment.

      Then consider that among 4-year institution graduates, there is a very *low* unemployment and underemployment rate among those who graduate with a degree in education. So for everyone else, that unemployment rate is much higher. But then consider that with places like Wisconsin and Iowa, that situation is about to change.

      So I'd say that Devry and the 4-year institution are not all that good a bet. Indeed, I'd say go to a local vo-tech or community college for a 2-year degree. Going for anything more, at least initially, is likely to give you a massive pay cut.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    23. Re:No you cant by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation.

      With the exception of certain "hard barrier to entry" degrees, I'd venture to say that most people who get degrees already were in the top 20% IQ wise and would have earned far more than median salaries, even without any kind of degree.

      Been a while since I looked at the statistics on this, but I remember it being fairly untrue.

      There is an IQ minimum for academic success, but it's somewhere around average. Let's call it IQ 100. Below that, most people don't do very well in school (or much else for that matter). Above that, GPA can be anything from 0.0 to 4.0, from IQ 101 through 160. Graduates aren't much smarter than average. People with average intelligence definitely get PhDs, and many very intelligent people fail out of school because they don't know how to work hard, delay gratification, manage their time, etc.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    24. Re:No you cant by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Your fiancee doesn't have to be a sculpture curator. University isn't a vocational program.

      My wife was a religious studies major and now she's a banker. Employers want smart people. There are lots of such people outside of the "useful" majors, and employers know that.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    25. Re:No you cant by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      But where to PhDs in history / classics get their money?

      Many such people wind up as attorneys.

      Are they really paid more than people who just have an undergrad degree?

      I'm sure they are, on average. Most people with the persistence and ability to earn a PhD are the type of people who can achieve success. Note, I'm not saying that the PhD is earning them the extra cash. I'm saying that the type of person who has earned a PhD is the type of person who would have been successful, even without the sheepskin.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  7. Garbage institutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things are the biggest rip offs I know of. They claim they can fast track you to intelligence and place you in a good job. In reality, they take thousands upon thousands of dollars of your money, and when you're done everyone throws your resume straight into the bin if they see that name on it. They budget more for TV commercials with 'successful' graduates than for real education. (If you've ever noticed the dates they show on the commercials, they are pre-crash. I'm pretty sure the 'success stories' they tout have since been laid off.)

    1. Re:Garbage institutions. by grapeape · · Score: 2

      Around here we call them puppy mills. You wouldn't believe how many Devry graduates I have interviewed over the years that thought their MCSE and Devry Certificate was their prerequisite to writing their own ticket. I had one get really angry with me when he came back after not being hired, I explained I was really looking for experience over paper and suggested he intern somewhere or try to hook on with a larger firm that had "entry level" positions. When hiring I usually come up with a short "quiz" mainly to get an idea of their troubleshooting skills...this particular guy actually told me "it wasn't in the books".

    2. Re:Garbage institutions. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      It can be a stepping point....if you know WHAT the heck your doing. Certs from ANY vendor mean diddly if you can't do the job. Degrees CAN help....EVEN from DeVry but you must STILL be able to do the job. Nothing is automatic.

      With that said, I think ALL colleges....public and private...charge WAY too much. I am going to rack up 30,000+ of debt and then only make 40-50K per year? You kidding me?? Going to Med or Law School is even worse. In those you will rack up close to 500K in debt....before you have your first client!

      So, it doesn't matter what school you go to....it's damned expensive and you get little to show for it other then knowledge and even then you may not be able to get a job where you can purchase a house, a car and pay your loans and other living expenses at the same time.

      --

      Gorkman

  8. Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    Excuse my ignorance, but with all the tuition hikes in recent years, it seems to me that all colleges are 'for-profit'.

    1. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by extraordinaire · · Score: 1

      They most certainly are.

    2. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Lucky for them, the government provides financing to everyone, so they can charge however high of a rate they want.

    3. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are not for-profit. If they were, then there would be somebody pocketing the profits. Instead these schools either, don't make a profit and survive off of government money or they put the money in a school endowment that is then used for things like scholarships, buildings, or general expansion/improvement. The key difference is that no owner or investor is getting a check at the end of the day. University of Phoenix for example is not only a for-profit, but it is a publicly traded company.

    4. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 2

      There are no investors that are expecting a direct payback from their investment in a not-for-profit university. Lawyers and investors know exactly what it meant by the term. Are universities cheap? Heck no, but it isn't to generate a profit for investors. Does Daddy Warbucks expect something in return for creating an endowment? Probably. Does he expect a direct return on his investment? No. Are the research faculty at a medical college well compensated? You bet. Is there pay excessive? That is a judgment call you have to make. Does their pay constitute 'profit"? No. Words have meanings, and 'profit' has a particular meaning. Most universities are not for profit.

      --
      Think global, act loco
    5. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolutely incorrect!!

      look, your public school MAYBE isn't quite as good of a deal as it was 20 years ago. but without question, the answer to the question is NO... most schools are NOT for-profit. they do not aim for profit nor do they embrace profit. all income is immediately re-invested into the school system (and since the money is helping your school gain notoriety , your degree can actually become MORE valuable after you graduate). at least, in theory!

      the comparison becomes far more clear when you consider that these "for profit" schools actually do have traditional investors, at the University of Pheonix, and these investors expect a quick bang for their buck, and these investors are in this "game" for absolutely nothing more than to MAKE A PROFIT!!

    6. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      A university can both be non-profit and yet still just as money grubbing as a for-profit. In fact, since public schools have taxpayers picking up the tab, they get away with a lot of stuff for-profits wouldn't.

      Every year at UCSD, our tuition payments would go up, and the university would talk about budget problems and all that. And every year a new 30 million dollar building would get built.

      Well, I never had to pay tuition... but I was offended on principal.

    7. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      RIght. Profit vs. Non-Profit all depends on where it money goes. If it goes to owners/investors it's for profit. If not, it might be non-profit.
      There are many football/basketball coaches at "Public Non-Profit" schools that make more total compensation than most CEO's.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    8. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by fropenn · · Score: 2

      Funds for buildings and for regular operating budgets come from different sources. That is, funds for new buildings often come from donors or directly from the state and are required to be spent on a building (and cannot be spent on salaries, etc.).

      Tuition goes up because states are dramatically cutting their support of public higher education. If you want lower tuition, contact your state legislator and vote.

    9. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technical definition requires a return on investment to owners. With tuition hikes for non profits, as long as expenses to run the college follows suit, the legal definition applies. This could be as simple as frivolous spending on luxuries on the campus or paying tenured profs more. So a non profit can still remain one while increasing costs to the consumer.

      Now, ignoring legalese, I'd say you are right. With guaranteed student loans by the government, costs have gone up in response as demand has increased. With less consumer pressure for lower prices, those who have incentive to raise prices are unimpeded from doing so. Guaranteed tax money is guaranteed to simply raise the costs of the end product in a given market. It happened with the US stock market since the 80s and with health care insurance in several gradual steps starting around the 50s and it has happened in the realm of higher education more recently as you yourself have noticed.

    10. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      It might seem that way, but actually... no.

      For most public AND private universities and colleges, tuition hikes are in general a last resort, and they happen because the school's other sources of funding have decreased. Most schools will cut programs and scrimp and save in many other ways before they give in and raise tuition. Driving away potential students is not what they want to do, and they avoid it whenever possible.

      Operating a university is very, very expensive, and not because some fat cats are raking in the dough. Quite the contrary.

      The most common reasons for tuition increases are reduced funding from government sources and reduced income from investment-related sources, both mostly resulting from economic downturns.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    11. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Funds for buildings and for regular operating budgets come from different sources.

      Some of them. When I was with the UCSD bioengineering department, we got a donation to build a new building, entirely through private sources. This didn't bother me.

      What did bother me was the university running a proposal to expand the student union (the Price Center) every year, to be funded by the students, and then when they failed every time, ended up just doing it anyway.

      We got a giant architectural monstrosity AND increased tuition. Win/win!

    12. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      If you think that even begins to compare to what some of the for-profits are doing... wow.

      You should really look into U of Phoenix and some of the nursing schools. We're talking about nursing programs producing not-yet licensed LVNs for ~$100k in tuition and fees... students who haven't even stepped foot in a hospital, learned how to interact with patients, give IVs, or operate basic equipment.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    13. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We're talking about nursing programs producing not-yet licensed LVNs for ~$100k in tuition and fees

      How much do you think UCSF charges in tuition? Hint: it's above $100k to get a degree from there, even though it is supposedly a public university. When you graduate from UCSF, you also don't have a license.

      UoP produces the majority of teachers here in California, and for less than what it costs at public institution.

    14. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Nope. About the only time public colleges raise tuition is when politicians change how much money they are going to allocate to education (or other external funding or revenue changes). I'm not sure if all public colleges have this, but I know that the ones I've worked for/with have mission statements/board of director policies that say that tuition must be as low as possible.

      When facing a budget shortfall, the very last thing considered is raising tuition.

    15. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      You're comparing apples to piles of manure. An LVN is a few steps below the average UCSF nursing program, and an LVN without a degree will have to enroll in a special program just to be eligible for the pre-RN coursework.

      LVNs are unlikely to make more than $30-40k/year. RNs are unlikely to earn less than $40k/year, and can earn quite a bit more in plenty of places.

      Additionally, UCSF's RN tuition isn't that high, at least for in-state students. It looks like it's plenty expensive for doctoral programs, but that's kind of expected, especially from a top-notch institution.

      Now, you want some real fun, try comparing pass rates on licensure exams: UCSF rates, well above average (all over 90%) vs. UoPhoenix. I can't find comprehensive stats for them, but their pass rate in Arizona is 78.4%. I'm willing to bet that UCSF grads have better employment opportunities and higher average earnings 10 years after graduation as well.

      That said, you should acknowledge that UCSF is offering a valuable degree (and a high probability of passing licensing exams) for roughly the same price as a for-profit is offering... no degree, potential ineligibility to take the exams, and a very low pass rate.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    16. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>LVNs are unlikely to make more than $30-40k/year.

      In San Francisco, they apparently average $56k/year.

      >>You're comparing apples to piles of manure

      Well, sure. Obviously UCSF (one of the best medical schools in the world) has a higher quality program. But they do have a LVN program, too.

      Doing some digging around, their fees (http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/fees/nursing) are comparable with private schools in the area, and there's (less good) public schools that are much cheaper.

      >>That said, you should acknowledge that UCSF is offering a valuable degree (and a high probability of passing licensing exams) for roughly the same price as a for-profit is offering

      Well, sure. You obviously would want to go to UCSF - it's the getting in that's hard. You go to a for-profit when your other options are eliminated. (My wife was fortunate to get into UCSF for pharmacy, and her education and degree have served her well.) The lower pass rate from the for-profits is probably both a function of a less educated applicant pool and the lower quality education. But I don't think the *fees* are excessive when compared with UCSF.

    17. Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Well, sure. Obviously UCSF (one of the best medical schools in the world) has a higher quality program. But they do have a LVN program, too.

      Doing some digging around, their fees (http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/fees/nursing) are comparable with private schools in the area, and there's (less good) public schools that are much cheaper.

      I couldn't even find an LVN program at UCSF. If you say they have one, I'll believe you, but all the programs I see there are for people who already have some training.

      For LVN or CNA, it seems the most economical route, by far, would be to go to a community college. Those programs have the same low entry requirements as the for-profits, and CA community colleges charge a whopping $26/unit/semester. Since LVN at CCSF is an 18-month program, I'll just go ahead and call it 4 semesters with 15 units/semester, weighing in at a grand total of $1,560. Throw in some fees, textbooks, and a parking permit, and you're close to 5% of a for-profit scam shop with superior training. Granted, CCSF probably has a longer waiting list, but I'm sure their program is plenty good for LVNs, probably even RNs.

      Well, sure. You obviously would want to go to UCSF - it's the getting in that's hard. You go to a for-profit when your other options are eliminated. (My wife was fortunate to get into UCSF for pharmacy, and her education and degree have served her well.) The lower pass rate from the for-profits is probably both a function of a less educated applicant pool and the lower quality education. But I don't think the *fees* are excessive when compared with UCSF.

      I think that's really my point, though. An extremely prestigious public university, offering an advanced degree (and medical insurance included in those fee totals), is comparable in cost (per year) to for-profits that have come under attack for shady business practices and bad training?

      Here's a link to a news story on GAO report about for-profit colleges using deceptive tactics. A rip-off report anecdote about Everett College.

      You can't really compare fees without looking at what those expenses get you. UCSF is probably worth the cost. A no-name school with questionable teaching practices, low licensure pass rates, low job placement rates, and extremely high student loan default rates? The fees shouldn't even be comprable.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  9. in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One should never trust anyone doing anything for profit. He will do the minimum possible for the maximum gain, including deception to the extent he can deceive you without you finding out.

    1. Re:in general by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Whereas the person who is doing things non-profit is working for motives that you probably do not know and therefore you have no way to truly know where their interests lie, so you do not know how to protect yourself against a conflict between your interest and theirs.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:in general by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Are we really arguing philosophy here? I suggest you people stop bitching about these things and start understanding them.

      I find it a great truth that meditation helps understanding these things. People seek answers too hard, and they are blinded; meditation trains the mind to stop seeking those answers and start seeing them. This is also an important skill in Go: the greatest flaw in your play is searching instead of seeing. Take some time to understand exactly what that means. (I am hesitant to say that the same issue is why many people reject meditation: they can't possibly ascribe anything sensible to it within their understanding, so they discard it. I'm a cause-and-effect guy; I know what works, I don't care how, or sometimes I "understand" but can't exactly ascribe something I can put into words to it... language is so bulky and cumbersome.)

      To put it to words, merchants and accountants have a preoccupation with numbers. It is a very personal thing, and as long as it is personally acceptable in the near term it is good. If it causes harm to everyone, this is no matter: by the time it harms them too much, they will be dead or so well-off they can buy out of the destruction. Any such damage is too fuzzy and imprecise to matter, though; after all, how exactly would society be better off if McGraw Hill didn't put out brand new editions of $150 textbooks every few months, effectively worthless, but force college students to buy them? This is a triviality, and the merchant sees it as a silly and pointless concern; it makes no real difference, it is no real crime, and the money comes to them so it is a good thing.

      They think small. Only small. The above paragraph is also very small: to truly understand, you must spend a lot of time thinking, slowly, clearly, and grandly; and when you do understand, you will also understand why the greatest philosophers sought their own personal truths and kept their understanding to themselves, offering hints and enlightenment when they could but never taking a political podium to explain all the intricacies of the universe to the masses. You will understand when you realize one day that you "get it," but you can't explain it, even to yourself. You will realize that you can write hundreds or thousands of pages, and it will be crude, imprecise, and often entirely wrong.

    3. Re:in general by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what your post has to do with the post you replied to.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:in general by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Just responding to people trying to talk about motivations and profit and angels in the hearts of men and whatever. Questions like "who do you trust" or "should I trust the guy after money or the guy with unknown motives" are very base, expecting simple answers where only complex answers exist.

  10. I'm not following this by E-Rock · · Score: 1

    There are problems in how they recruited students, so the skills of the students who finish are in question? How does one lead to the other?

    1. Re:I'm not following this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some of the 'problems' in recruiting students have been along the lines of enrolling homeless people with the intention of the school getting the federally funded scholarships. In order to KEEP GETTING these federally funded scholarships, the institution has to maintain a certain percentage of graduates. If you are curious, look it up yourself and you will see that along with some other quite dubious practices.

      It is not a stretch to then have doubts about their claimed graduation rate. That is, if a 'piece of paper' is all that you use to judge someones worth to your company.

    2. Re:I'm not following this by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

      It is pretty simple. These 'universities' sell worthless degrees and the 'graduates' get jobs in proportion to their degrees (e.g., most get very low pay). The graduates, with big loans and tiny pay checks, end up defaulting on their loans in high numbers. The 'for profit' universities made the investors happy by taking money from students in exchange for as little as possible. But like any scam artists, they have a really nice story that is bound to work some of the time. The students pay up front for delayed gratification. It just happens that the gratification is delayed for ever. If the universities were forced to 'invest' in the education for a piece of the eventual increase in pay, they would be incented to deliver real education so they could share in the increased value of the student's labor. But they can make more, at least in the short run, by playing this con game.

      --
      Think global, act loco
    3. Re:I'm not following this by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      There are problems in how they recruited students, so the skills of the students who finish are in question? How does one lead to the other?

      Surely you've noticed that some schools recruit and admit students primarily on their belief in their academic abilities and potential (grades, test scores, previous educational institutions, . . .).

      Other schools -- in particular the for-profit-tech schools in question here -- recruit and admit on a different basis. In the case of the for-profit-techs, that basis is the prospective student's ability to qualify for student loans.

      My sister-in-law works for one of these institutions in the recruiting department. Her job is a quota-based sales position. Salespeople who meet their quota are retained, those who don't get put on "probation" and are eventually cut. Her motivation is to get as many candidates to enroll as possible. Her employee evaluation is based solely on body count.

      I would say, therefore, that the skills of graduates of programs where students are recruited in such a system as employed by the for-profit-techs might be lacking compared to graduates of more selective institutions, if for no other reason than the "quality" of the incoming students.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  11. It all depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It all depends, I've taken classes in both environments and I think education quality depends more on the professor versus the institution.

    In the "traditional college" environment I found that the full-time professors they employed were great at teaching theory, but lacked in terms of practical experience. In the for profit environment I found that a much higher percentage of the professors only taught part time because they actively worked in the field. This let them teach theory that was backed up with real world experience. However you also had people who were excellent at what they did, but could not teach themselves out of a paper bag.

    1. Re:It all depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, now i do not share this same experience with both fields ,but what you say has come to my attention from collaborating with friends from high-school, whom go to non-profit institutions, where as i go to a for-profit institution. mind you, we are in the same field of study. (however please pardon me for my bad use of grammar.)

  12. Ripoff by kugeln · · Score: 2

    Our hiring practices generally exclude anyone not coming from a "real" accredited college. I'd rather hire somebody from a community college than anyone that went and sold their soul to ITT Tech or Devry--it shows a profound lack of common sense and planning ability. It's right up there with hiring somebody that lists "Geek Squad" on their resume. Pass...

    1. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know quite a few people that went to ITT or the like and do quite well in their field. Some people (including myself) went to one because:
      1.) High School bored me (so I didn't do as well as I could have)
      2.) You need to have a piece of paper to be looked at seriously when starting out in IT.

      Of course, I've been in the business for 10+ years and done everything from helpdesk to Cisco and Juniper router administration to consulting for Java and .net applications. Including rolling out AD, administering windows and linux mailservers, dns, etc... .

      I'm now running internet and intranet facing Application Server Clusters for a very large bank.
      If you're willing to overlook a resume because you don't like the school, then it's your loss and I'd probably not want to work for you anyway.

      That said, if high school did more than regurgitate the same things I learned in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, then I might've been more interested and done significantly better....

    2. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure I sold my soul. Maybe you can confirm.

      I graduated with a 2.0 from high school. I setup 50% of the computers for our entire school including managing the other students who were helping.

      I didn't want to go to community college because it felt like the 13th grade. I went to school, out of state, and "graduated" with an AA in "computer networking". I learned how to build, code and administer the three major systems (Windows, Linux and Novell).

      The only people I know who make more money than me have Master's degrees or higher, if we are using money as barometer of success.

      Personally I think hard work + desire + drive = success.

    3. Re:Ripoff by kugeln · · Score: 1

      I think you covered a small part of the problem--It's always dependent on the person--if they have other "high" points, they have a better chance, but a systemic problem I've observed with the tech school "grads" is a proclivity to work consulting gigs where their work experience is 6-12 months per "job". And most seem to lack a real direction to their career. A Job To Pay The Bills is what most seem to be looking for... In the past 10 years, I've received much more "quality" out of my Community College grads, but I guess like everything there's a bit of YMMV in that.

    4. Re:Ripoff by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Our hiring practices generally exclude anyone not coming from a "real" accredited college. I'd rather hire somebody from a community college than anyone that went and sold their soul to ITT Tech or Devry--it shows a profound lack of common sense and planning ability.

      It's right up there with hiring somebody that lists "Geek Squad" on their resume. Pass...

      As a graduate of ITT Tech I understand the sentiment but submit you might be missing some diamonds in the rough with that attitude. I have worked with individuals with CS degrees from "real" accredited colleges I wouldn't let program my DVR let alone my mission critical application. I also had a classmate who had been attending different vocational schools for many, many years because he got government assistance as long as he was a student. The point is it is not the school but the individual who really matters in the equation. My AAS degree got my foot in the door on the ground floor making very little. It also gave me the opportunity to discover I was more happy working on the service side than I was the programming side ( I liked the Mountain Dew and cheesy poofs but not the hours and lack of human interaction). Now my degree is little more than a foot note in my resume and my service skills are sought out because I understand the hardware the software and the people using them.

      BTW It was actually common sense that led me to choose ITT. I knew I wanted to go tech and ITT had a program that would put me there in two years instead of four or more. That made perfect sense to me. Of course I didn't know what I was in for and I might have done it differently if I had but that's the way hindsight works doesn't it?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I make more than my sister and her husband combined with my Associates degree from ITT, I'd say it hasn't caused much of a problem for me. Just getting my career started was a slow process (as expected). But after the first 4 or 5 years, I've seen my pay jump 50% + every couple of 2-3 years.

    6. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Community Colleges are awesome places. I started my higher education there, and I now have a Masters Degree.

      They are reasonably priced, if you have a good community college, you get top notch education, and if you flunk a class it doesn't drag your GPA down when you transfer.

      What's not to like?

  13. yeah, I don't care about the school by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm doing hiring for my team. I don't care too much about the education: if the candidate can do a decent job on the coding quiz, they could be a Spanish major for all I care.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      I'm doing hiring for my team. I don't care too much about the education: if the candidate can do a decent job on the coding quiz, they could be a Spanish major for all I care.

      Dam right. Formal qualifications are not so relevant since books and other sources of knowledge became affordable for all. People who want to learn will and those that don't are not going to be changed by expensive schooling.

    2. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> Dam right....People who want to learn will and those that don't are not going to be changed by expensive schooling.

      I think you meant to spell it as "Damn".

    3. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I employed a Spanish Major but he insisted on being called "El Coronel" and I can't stand social climbers.

    4. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm doing hiring for my team. I don't care too much about the education: if the candidate can do a decent job on the coding quiz, they could be a Spanish major for all I care.

      Dam right. Formal qualifications are not so relevant since books and other sources of knowledge became affordable for all. People who want to learn will and those that don't are not going to be changed by expensive schooling.

      Well we can see who went to the shcool without a proper english program.

      (note: I also went to one of these schools.)

    5. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by kirillian · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm a Vocal music major. I've been working as a programmer for 3 years now and am now one of the senior programmers due to what I have done rather than my qualifications.

    6. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do any of those "un-educated" (no formal schooling) get past the HR trolls? I know that they love to see double majors with MBA's for janitors.

    7. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a Spanish major from a reputable school. I'd take a Spanish Major from Rutgers over a "CS" major from ITT Tech any day...if both could do the job.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    8. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by VAElynx · · Score: 2

      "If both could do the job?" Why would you prefer the other one then? I thought the idea is put someone who can do the job into the job. I hate to break it to you, but intellectual snobbery like you just demonstrated is responsible for diploma inflation where everyone seems to need a college degree even for jobs you could do out of high school 40 years ago.

    9. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Except the spanish major from Rutgers is probably going to need a higher salary to keep him from going to the career his education is in.

    10. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Afell001 · · Score: 1

      It's true that a degree might not matter to you when you are building your team, but it does matter to the executive management team, HR and the marketing folks who write up the material that they use to sell your company's expertise. They like to point out how highly educated your team is, and that between them they hold X number of post-graduate degrees. Sometimes it doesn't really matter what degree (it could be a doctorate in basket weaving or underwater sign language for all they care).

      For a lot of these folks, the only grip they have on their position is how many courses of administrative process management (or maybe managing process administration, or processing managed administration) they completed. Not that they retained anything from the courses, just that they were completed. Try to get them to write a line of code, and they will tell you that's your job. Theirs is to come up with ideas that would take years to implement.

    11. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Coding quiz? Seriously? I agree that education isn't everything, but hiring someone based on a quiz?

      --
      This is blinging
    12. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by profplump · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a quiz? It's difficult to asses technical skills via a verbal interview -- asking someone to do 20 minutes of work for you lets them demonstrate their skills and gives you a standardized basis to compare candidates.

    13. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Formal qualifications are not so relevant since books and other sources of knowledge became affordable for all. People who want to learn will and those that don't are not going to be changed by expensive schooling.

      But people who are willing to learn will go to college. If you want to hire bright people, that's the best pre-filter you can find.

      That said, not everyone who is college material goes to college and just maybe they have an advantage when it comes to 'thinking outside the box' (or graduates -- Bill Gates, Sam Walton).

    14. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      THe fact your entire quiz, with answers, was on google within 2 hours of the first time you gave it out.

      Also the fact that you can't see how someone thinks from a quiz. Fuck getting the right answer- I want to see how he approaches the problem and finds alternatives when he hits a dead end.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    15. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by slapout · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was referring to a school that teaches how to engineer aquatic constrictors.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    16. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You nailed it. Many recruiters think a college diploma is a good substitute for the "coding quiz". They don't want to take the time, or don't know how, to independently assess the skills and potential of the applicant to the actual requirements of the job. Today, the college diploma is used to screen-out otherwise capable candidates because of the inference that lack of a college diploma means low intelligence and lack of character.

    17. Re:yeah, I don't care about the school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Formal qualifications may not be relevant but achieving them can be a relatively straightforward way to gain expert help in learning a variety of useful skills. Programming skills, by themselves, are insufficient for developing all but the simplest of projects; analytical and problem solving skills are at least as important. Some difficult problems are made very simple with a formal approach: e.g., proving that a library maintains certain invariants can save days and weeks of time. Knowing that a particular problem is a specific example of a well-known abstract problem, with well understood solutions and limitations, can be similarly helpful (e.g., knowing that the traveling salesman problem is not solvable in linear time). Understanding architectures, their limitations, and how to optimize for them is similarly important (e.g., simple computations should be done client-side computations instead of sending them back to the server).

      Formal qualifications are no guarantee that a developer will have these abilities and a lack of formal qualification is no guarantee that they won't. However, a self-taught programmer is less likely to be a good problem solver than someone that was trained in various methods of problem solving.

  14. All Schools are for some kind of profit by zoomshorts · · Score: 2

    Why would you say something as stupid as that? Did you not pay for your schooling, or do you have no schooling?
    End of story, let us ALL ignore your accomplishments. Sound good?

    1. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Why would you say something as stupid as that? Did you not pay for your schooling, or do you have no schooling?
      End of story, let us ALL ignore your accomplishments. Sound good?

      Lots of people pay nothing for their schooling. For example, many Europeans (e.g. those in countries where education is completely free) and students whose education is paid for by charities, scholarships etc.

    2. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Education is never free and those who receive a "free" education seldom appreciate it as much as the one who had to earn (and pay for) that education. That said educational institutions are far too costly in the US IMO.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      It's "free" in the sense that you pay for it many times over the rest of your life by high taxation to support the weight of the system.

    4. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the impression that your taxes are high. Compared to levels in other countries, and to historical US levels, they are not.

      You also seem to be under the impression that a large part of your tax bill goes toward supporting higher education. It is a small percentage.

    5. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >

      those who receive a "free" education seldom appreciate it as much as the one who had to earn (and pay for) that education.

      Please support your ideological thesis with a statement of fact.

      I believe there to be millions of Doctors and Engineers with publicly-funded educations, in nations all over the world, that appreciate this very much. As do the societies in which they live.

      Of course, they are not so unfortunate, as to live in the United States.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the impression that I was talking about myself. I seem to be under the impression that you didn't read the parent post.

    7. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Since nearly everyone is going to get some college, one would think the tuition rates would hold the line with inflation however many schools are raising tuition costs almost as much as the 400% health insurance has gone up in the last decade.

      The college I went to in 1997 was $15,000 a year tuition it is now $40,000 a year.

      Can not for profit schools afford to keep up that kind of inflation?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by WindowsTroll · · Score: 2

      Most colleges/universities in the US are run as non-profit organizations. Their mission is to educate.
      The Devry/Kaplan/Phoenix schools are for-profit companies. Their mission is to increase shareholder value.

      So, while all schools charge tuition, and both types of schools seek to educate and not lose money, their aims are significantly different.

      --
      "Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
    9. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by thedonger · · Score: 2

      Epic fail. All school are not for profit. Thanks for playing.

      Epic fail epic fail. Everything - almost literally save for some genuine hippie communes where free love is still the rule - has money associated with it. Whether "for profit," "not for profit," or "non-profit" someone is making money, taking a salary, or otherwise benefiting from it, and therefore "monetary gain = untrustworthy" applies.

      Furthermore, I know three Yale PhDs - two of which you could have either seen on Discovery Channel or read in Nat Geo or Smithsonian magazines - who are having a hard time finding jobs either academic or in the public sector, and who are not happy with (their words) "the pyramid scheme" that is higher education.

      All that said, yes, the "institutes" in the article/summary are more sales-orientated and preying on a less educated populace, and I definitely see that as a problem.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    10. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the impression that I was talking about myself. I seem to be under the impression that you didn't read the parent post.

      I seem to be under the impression that you're being more than a little disingenuous to say you weren't speaking of yourself.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    11. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about myself either -- I live in the UK, so I received a loan from the government to pay a small part of the cost of my education and the bulk of my living costs. The government (or the people, if you prefer) paid for the rest of the education costs. I'll pay back the loan over the next 10-20 years or so -- it's basically an extra tax until the loan is paid (I pay it back quicker if I earn more, and don't pay it back at all if I earn less than £15k in a year).

      I don't see how I'll pay "many times" for my education, unless my income becomes many times the average income.

    12. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no such thing as a free education to the true sense of the word. Either you end up directly paying for it, or indirectly through taxation. But don't delude yourself thinking education is "free" and the professors are donating their time 24/7 without a paycheck.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by RicoX9 · · Score: 1

      And the public University I started at in 1985 has seen a 13X increase in yearly tuition in the last 26 years. Give or take 10% per year. I guarantee that the value of that education has not increased at 2-3 times the rate of inflation.

    14. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Logical impossibility, since the parent was talking about how it works in Europe and I'm not in Europe.

    15. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      And not everybody is so selfish as to assume that low to no taxation is the best direction to be heading towards.

    16. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Hence why Europe erupts into utter chaos when ever there is a adjustment to their budgets. Oddly enough pay for education really helps keep the population in checked. While it is not fair but it does create a situation where there are smart blue collar workers who cant afford schooling really helping keep the US working, and keeping a sustainable number of intellectuals. Too many intellectuals creates to many problems as there are too many people thinking and not enough doing. As well if our blue collar workforce doesn't have a good percentage of smart people noting will really get done.
      Life isn't fair. Some people get a golden spoon other will need to work hard every day of their life. They key is to make sure that people with the Golden Spoon isn't guaranteed to keep it as well the person from the most humble beginnings have the ability to get out of their situation if they so choose and work to get out of it. But for the individual life isn't fair.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Reading comprehension

      those who receive a "free" education seldom appreciate it as much as the one who had to earn (and pay for) that education.

      I didn't say they weren't appreciative. Especially for those who could not have paid in the first place. I said those who have to work for it know how hard it was and appreciate it more.

      Please save your backhanded insults for more deserving targets.

      Thank you,

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    18. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by GigG · · Score: 1

      Lots of people pay nothing for their schooling. For example, many Europeans (e.g. those in countries where education is completely free) and students whose education is paid for by charities, scholarships etc.

      Really, how do those free European schools pay their instructors, pay their utility bills, or for that matter buy books? Nothing is free. It is simply a matter of cost shifting and it is usually shifted to the tax payer.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    19. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      Its the part where the people paid for your education costs (what was left over after the "small part" was covered by the loan). Now, since population is growing, there are going to be more young kids every generation, and presumably more and more of them will be going to college. Seriously, I hope you didn't actually get a degree with thinking skills like yours.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    20. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      An accusation of being selfish coming from the people trying to take from others. How original.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    21. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      But don't delude yourself thinking education is "free" and the professors are donating their time 24/7 without a paycheck.

      We aren't stupid, we know public sector workers don't work for free. Many of us work in the public sector (myself included).

      "Free" in these discussions is generally taken to mean "free to the user at the point of use".

    22. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail at life. First off, you had to say school instead of college (so evidently the karate school down the street from me is non profit? And my daughters $40k per year private school is non profit?) Second, you write that in a fucking article explicitly about for profit schools. It says it in the fucking title. Several times in TFS. All three FAs back it up. Most colleges are non profit, but some, most commonly tech schools (IIT, DeVry, University of Phoenix, etc) are not. Think about killing yourself. Seriously. Or at the very least stop posting and spare the rest of the world from your stupidity. Thanks.

    23. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      More young kids = more future taxpayers, too. Population growth rate is only 0.5% though.

      I still don't see how I'll pay "many times" for my education.

      -- Xaxa MEng ;-)

    24. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some say you are a fucking idiot.

    25. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe Wikipedia would call those "weasel" words. My wife does the same thing all the time; leaves an "out" in case she is proven wrong.

    26. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 2

      Facts. Do you know what they are? Jeremiah asked you to support your ideological thesis with a statement of fact, and you reply with more opinion. You think that people who received a free education seldom appreciate it as much as one who had to earn and pay for that education. Okay. I think that is an utterly stupid statement, with no basis in fact, even with the qualifiers. I will state my opinion: people appreciate their education for what it brings them, not for what it cost, because everyone has to work hard to become educated.

      I don't think you have any factual evidence to back up your outrageous claims, which you make as though they were noncontroversial. Please, if you want to make extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary proof. And just saying "Well, everyone knows that you appreciate what you work for more than what is given to you"is bullshit. That bit of "common sense" wisdom has no basis in fact, as far as I know. Besides, what does it mean to "work for" your education? Will someone who is not so smart and must study hard appreciate their knowledge more than someone who is brilliant and can coast through all their classes?

      This whole "You appreciate what you work for" meme was more than likely started by people who had everything handed to them, "well, yes, my Daddy Morebucks paid for everything for me, but I'm sure you appreciate what little you have far more, because you had to work for it." Yeah, right. Or maybe it's just sour grapes on the part of people who had to work for everything. Whatever it is, it is not factual or sensible, despite the fact the "everyone knows" it is true.

      Also, are you the slashdot poster known as "Archangel Michael?" The sig is the same, but "ArhcAngel" Really?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    27. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      Well lets see, tuition is rising, population growth (which compounds) and more people are going to college as a percentage of the population. Future tax payers do not pay for their education right now, as they are sucking money from the tax payers. Maybe "many" isn't the right word, but I would bet "3 - 4" is likely for you in your life time.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    28. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      His argument is that you are paying income tax, some of which is going towards funding the cost of subsidised education. Of course, this is completely ignoring the fact that your earning potential is increased by your education, and the difference in tax income from having an educated population and an uneducated population is more than enough to fund the subsidised education, especially when you consider that 68% of the UK's exports are currently in the category of 'knowledge services'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as a free education to the true sense of the word. Either you end up directly paying for it, or indirectly through taxation. But don't delude yourself thinking education is "free" and the professors are donating their time 24/7 without a paycheck.

      I hate this stupid redefinition of the word free. "Well, I was given this thing, and I personally did not have to pay a dime, but SOMEONE had to pay for it, and therefore it is not free." How do you not see how utterly moronic this is? Why do we have the word free at all, if nothing is "really" free? What you are doing is no more than stupid ideological rhetorical douchebaggery. Knock it off.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    30. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem completely unreasonable (I think it would be less, but arguing that needs some actual numbers).

      Even if it's 3-4 that seems a reasonable investment in the future. My parents and grandparents made an equivalent investment in my generation.

    31. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in your discussions, but in the real world, free means you don't have to pay for it. Like breathing air.

      If I get a "free" service, and a bill for it a year after the point of use, was it free? I'd say no.

    32. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      You got that backwards. You see, we've got this going concern here, called the USA. Some people want to partake of the benefits of living here without paying for them. They are the people who want to take from others. Most of us are happy to pay our bills. If I thought I was getting a bad deal, I would do what I always do when I think I'm getting a bad deal: I would go shop somewhere else. You see, I am not a pathetic leach. I have something to contribute to society, both financially in terms of investments and in terms of my skills. Therefore, I can go anywhere in the world, and become a citizen. Are you a useful contributing member of society? Then you could go anywhere too.

      Just because you were born here does not give you the right to run the place. You don't get to unilaterally change the rules just because you don't want to pay your fair share. Pay your taxes and shut up, or GTFO, you parasite.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    33. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      lgw, we get it, you can only hurl epithets rather than debate. When you are ready to have an adult discussion, you know where to find me.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    34. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      I think that's GP's point. When you narrowly redefine "free" as in "gratis" to exclude hidden methods of payment (taxes), you're doing the entire discussion a disservice. It's similar to the argument in favour of a carbon tax: so that the clean-up costs are no longer hidden from the consumption of fossil fuels. However, this is even more concrete, because it's a pure-cash scenario that is easily quanitifiable, whereas carbon taxes would be merely an estimate of future clean-up costs (and, like all taxes, likely to grow to be more than that).

      Add up: a) the price you actually paid for your education, plus b) the amount of the taxes you will pay for the rest of your life to support the education system (whatever percentage that will be), and then you will get your true cost of education.

      Hiding the costs in future taxes does a disservice to those who enter university, college, whatever, in that they feel like they're getting a free ride. Maybe I can't find citations, I merely remember a 60-minutes episode from many many years ago (likely late 80s, before they were first invaded) showing the "free" university in Kuwait, and the huge drop-out rates they had compared to the US. Their claim was that it was due to the "free" price. This isn't unique to university - anything that people have no investment in will be necessarily considered to be lower value (on average) than anything they have a significant investment in. It's like holding millions of Microsoft shares and no shares in Nokia, while being the CEO of Nokia.

      I'm wondering if it'd be better for everyone if a) the government gave no money to post-secondary schools (other than research grants), b) the government made it much easier to apply for loans, and c) the government then used the same tax money they were giving to post-secondary schools instead to "repay" loans based on certain criteria, perhaps based on things like staying in the country (e.g., each year in the US would get you $5000 paid off), living in a location desirable for your skills (e.g., rural general-practitioners might get another $2000 or $3000 paid per year), etc. Local states could get in on the action by encouraging grads to stay near: if you get some of your loan from Ohio, for example, they may pitch in another few grand per year you continue to live in Ohio (and pay taxes) after graduation. If an employer wants to grab a new hire from OSU (I assume) to live in Silicon Valley, they'd have to compete with that extra few grand that the new hire would be giving up for moving.

    35. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      So basically your saying there is no difference?? I don't see any. Public schools have tax payers to answer to and private schools have shareholders to answer to.

      --

      Gorkman

    36. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I just wish all the Americans who post "but it's not free! you pay tax!" in every Slashdot discussion where public services of Europe are mentioned would stop. Everyone knows this already: it's the normal way of funding public services, and thus assumed to be the case. More people than I can be bothered to count replied to my comment with something similar.

      Your suggestion isn't unreasonable. The British government has raised the amount universities can charge British students to £9000 (from £3000, but was £1500 when I started in 2004). There's a bigger maximum loan to go with it. Already they pay off some loan if you become a teacher (there's a shortage in some subjects). One problem with increased fees is you risk deterring people who don't want to have the debt -- typically the poorest students, who are the ones you're supposed to be helping.

      (The first result for my search was that, which is interesting... I don't agree with Good-2 based on my own experiences, but maybe whoever wrote it knows better.)

    37. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Let me educate you, for you fail to do it yourself. Here are a few list of "Free" things in life.

      1. The Universe
      2. The Sun
      3. The Earth
      4. Light
      5. Gravity

      Those are all things that we personally never had any investment in, yet reap the rewards for their existence. The concept of "Free" is rarely to be found in the purest form of its intended meaning.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    38. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      FYI, I'm not 'merican. I'm Canuckian.

      And it's not been my experience that fellow Canuckians are generally aware of how our taxes work.

    39. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      This whole "You appreciate what you work for" meme was more than likely started by people who had everything handed to them,

      Please provide support for this ideological thesis.

    40. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Lots of people pay nothing for their schooling. For example, many Europeans (e.g. those in countries where education is completely free)

      Wow. So the professors and administrators all work for nothing and the buildings, books, labs, etc are all donated? I did not know that. I just assumed it was paid for by taxation. Huh.

    41. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You see, I am not a pathetic leach. I have something to contribute to society

      Prove it! By whom and what standard/s? How would you quantify that?

      You see Spun, that's what a capitalism does. It's a dynamic system put into motion and maintained by your fellow man freely. When you go through the Government, you're circumventing this process by forcing money out of one man an into the hands of another. Now, we can debate the moral implications of that. But don't think your special because you now have access to other peoples money through the rule of law.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    42. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      Your post doesn't apply to anything in the real world. Who is unilaterally changing anything? When rich people go to other places, people bitch and moan about sending jobs overseas. You expect the wealthy to behave according to nature!

      Who really isn't paying their fair share? Look up the percentage of govenment revenue paid in taxes for different tiers of income. Who is providing jobs, the poor or the rich? Who gets more out of the government, the rich guys or the poor people on medicaid and welfare? The rich kids in private school or the poor kids in public school? Did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs take from the United States or are we all much better off with what they've given back? Didn't Facebook do enough for the world on top of reasonable taxes, or is Mark just taking and taking and taking selfishly? Energy companies allow us to run factories and produce goods, etc. But no, they're just parasites.

      People (for the most part, 99% of cases) don't just throw money around for no reason, they exchange it for something they wanted or needed. We gave the rich our money because we thought it was a good deal (better than not making the deal, anyway). So don't act like the rich haven't done anything for their country. I'm not against paying taxes, but there is a difference between reasonable taxes and pretty much advocating for high taxes.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    43. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems reasonable to me for us to pay for the college edcuation of today's kids. It's the least we can do, after giving them such a huge ass-pounding in the form of trillions of dollars of debt we spent on ourselves.

    44. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      So if someone gives me a free lunch, it isn't free, because they had to pay for it?

      By that loony-tunes measure, even the things you mention aren't free:
      1.) The universe: you may not have to pay for it, but the universe itself sure had to work to provide you with its bounty. The big bang wasn't easy, and in the end, it will pay for it all with heat death
      2.) The Sun pays in solar wind and fusion. Again, it will spend all its resources and die.
      3.) The Earth, again, not free by your measure, you didn't pay, but think of all those asteroids and comets that GAVE THEIR LIVES to create the Earth.
      4.) Light costs money! How do you see at night? I use lightbulbs, and they cost money
      4.) Gravity. You pay for this with wrinkles and a saggy sack (if you are a guy) or saggy jubs (if you are a woman, or a fat guy)

      All you have shown us is that if you redefine words, they mean whatever you want them to mean. Isn't language fun?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    45. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      It's called "sour grapes." The guy who doesn't have shit, but had to work for it, says "those grapes those rich guys have and didn't work for must be pretty sour, and I'm glad I don't have them. " See Aesop.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    46. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      I have lived and worked in several countries, I never took citizenship there, but I could have.

      You see, digi, that's what Democracy does. It's a dynamic system put into motion and maintained by your fellow man freely. When you go through the free market, you are circumventing democracy by forcing money out of the starving, desperate man and into the hands of another, who did not work for it.

      I don't have access to their money, I pay more in taxes than I take from the system. And it isn't their money. When you pay for something, the money you used to pay for that thing is no longer yours. You pay for your citizenship, the money isn't yours anymore. If you don't want to pay, shop around for a better deal! But don't try to take the services, then claim you don't have to pay. That is called being a leach.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    47. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      What about Free-as-in-speech free?

      When you don't have to worry about tuition, the value of free changes greatly.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    48. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing smelch said suggested that he believes any such thing, and you know it. Once again, you invent a strawman position and assign it to someone, for the sole reason that you know you are too stupid to refute anything they actually said. And by resorting to such dishonesty you scream your admission to losing the argument forever.

    49. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      You and the other Teatards and liberturds are trying to change things so you don't have to pay, all the while claiming that this system called the United States of America, is unfair. While you continue to reap the rewards of being here, you whine about having to pay.

      The rich get more from our society, by definition. You can't get rich living on a deserted island, you need the cooperation of others. You can't get rich living in Somalia, where there is no government. You can get rich if you are a part of a society, and if that society rewards you by giving you freedoms you wouldn't have as an individual (such as a currency, protection from crime, the ability to travel quickly and safely, a stable money supply that encourages investment, and a stable society that lets you plan for your future) then you should pay. If it rewards you more than others who work just as hard but haven't been as lucky or as privileged, then you should pay more.

      You seem to think that if two guys go into a restaurant (our society), where one guy gets a fillet Mignon with lobster tail, and the other guy gets a salad, the guy who got a salad should pay more. Huh? Actually, you seem to think the guy who gets the fancy dinner shouldn't have to pay at all, after all, he never agreed to pay before the dinner was served, right? Ludicrous.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      You need to be less vague, I have no idea what you consider to be a strawman, or what you think smelch did or did not suggest. State your case, or GTFO.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    51. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, that sounds all nice and everything including looking at it through a moral and ethical view point. But (and this is very important), you still haven't quantified your "worth" to society by any measurable amount with metrics. A socialist/communist society is unable to do so. Without proper metrics tied to a free market (and a laws that foster a market free), the very system that was built to prevent injustice is the very system that creates it! And that's the problem. Just take a look at the Unions up north. Those folks have been working for a goal that was entirely based on unreasonable expectations (based on free market supply/demand principles). Now that everyone is broke, the chickens have come home to roost.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    52. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Words mean things! You're obviously not READING carefully. Let me repeat what I said.

      Those are all things that we personally never had any investment in, yet reap the rewards for their existence.

      Those are things that came into being prior to the Human species being created. We don't need to sacrifice to the Sun god, and the Universe and things that came into being requires no up-keep on our part. By definition and construct, those things ARE FREE!

      It only becomes a cost to society when we re-package those resources for others and not ourselves. At which point, the concept of a unit of work comes into play. Once we start talking about the worth of work, resources are no longer free, but subjected to market forces and/or the rule of law (Government).

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    53. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      I've qualified my worth to society with the metric I originally used: I have the skills and resources to become a citizen in any country on earth. The free market is not the only arbiter of worth, many of the people that the world would consider the most worthy never participated in any free markets to any great extent. Jesus, Buddha, you know, people whose names we actually remember thousands of years later. There are plenty of formal and informal systems for measuring worth that do not rely on the free market. We know with fair accuracy, for instance, which "American Idols" society considers the most worthy, before we ever buy a thing from them.

      As for the union workers, why are their goals unreasonable? They have conceded on EVERY point except the right to bargain collectively. But they shouldn't have: Wisconsin's budget problems are entirely due to tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the budget shortfall and tax cuts are both on the order of ~$140 million. Now that everyone is broke, the wealthy chickens just take their ill-gotten gains to Switzerland, and leave us to rot while they summer in exclusive resorts where they don't even have to acknowledge that poverty exists.

      Why is it, when we question CEO pay, they tell us, "You have to pay if you want to get and keep the best." But then they turn around and tell us that the answer to failing schools is to pay teachers less. Hypocrisy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    54. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      That is not at all what I said. You're not addressing anything I'm saying and putting words in my mouth. Where on earth did I say people shouldn't pay taxes at all? I didn't even advocate for a flat tax. The thinking that the rich got rich for no reason is your flaw. You seem to think the rich just got handed everything they have. I won't go down the line of argument that they worked hard or made wise decisions, but the fact is they brought something to society that everybody else wanted, thats how they got rich. Now you say they're not doing anything and they need to pay for having access to customers. Ok, Comcast.

      My argument isn't that the rich don't get more out of society, my argument is they give back in ways other than taxes on their way to getting rich and they already pay more percentage wise (of federal government revenues). You seem to be pissing your pants and whining about it without any thought.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    55. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sorry but that wont cut it. Metric are only backed up with meaningful numbers. A monetary system (currency) provides just that. Not political capitol (your words and words of others).

      And last I checked, Jesus and Buddha didn't care about materialism and other worldly possessions. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in. The flesh-and-blood.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    56. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      Thank you for so eloquently making my point.

      Those are all things that we personally never had any investment in, yet reap the rewards for their existence.

      Things like, a free lunch? I never invested in it personally. yet I reap the rewards. And by that measure, a "free" education isn't free, since I invested in it by paying taxes and working to obtain it through study. Therefore, I should appreciate it just as much as an education someone bought outright with their own cash. We both personally invested in it. Consider your original point refuted, by your own statements.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    57. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      I never said the rich got rich for no reason, I am saying, they got rich by buying legislation, having family money and rich friends, and being taught to have no sympathy for the little people. The rich, in general, do not "bring things" to society. They say, "If you want to eat, you work for me." and then the actual engineers and factory workers bring something to society, while the rich sit back and get fat off their investments, with very little risk, as we have proved we will always bail them out and refrain from charging them with crimes, even when the things they bring to the table are all outright fraud.

      As for the rich giving back to society, you forget the opportunity cost. You compare "Having the rich around" to "having nothing" when there are better options, like all of us having a little more and them having a little less. Income inequality in this country is a crime against humanity. Here is a handy chart, showing how screwed we really are.

      http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

      But you already knew that, and you think that kind of disparity is perfectly fair, don't you?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    58. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      Read about Project Cybersyn, a Chilean project from 1970, started by Salvadore Allende that replaced price signals and allowed a socialist economy to work as efficiently as a capitalist one. Right after it was invented, we killed Allende and installed Pinochet, a brutal dictator.

      "We" do not live in a world of materialism and worldly possessions. You do. Most people are not money centric, or driven by the profit motive. Most people are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity, because we are genetically predisposed to support cooperation and punish injustice and unfairness, because that is the most effective strategy. Look up games theory, and such experimental games as the dictator game. Now try to explain the outcomes using the standard economic model of man as a rational and entirely self interested actor. You can't.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    59. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You invested in the time to earn an education. But SOMEONE had to pay for the resources to provide yourselves the tools and accreditation to earn your certificate of education (diploma, degree, whatever).

      If you paid for your own education with your own money, the effort you put into was free. But when you rely on education being paid with other money in the form of taxation, it's simply *not* free. It's not free because you're tapping into units of work performed by others. And you have no metrics to judge whether or not you're worthy of such expenditure. Socialistic systems obfuscate the numbers -by design- so as to prevent class-warfare and other (fabricated or otherwise) "injustices".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    60. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Look up Adam Smith and his references to the Invisible Hand. Essentially, the bad qualities of man (greed, competition, materialism) are turned on its head to be exploited for the greater good of mankind. Free market principles do need some lawful guide rails to prevent corruption and collusion. The game needs a referee. Even I know that pure anarchy and libertarianism doesn't work. The problem occurs when the referee (government) becomes corrupted by the very game it's supposed to keep in check. But corruption occurs in all forms of Government (which is why our founding fathers created the three branches). But at least with capitalism, society has an honest-to-god metric to go by. And it's those numbers that tell the rust of us where we can improve our individual situations in life for the betterment of society and prosperity.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    61. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by smelch · · Score: 1

      I think you're looking at a different class of "rich" than I am. I'm looking at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergey and Larry, Mark Zuckerburg, Charlie Sheen, and down in to your regular business owner types like the guy that runs the company I used to work for. I'm not thinking Kennedys and wall street ass-muffins. I don't think income disparity is that big of a deal, I think its the price of dealing with humans. We've all progressed globally in our living conditions since the United States was founded, the past couple of years is a blip. I don't think its the governments job to make sure everybody stays roughly the same in their income anyway, that is a game played by the jealous.

      Bad math skills time: If you distribute the $27,342,212 from the top 0.01% of households to the 99.99% of other households I believe you get about $2734 for each household. Check those numbers, I'm not real confident in them. But seriously, just because a small amount of people have a lot more money does not mean we could bleed them dry and fix all of our problems. Its just a big number people can point at and say "I only have $31,000, they have $27 million and thats not fair".

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    62. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      Look, it doesn't matter if SOMEONE had to pay for it, what makes it FREE is that I did not have to pay for it. You can't just redefine what the word "free" means for ideological purposes.

      Wait, doesn't the person getting help with education generally pay taxes as well? And won't a higher education help them make more money, and pay more in taxes? Isn't this just an investment on the part of the government? Taxes aren't stealing, they are the price you pay to live in the society you want to live in. As long as the majority of us want to pay taxes, you will have to pay taxes too, as long as you want to live here. Remember, citizenship isn't free, and neither is freedom. You want to live here? You have to pay for the privilege. You don't want to pay? Fine, but you don't get to freeload here, go be a leach someplace else.

      Ah the old scare quote around injustices. When the rich steal from the poor, it is business as usual. When we try to take back what was stolen, then WE are the thieves? Socialist systems have plenty of objective measures of worth, while the free market does not. There is no difference, as far as the free market is concerned, between a man who makes a million honestly, and one who makes it through theft. The free market makes no moral judgments.

      "I got a free education!"
      "No, you didn't, someone had to pay for it."
      "Well, it as free to me. And it was free from the government's point of view, too, because the money they invested in me will be more than repaid by the increased taxes I will pay, because I am making more money as an educated worker than an uneducated one. Win-win!"
      "Yes, but the rich lose because when everyone educates themselves, there are no more poor desperate people to take advantage of. So it isn't free, the rich lose out!"
      "Ah. Now I understand what REALLY you mean by 'not free'"

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    63. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahahaha, oh my. Did you just mention Adam Smith? Have you read "Wealth of Nations?" No, don't answer that. I know you haven't. Let me quote some Adfam Smith to you, my friend, and we will see how long it takes for you to start calling him a commie. I guarantee after I am done here, you will never attempt to drop that name again.

      "Laws and government may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and to preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence. The government and laws hinder the poor from ever acquiring the wealth by violence which they would otherwise exert on the rich; they tell them they must either continue poor or acquire wealth in the same manner as they did."

      You like that one? I'm just getting started. This next one is a bit of a long passage, but oh so worth the read:

      "His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.

      His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.

      Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.

      To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

      To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."

      Good stuff, huh? He is saying that his "invisible hand" only applies to land owners and laborers (the first two of his three class

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    64. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Look, it doesn't matter if SOMEONE had to pay for it, what makes it FREE is that I did not have to pay for it. You can't just redefine what the word "free" means for ideological purposes.

      But your wrong. You are paying for it through taxation. And that's a problem because you as an individual cannot quantify whether or not you're worthy to be a recipient of it. In fact, you could be the one getting ripped off. Are you ok with that? That's a question you should be asking yourself and if you're ok with that. I know I wouldn't be.

      Second, your projecting on the subject. I'm not the one being ideological here, you are. I'm simply looking at it with a vulcan mind of logic, objectivity and the truth of the matter.

      The free market makes no moral judgments.

      My God, man, you get it!!! :) That's the whole point! Both the far left and the far right have inflicted so much moral judgments against people that it has destroyed this nation. All you bastards. Don't tell me how much I can earn, spend, or when to fuck, how often and with whom. It's none of your business.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    65. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      But it isn't the past couple of years. It is the past thirty or forty. ALL the newly created wealth has gone to the top, not to the people who created it. You didn't read the link, did you? I know because you ask a question that is answered there. I believe the answer you seek can be found towards the bottom, in the section titled "your loss, their gain." And both the math and underlying facts are impeccable. Here, I'll post the link again so you can educate yourself some more:

      http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

      You see, the bottom sixty percent have not seen any increase in spending power in the last thirty years. None. All that wealth was taken by the very top.

      Ah, it looks like you forgot to multiply that 27 million by the 15,000 households who make that much.

      Anyway, you say you are okay with that level of income disparity, even knowing that their wealth came at our expense? All the increase in GDP over the last thirty years went to them, and you think that is because they deserve it? What is the rationale for the majority to even participate in such a system, where their hard work is not rewarded? I rising tide, it appears, does not lift all ships.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    66. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      Nobody can quantify whether an investment is really worth it before thy make it, it is only after the fact that you know whether it was worth it, but that does not stop us from making investments. And investing in a citizens education benefits everyone. The government gets more tax income from educated people, and you get better goods and services. Because everyone benefits, everyone should help pay. Education is a positive externality, it can not be rationed correctly by the free market, because a market can not handle externalities, good or bad.

      Yes, but some things require moral judgments, like cheating. It is my business when people con others. That is what is meant by the phrase "freedom isn't free." and it illustrates the difference between freedom and license. License is "I get to do whatever I want, without cost to me," while freedom implies two things: one, you will give others the same freedoms, even if that inconveniences you, and second, that as part of the price of the defense of your freedoms, you will defend the freedoms of others. And so, when criminals take over our economic and political system in order to enrich themselves, I fight it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith was brilliant man. And no, he's not a dirty commie. He simply talking about the natural behavior of man. But when creating a societal system of efficiency, the free market knows best. Think of it as a human social construct of the Ant Colony Optimization in action. But what happens when the referee (government) becomes corrupted by it? You now have introduced a level of molestation to the system that can no longer be trusted as optimal. Government's role is to groom the system, encourage proper behavior, and yes provide education to those not generally wealthy to obtain it. But it MUST be stressed, it's *not* free. As long as most of society is ok with it, I don't see much of a problem. But when you try and bamboozle people out of the meaning of what is and isn't free. Well sir, I do have a problem with that. Accountability must be know.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    68. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. He did not believe that the free market knows best, as demonstrated from the quotes! He thought of a free market differently than you do, he recognized that a market needs regulations in order to stay free. His work must be understood in the context of mercantilism, which he disagreed with, but he did not disagree with government regulation in general.

      However, I will concede the point that education costs money, and while an education may be free to the individual, society still pays the cost. And when education is free, it is free regardless of whether the outcome involves the recipient of the education getting a better job. Finally, as I mentioned, education is a positive externality, and a free market will not allocate enough resources towards education.

      What I will not concede, however, is that there exists any rational adult who is confused on what the term "free education" means. I highly doubt anyone believes teacher's pay and the cost of schools and books just materialize out of thin air, so your entire diatribe against free education is meaningless. Anyone who is capable of understanding that already does. You just wasted everyone's time in order to attempt to denigrate the role of government in education. At least you walked it back into the realm of sanity by the end, so I guess my work here is done. See you next time!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    69. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      a guy i knew got a letter during the summer before his senior year (my freshman year) saying, "We are pleased to announce that there has been a decrease in the tuition increase for the '95-'96 academic year." His response was something to the effect of, "What? So you're screwing me less more?"

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    70. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by ladoga · · Score: 1

      But when you rely on education being paid with other money in the form of taxation, it's simply *not* free. It's not free because you're tapping into units of work performed by others. And you have no metrics to judge whether or not you're worthy of such expenditure. Socialistic systems obfuscate the numbers -by design- so as to prevent class-warfare and other (fabricated or otherwise) "injustices".

      Also when you rely in education paid by tax money you quarantee that smartest kids get the education they want, not the eduction their parents can afford. Sure it's not free (for the society) but it's well worth the investment and pays back for everyone.

      Other forms of public services can also improve society's quality of life as whole. Just compare how many people you have in jails in US and what class in your society they belong to (mainly poor and uneducated i would guess) and compare it to some countries with less pronounced income differences. If people are not poor they don't need to resort to crime, which again makes the society nicer for everyone to live in.

      Sure every system has it's problems. I think Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland etc.) had it pretty well in 70s-late 80s. Good quality free education (best in the world by many indicators), small wealth differences (basically just huge middle class with few rich and none of really poor people) and low crime rate. Much of the benefits of taxes paid and work done back then it is still visible in these societies, but these things tend to erode when they are not taken care by the people. So in a way you have a point.

      People start to take benefits for granted and don't see value or understand that they have to pay for it (through the tax). This makes it possible for politicians to get more votes by promising tax cuts, thus wealth differences have increased (today average CEO in Finland earns 52 times average wage, in 1990 it was 9 times average wage...and what we get, guys like Elop who only fuck things up for us and will get away with a golden parachute), there's more crime, politicians seem more concerned with serving corporations than the people and people seem to be suprisingly indifferent about it all.

    71. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      6. Points Or Money [i.e. in board games; the idea is that you are given certain things based on certain choices]
      7. Special Offers [i.e. no purchase necessary; legally speaking for business transactions; useful for encouraging sampling]

      I realize that my suggestions don't fit into your definition, but because of the structured contexts, "free" really does help to clarify the requirements for interactions.

      On the other hand, it doesn't work so well in education or other government services.

    72. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you are the reason I hate this country. I'm not normally a violent person, but I wish you and everyone like you a terrible, bloody, fiery death.

    73. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to claim any understanding of Project Cybersyn, but if Allende was deposed shortly after it was started by Allende, then how do we know it worked?

    74. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "those in countries where education is completely free"

      It's only free with the tax you pay.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    75. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to also account for the decrease in funding from the state. Plus the increases in expenses, health insurance, insurance on buildings, fuel costs, adding internet access, etc...

    76. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those things cost us valuable entropy.

    77. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      The pilot project was working for about a year or two.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    78. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blockquote was eaten somehow:

      Just because you were born here does not give you the right to run the place. You don't get to unilaterally change the rules just because you don't want to pay your fair share.

      smelch said nothing that could even be mistaken for that, let alone anything that actually implies it. You knew that, and you also knew that you were not smart enough to effectively take issue with any of the things that he actually DID say. You chose to lie about his position by inventing a strawman and attacking it in place of his actual position. And you didn't even do a good job of that, which is somewhat surprising as one would expect that since you do this so often you would have become more skilled at it by now.

    79. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sounds like I offended your religious beliefs - sorry to be the heretic. Maybe you could log in and have a conversation about it? Violent disagreement makes for the best threads on /..

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    80. Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit by spun · · Score: 1

      Not my problem that you can't put two and two together. Smelch said, "An accusation of being selfish coming from the people trying to take from others. How original." I was trying to explain that taxes are not "taking from others," and only a very immature and selfish person would think that. Taxes are the price you pay for the goods and services you want. Living in a society with others is a privilege, not a right. You need to pay for that privilege, or live by yourself, on your own, alone. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so if living in our society is something you value, you need to pay. Taxes aren't stealing.

      I wasn't lying at all. He was saying "I don't want to pay taxes, taxes are stealing from me." He was advocating changing the rules, because he doesn't want to pay his fair share.

      As usual, I win and you lose, AC. That's because I have tiger blood, and am a Vatican assassin warlock. I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  15. DeVry is very expensive by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DeVry is STEEP for an ABET-T accredited program. One could go to a State school and obtain an ABET-E Engineering degree for a LOT less than the cost of DeVry.

    What these colleges have over the State schools; however, is the complete lack of selectivity. They will let just about anyone in, and it'll be up to them to sink or swim. Most of them sink, and some of them swim, and I have no doubt that a very small percentage of bright people, who are otherwise inadmissible to a State School due to circumstances not related to their academic performance, do very well for themselves. That's a tiny tiny percentage though.

    It's not all bad, but the lack of selectivity means most students will fail, and do so owing a lot of money. It's not entirely the school's fault. They should, however, raise the admission standards at least a little bit.

    1. Re:DeVry is very expensive by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who taught programming (advanced C++, Java) part-time at the community college level for years, I can tell you that the lack of selectivity you talk about has a far more pernicious effect than simply allowing unqualified students to sign up for courses they are destined to fail. Allowing unqualified students into a classroom simply because they can pay for it has the reverse effect of "a rising tide raises all ships" - 2 or 3 (or 8 or 10) students in a classroom of 25 who don't have the prerequisite knowledge to be there causes NO END of distractions and problems for both the teacher AND the qualified students in the room.

      I got out of teaching because unqualified students who didn't (and never could have) understand what I was talking about expected me to somehow pour knowledge into their heads without any effort on their parts - because, after all, they were PAYING for it, by god. Meanwhile, they were forcing me to present a dumber course to the people who really DID "get it". And the better students were frustrated by the dumber (and slower) level of instruction. Truly a lose/lose situation for all.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:DeVry is very expensive by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      I think its unethical marketing leading this craze. There's a whole lot of people out there that are just floundering at some crummy job, or never went to college, etc who see all these ads like "Be a game developer in 18 months!" or "Be a computer animator in 6 months!"

      What they don't understand is that going from having zero programming experience to hacking C++ takes a lot longer than 18 months at a diploma mill. The materials are hard because the subject is hard. Even dumbed down a lot of these people fail because it turns out that these non-traditional students are crappy students in general.

      I see this shit pretty often on tech sites with "Full Sail University" ads. Yet another expensive "private university" that markets directly to the general public with promises that I'm skeptical work out in the real world. 21 month Bachelor's in Software Dev/Game dev/Animation/Graphic Design? Right.

    3. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DeVry is relatively legit compared to some of the more recent for-profit schools with regard to what you're talking about.

      Some of these schools should be held more accountable since they aiming for students to take maximum # of classes and take out maximum # of loans with little or no regard for whether those students pass, fail, or graduate. In fact, they can have a vested interested in students doing poorly and having to take more classes until they aren't able to take out any more loans.

    4. Re:DeVry is very expensive by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'm generally on the side of DeVry, UoP, etc, suck, but I have a friend at Full Sail now. She started not knowing what Maya was, and now does work that quite frankly makes my jaw drop. My impression is that she's working a ot harder than I did in undergrad. So do I believe it's a 4 year degree crammed into 21 months? Actually, I do. In fairness, she did have actual artistic talent going in, but we're talking pencil and paper. I'm sure they can't take somebody like me who can't draw past stick figures and make them ready to work at Pixar, but I genuinely won't be surprised if she ends up doing exactly that.

    5. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2

      Allowing unqualified students into a classroom simply because they can pay for it has the reverse effect of "a rising tide raises all ships" - 2 or 3 (or 8 or 10) students in a classroom of 25 who don't have the prerequisite knowledge to be there causes NO END of distractions and problems for both the teacher AND the qualified students in the room.

      I'm at an age and a point in my career where I could go back to school to study something that interests me for its own sake, and this is exactly why I won't even consider doing it. There's no reason for me to spend an entire semester on material I could teach myself in six weeks just so a bunch of undermotivated assholes can have some slow-motion hand-holding while constantly questioning whether each new item is going to be on the test and whether it has any "real world" utility. The gratification of seeing them rack up debts that dwarf the meager income their putative education will eventually earn them just isn't enough to make up for the irritation of listening to them mouth-breathe.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    6. Re:DeVry is very expensive by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Amen to that. I remember taking Java and Autocad (different classes obviously) and in both cases the instructor had to spend a lot of time teaching basic computer skills. I ended up nearly failing Autocad in large part because the instructor spent so much time teaching basic computing skills that there wasn't time to actually cover the course material. Or get clarification about the expectations for various projects.

      I wonder what sort of a person thinks they can program or use a complicated computer program if they don't know how to install a program in Windows? It doesn't get that much easier.

    7. Re:DeVry is very expensive by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Your friend is in that tiny tiny number of students I was talking about in my OP - she was likely brilliant before attending, and simply used what info was made available to her to achieve. Applause to that.

      You're also right that they probably couldn't make you Pixar material. But, you KNOW that. A lot of people who get sucked into these places have no idea that they simply don't have what it takes.

    8. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This was a long time ago, but in 1980 I got the heavy handed sales pitch from DeVry given to my parents at our kitchen table. I wanted to go to a university, but DeVry had these stats that x% of their graduates got a job offer when they graduate (don't remember the number, it was high 90s). He made it sound like a guarantee. My parents thought it was great; a techie place and I was smart so I should like it, it sounded cheaper, it didn't take as long, and I'd get a "guaranteed" job when it was over. I had to do my own sales job to say why I didn't want to go.

      Then my brother decided to go with DeVry. A year and a half later he quit because he was still being taught stuff he had already learned at our average high school. Ie, remedial math. Which was a hiccup in his academic trajectory, and most of the classes didn't transfer as credit to universities.

    9. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what my many friends who are high school teachers report.

    10. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QFT.

      Teaching isn't for everyone.

      The challenges of helping those who can't help themselves, is deserving of a Noble Peace prize. Yet America asks this of its education system daily.

      At the end of the day, the current status quo, leaves everyone deserving of a trophy.

      Thank God its America, because someone found a way to make money off of it. Welcome to Capitalism/DeVry/ITT Tech (for profit).

    11. Re:DeVry is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I use DeVry online. I am able to go to school and work AROUND my IT Admin job, whilst going to school to get the little piece of paper saying I know what I am doing... Does it suck to be going to school for the job you already have? Yeah. But when you're already in it, there's no reason to waste the money on just a few credits and not finish...

    12. Re:DeVry is very expensive by metlin · · Score: 1

      You should consider it because not all schools are made alike. I'm in my late 20s, and after an undergraduate in engineering and a master's, I decided to go to school to study something completely unrelated -- social sciences.

      So far, I've been amazed at how much there is to learn. Even a subject such as applying stats to political science is interesting in ways I'd never considered. If anything, with a full-time management consulting job with lots of travel, I am finding it extremely difficult to even handle two classes on the weekends.

      And with every class, I meet new and interesting people, I read books that I would have otherwise never read, and I come away learning something new every day. In fact, while most of my classmates are young, there are also a few that are older and are in the same boat as me. Some are even considering doing a PhD, after having "retired" at the age of 40 (and having made millions). Not a single one of my classmates comes across as under-motivated, or has demonstrated a need for hand-holding.

      So, I would say this -- pick your school. It makes a difference, trust me.

    13. Re:DeVry is very expensive by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0
      --
      Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
    14. Re:DeVry is very expensive by jasontiller · · Score: 1

      Another major selling point for DeVry (my alma mater) is the format of the program - you're placed into a cohort, and everyone in your cohort attends the same classes all taught in a compressed, fixed block of time. For people working full- or near-full-time, having the guarantee that you *will* get into every class and that *every* class will be available within a known time span is important. This predictability means that you can bypass all of the incredible hassles that are involved in trying to attend a public college, such as:

      *) This _required_ class (TRC) is only taught once a year.

      *) TRC is only available at noon this year.

      *) TRC is full of higher-priority students.

      *) TRC is taught at the same time as another required course.

      While I agree that DeVry's academic standards were less than rigorous, for those of us who couldn't afford to attend school full time (middle-class donut hole), having a predictable, compressed, guaranteed schedule that permitted regular part-time employment was a godsend.

  16. Short answer: No by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Long answer: In the United States at least, if you have no college degree but are interested in putting in the time, money, and effort needed to get one, you will get the biggest bang for your buck at your local community college, possibly followed by some time spent at a nearby branch of your state university system. It's not MIT, RIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc, but it's going to be a pretty solid college education at a very reasonable price, and cost considerably less than the clowns at ITT or DeVry or University of Phoenix will charge you.

    The only real exception to this rule is if you qualify for significant financial aid that allows you to attend a fantastic technical school at the same or lower cost than your government-run schools.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Short answer: No by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      MIT, RIT, Caltech, Stanford

      RIT is a tier down from the others listed, both in terms of prestige and price. It is probably a much better bang for your buck.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Short answer: No by e9th · · Score: 5, Informative
      One BIG problem with the for-profits is that once you start with them, you're stuck. As ITT-Tech puts it:

      It is unlikely that any credits earned at an ITT Technical Institute will be transferable to or accepted by any institution other than an ITT Technical Institute.

      At least with even a community college, there's a good chance that many or most of your earned credits, especially at the 100 or 200 level, will transfer.

    3. Re:Short answer: No by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Is it anymore? Since they went to semesters the retention rate shot way up, not a good sign.

      I wonder if I can get some of my money back now that they are trying to devalue its name.

    4. Re:Short answer: No by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      Even a community college is hard when you're working full time. Most of the degrees that'll lead to a good salary need full time schooling. The classes are in the day and you have to attend classes.

      There's some knowledge based jobs out there that don't fall in that category, but there was a story today about those going away to computers and outsourcing...

      School isn't as easy as everything thinks. People always point to guys that work two jobs and go through school, ignoring the fact those guys are genetic freaks that get by just fine on 4 hours of sleep a night. If you can't physically do that you're SOL.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    5. Re:Short answer: No by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agreed - community college while working isn't easy. State school while working isn't easy.

      That doesn't mean that the for-profit schools are any easier, and definitely aren't cheaper or higher quality.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some schools are even worse than that. A bad experience with The Art Institutes proved that if you did their online school, even their own land based school would not accept the credits for transfer.

    7. Re:Short answer: No by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      I really liked the quarter system. They are trying to make it more like the other schools it competes with, which will probably improve its name outside of western NY, but decrease the quality of education.

      I really liked the old brick buildings too. I hardly recognize the place now. It used to be distinctive, and consistent across the campus. Now it looks like a scattering of unrelated buildings.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    8. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long answer: It's not MIT, RIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc

      If you mean Rochester Institute of Technology, then you are bordering on libel against MIT, Caltech and Stanford by mentioning them in the same breath.

      I say this as an RIT graduate.

    9. Re:Short answer: No by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the diploma factories are a bad deal, it often comes down to scheduling. It's often hard, even with flexible employers, to get the classes one needs at convenient times. Example, classes that will be required for my degree are only offered Tuesday mornings at a campus 15 miles from where I live and work (there are two other campuses much closer). Oh, and it along with several others are not offered online. UOP and the like are much more attractive to working adults, even if they cost 4x as much. What I wouldn't give for my CC to offer a "weekends" package, where I could knock out 4-6 classes in two days...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    10. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty heady company for RIT. Maybe you meant RPI?

      If you want bang for your buck, local college followed by state school is definitely the way to go, IMO. Or go to Canada.

    11. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this to +1 million

      The most efficient method is going to transferable community college for two years + finishing up the last two years at your local state university system = bachelor's degree for the minimum capital outlay. You can do the math yourself if you want, the data sets are available (public & private colleges etc) at nces.ed.gov and (salaries) at bls.gov

      As someone mentioned above, education pays - whether it pays you back depends on how much money you spent to get that fancy diploma and what your resulting salary is.

    12. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One BIG problem with the for-profits is that once you start with them, you're stuck. As ITT-Tech puts it:

      It is unlikely that any credits earned at an ITT Technical Institute will be transferable to or accepted by any institution other than an ITT Technical Institute.

      At least with even a community college, there's a good chance that many or most of your earned credits, especially at the 100 or 200 level, will transfer.

      I have evaluated ITT-trained people for hiring at my workplace, and have seen their transcripts and asked them about what material was covered. I can understand why they won't transfer; there's really not much of a mapping. I'm actually hiring ONE person from there because he's better than their standards and could have done much better at UT Austin. His ITT transcript is swiss cheese compared to the standard EE coursework at UT; seriously, he's had a class on microcontrollers but not a class on fundamental digital circuit design. I guess they expected someone else to help him out on interfacing and FPGAs? How do you expect good controller programming when you haven't taught finite state machines?

    13. Re:Short answer: No by martyros · · Score: 2

      you will get the biggest bang for your buck at your local community college

      But don't underestimate the value of being in a really smart peer-group at a high-quality university. I might have covered the same material if I'd gone to a community college, but man, finally being with people who were both really smart and really motivated academically was an awesome change and an awesome challenge.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    14. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Florida all credits from either a Community College or State College are 100% transferable to the State Universities

    15. Re:Short answer: No by e9th · · Score: 1
      Not really.

      In general, students may transfer 60 credit hours from community colleges as part of the hours needed for their UF degrees, regardless of when these hours are earned, subject to university and college degree requirements.
      ...
      Junior-/senior-level (courses numbered 3000-4000) course requirements for the major must be completed at UF or, with permission of the studentâ(TM)s UF college, at another baccalaureate degree-granting institution. At least 25 percent of semester credit hours must be earned through instruction at the University of Florida.

      --here

    16. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's disappointing, when i was at ITT, we had analog and digital circuits long before microcontrollers and op-code based programming.... Granted this was 12years ago that I graduated

    17. Re:Short answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are exactly correct. In North Carolina I went from community college, to four year BS degree, to MS degree. I did almost all of it at night while working a factory job during the day. It was not that expensive and the quality of instruction was always high.

    18. Re:Short answer: No by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This has been less true in the recent recession, but some top-rate schools have lots of money they can use for some form of financial aid, and don't want to turn away a student they think good enough for them for financial reasons. One case I know is a person who was accepted at MIT and the U of Minnesota, and went to MIT partly because the financials worked out better (and also because the U of M, while a good University, isn't as good as MIT).

      Don't neglect applying at top schools because you think they'd be too expensive. Apply and see what you can get out of them for aid.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Short answer: No by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I went to the SUNY at Buffalo for Mechanical Engineering. We regularly picked up RIT students that ran out of money. Every one of them had trouble catching up academically.

  17. Watch This PBS Frontline Documentary Titled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    College, Inc..

    Yours In Akademgorodok,
    Kilgore Trout

  18. Does not follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    otherwise we'll be like europe where if you don't do well on the high school tests they give you will never go to college and never have a chance to change your life in the future

    There are plenty of legitimate colleges (both universities and community colleges) that offer education for adults beyond typical college age. We don't need for-profit diploma mills for that.

  19. Not just for-profits by emagery · · Score: 2

    Probably ~not~ but I would argue that the university system isn't immune to monetary temptations either; I went to a state university system, came from a working class family that could not afford to help me out... though the compsci and physics programs were challenging and rewarding (and well respected), the financial aide department was apparently (for lack of any rational alternative probability) offended at a 'poor' boy coming to their school. They raked me over the coals, lied through their teeth, and set me up for a lot of unnecessary pain including myriad courses audited due to their shinanigans preventing me from being able to afford the textbooks! This may sound like whining, but compare this to my wealthy ex-girlfriend at the time who came from out of state (re: triple tuition costs) who, in spite of a much more shallow and far less lustrous academic background, got a free ride through school. To her credit, she maintained it well... I'm not blaming her. But the school played serious favorites with what their fiscal equations must have indicated that she was better odds in terms of alumni donations to the school. They rewarded her and punished me based on equations and assumptions, best as I can figure. Well, now she's working in a department store and I'm writing code that empowers a million plus people, and that school's behavior has taken on something of a self-fulfilling prophecy; they'll never get a donated cent out of me.

    1. Re:Not just for-profits by emagery · · Score: 1

      Run-on sentences notwithstanding

    2. Re:Not just for-profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girls almost always get a free ride through college, and if the finaid department doesn't arrange it, they can just pole-dance (as long as they're reasonably hot).

      Basically, fat ugly girls get scholarships, hot girls get scholarships or pole dance. That's how it works.

      I knew a couple of girls in college who paid their way through school dry-humping desperate-but-affluent Georgia Tech nerds at The Cheetah. It was not all that uncommon.

    3. Re:Not just for-profits by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's bureaucracy. I couldn't get work study in college, which was the only viable means of having employment during the school year, because I hadn't had it the first year I was in school. I had a friend whose father received several promotions in one year and as a result couldn't qualify for financial aid even though his parents didn't have the money. And another whose parents weren't well off, but had grandparents who were loaded and paid for everything, she got financial aid. Nothing against her, that's just the way that t he system is set up around here.

      Around here there are calculations about how much your parents are supposed to pitch in, good luck if they can't or won't do it.

    4. Re:Not just for-profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they shouldn't. You already paid them. Why should you continue to pay them?

      Services were rendered. If they cannot continue to render services because they're under-charging for them, then they, as any other business or enterprise, deserve to fail.

      I will -never- understand alumni donations. Those assholes already took enough of my money.

  20. Re:well by commodore6502 · · Score: 2

    "Never trust salesmen" is good advice (especially in the used market like amazon or ebay).

    I would just add:
    - Penn State, Maryland State, Virginia Tech, etc are ALSO salesmen

    --
    Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
  21. Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Ivies are costing 50-60K per year now a days. Met an alum of U-Chicago who was shocked to learn his alma mater charges 55K per year.

    The most refined form of socialism practiced in USA in the admission/financial aid policies of the Ivies. It is all, "If you have the money pay the full price even if you are the top student being admitted. If you don't have money you a get a full free ride, even if you are at the bottom of the admitted students".

    The really rich dont care. The poor dont care they get benefited. It is the frugal middle who did all the right things, who took sensible size mortgage, squirreled away the money, took less expensive vacations and cheaper cars and did everything your grandma told you to do, are being punished for good behavior. With incentive system so warped, is there any surprise America is on the decline?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do student loans really help people, or do they just inflate the cost of colleges across the board? I'm 34 and still in student loan debt, probably until I'm 40+

    2. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sensible size mortgage" - that's zero. A $100,000 30-year loan at 5% interest takes $193255.20 to pay off. The real win is avoiding rent payment by living with somebody who owns their own place outright. Basements work well as any slashdotter should know :)

    3. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      ...
      The really rich dont care. The poor dont care they get benefited. It is the frugal middle who did all the right things, who took sensible size mortgage, squirreled away the money, took less expensive vacations and cheaper cars and did everything your grandma told you to do, are being punished for good behavior. With incentive system so warped, is there any surprise America is on the decline?

      This is one of the best descriptions of this problem I've seen lately. The middle class in America is getting laid off and losing their houses in exchange for studying hard and getting a degree then working hard once they got a job. The rich are still rich, and the lower-class, aside from immigrants, is largely made up of people who are content to accept the quality of life that a trailer and a welfare check brings. ... This is depressing.

    4. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That is a pretty uninformed rant. Ever heard of early admissions or legacy? We've had 2 recent Presidents who lucked up into Ivy enrollments and gentleman-C'd their ways to big fat Golden Ticket that is an Ivy league degree. The Ivy League schools are still powered by privilege. I'm also assuming that never had to worry about paying for college if you think that people without the money for tuition magically get a free ride.

      College aid for poor students is so that kids with parents either unblessed with wealth or too financially incompetent to assure college education for their children still have a chance in life. And, unlike the odd impression you've got about paying for college, it's not easy by any means for the financially limited. Ask around, you'd be surprised at the people who've come up thanks to our government's investment in people at all social levels.

      I'll share an anecdote about a roommate from college. She was overall pretty cool, attractive, worked really hard, and unlike the average dingbat keg-standing through college, she had her head together. If you asked her, she'd tell you she paid her own way through college. Now keep in mind:

      • She didn't pay her own rent
      • She didnt pay her own utilities
      • She didn't buy her own books
      • She didn't pay for her own car

      Who knows where her tuition money came from considering she only worked about 10 hours a week in the sorority. Now, in her mind she probably did make "sacrifices" by not being able to go on that Cancun Spring Break trip with the rest of the sorority sisters. These are all the little things that some of us who had more opportunities seem to forget.

      Call it "socialism" if you want, but it's worked for the past 50 years.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      But meanwhile you don't pay rent. Also, paying rent wont give you something to resell.

    6. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What mortgage and money? You're telling me that an 18-year-old high school graduate looking for a college has made the financial decisions behind his ability (or lack thereof) to pay for it? No; it's his parents, and the stance of "Well, if you want a decent education and a hope of a high-paying job, pick better parents next time" is entirely horseshit.

    7. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by dealmaster00 · · Score: 1

      You must have done something wrong. It shouldn't take 20 years to get out of a student loan debt. After having some money in a liquid account for emergency funds, clearing up debt is the next highest priority when it comes to investing.

    8. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hey, trailers are awesome. They only cost as much as a high-end sports car ($50k, $60k for a good double-wide that you can have insulated easily) and you can still get a 15-20 year loan on them. If you want a house, around here it's like $200k... I saw one that was $250k being foreclosed for $170k, and it had 4 bedrooms and a tiny kitchen and a basement ... nice, but sans-basement, the trailer my parents got for $35k (it's $60k market now, with the land!) is bigger, with 3 bedrooms, a large living room, and a full size kitchen/dining room, plus another room on the side (kitchen + living room, make up most of the width at that end; there's another room next to that that is big enough for a dining room for large family gatherings!). The bedrooms aren't as small as that $250k Cape Cod's either, and the yard is about 20% smaller than the Cape Cod's back yard.

      If I buy a place in this country, it'll be a double-wide trailer for the cost of a decent BMW brand new. I'll pay a tad more than I pay now for rent, and I'll pay it off inside of 5 years. Keep it clean and maintained well and you can resell it.

    9. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The socialist aspect of Ivy tuition doesn't bother me; but I wonder if the implementation needs some work.

      A while ago, it was big news when Stanford announced that any undergrad from a family earning less than $100k/yr would get free tuition (and maybe board, I don't recall).

      The first thought running through my head was, "Wow, I bet there are some people turning down some nice raises, or selling some dividend-earning stocks to make sure they make high 90s instead of $100k"

      It's the same problem as "bracket creep" in taxation, and I would expect a bunch of smart guys from Stanford to know that. Did they do it right though? I don't know.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    10. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, my wife's student loans have a 15 year repayment period... if she got her bachelor's degree @ 23, we'll make the last payment when she's 38... if she had taken another 2 year grad program we'd be done at 40... We'll still have student loans with a 5 year old kid running around... scary, actually...

    11. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to U Chicago, instead of the University of Minnesota TC Campus, with the full understanding that I would be indebted for a while. My parents explained to me that if I chose the state school, I would get a free ride from them. If I chose the top 10 school, they would pay for half and I would take out the other half in loans. I have a lot of debt, still. I will for the next couple of years.

      No one is forcing the middle class into expensive top tier schools. They do it because it offers an immense ROI on future income and on your social status.

      I graduated three years ago and now make over six figures in silicon valley working in engineering -- as a political science/history dual major.

      Worth. Every. Penny.

    12. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you're actually working in the field you want to be working in, your diploma is worth less than an equivalent area of toilet paper.
      I worked nearly full time and went to school, and as a result took 9 years to complete a 4 year degree.
      And in the end, I watched the standards and content for the curriculum diminish the entire time.
      By working on my degree I was able to gain work experience in the field I was wanting to work in.
      But after I got my degree no company actually bothered to verify that I had it.

      Now the Ivies do provide one advantage for those with social smarts. You get to network with the rich kids.

    13. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Corbets · · Score: 1

      "Sensible size mortgage" - that's zero. A $100,000 30-year loan at 5% interest takes $193255.20 to pay off. The real win is avoiding rent payment by living with somebody who owns their own place outright. Basements work well as any slashdotter should know :)

      That's a bit of a skewed way of looking at it, though. That 190 grand is going to be worth significantly less in 30 years than it is now - inflation is what, 2 or 3% on average? Thus, you're looking at 5 thousand a year in current-day money - which should be achievable for anyone with a decent college degree.

    14. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Loans, I'm not sure, but scholarships definitely do. Because the reps will claim that people get scholarships to get the cost down. Well, as it happens the financial aid department may or may not be able to help you, and you're still dealing with the resulting costs of a school that likely assumes everybody has some sort of scholarship opportunities.

    15. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      That is a pretty uninformed rant.

      Perhaps, it is you who is uninformed. I am going to be writing checks totalling 240K to one of the top 10 schools over the next four years, and I am pretty well informed.

      The legacies have a relaxed admission standards, but they pay full price, usually these legacies are loaded. They might get a "scholarship", but that would essentially a tax dodging "non-profit" set up by a grand-uncle, administered by Aunt Agatha, benefiting just that clan. Since they full price I do not care.

      I do not resent any one poorer than me getting aid. They deserve it.

      Nor do I resent anyone with better grades/scores getting aid, they earned it.

      It is those who earned as much as I did, and then gamed the system, used income management, etc so that they can claim "low net worth" and get aid. I resent that. Those who earned spectacularly more than I did, and burnt it all off in expensive vacations, hobbies, homes etc can now get assistance. But I saved diligently, lived reasonably, squirreled away the earnings, ... now I am asked to pay full price as if I am some loaded millionaire.

      And these kids are masters in gaming the system. Their actual SAT scores puts them in the bottom quartile of the admitted students, and they get full aid? Their parents earned more than I did. The kids scored less than my child. And I pay full price and they don't? That is not fair.

      I immigrated with a 5000$ loan for airfare. Ended grad school with $18000 in total debt just in 1994. Now the top schools are saying that my 17 year savings puts me in the same bracket as Bushes and Kerrys and Kennedys and I need to pay full price?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    16. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      Nobody calling themselves 'frugal' should go anywhere near one of those expensive schools without a significant package of grants and scholarships.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    17. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with trailers is the people inside of them. If you park a double-wide on a nice piece of land somewhere, well, your neighbors wont appreciate it and its a bit of an eyesore, but its not the end of the world. If you live in a trailer park... I hope you like watching "Cops".

    18. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just paid off my wifes student loans. She's 31, I'm 29.

      We're a single-income family, with two kids (3rd on the way).

      We paid off 31k in a little over 2 years.

      WTF are you doing with your money?

    19. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why? These things have aluminum siding and nice roofs and everything. They look good.

    20. Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      As in the case of the grandparent, I to have college loan debt. I couldn't qualify for any scholarships and so had the full cost of my education. I refinanced to get my rampant college loans under control. By the time I'm done I could have bought a house or sports car with the money I'll have paid. In fact since the recession started and IT locally became a toilet (only being flushed out), I went back to school (I incur interest, but don't have to repay debt I can't repay). I'll owe more, but maybe I'll get a nice pay increase out of it... Maybe...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  22. Heard from a graduate of both by Wokan · · Score: 1

    My father has attended both "public" colleges and for-profit colleges and says that both seem to offer very similar educations and difficulty of completion. He's gotten degrees from each (a bit of an over-achiever at times) and hasn't had any problems regarding the pedigree of his degrees when it comes to finding jobs or contracts.

    Maybe for-profit colleges do lead to a higher loan default rate, but that could be because a lot of the people defaulting on the loans are people who just weren't ready or able to learn at the pace required for college study. More scholarships and grants that don't turn their noses up at the for-profits could help reduce those loan defaults, but it wouldn't help those who enroll who just aren't prepared to learn.

    1. Re:Heard from a graduate of both by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I attended a state college as well as Capella. They were both hard, in different ways. I'm not really happy with what I learned in either one of them. Both were generally a complete waste of time and money, with the exception of a small handful of classes.

      I generally recommend that anyone who is smart at all should avoid the college trap. If you already have the ability to learn things on your own, it's just going to be a massive and frustrating waste of some of the best years of your life. We have the Internet now. If you want to learn things, you don't need to listen to some egotistical asshole talk about it for 50 minutes three times a week. You can just type some things into Google and start learning and creating.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  23. Never trust nobody by spudnic · · Score: 1

    The quality of the many recent graduates I interview from traditional colleges and universities is atrocious. They have no analytical skills what so ever and expect to come in making big bucks and leading projects. The ones that I did hire sit around all day worrying about how they could have used super duper new programming paradigm X and take forever to complete what should be simple development tasks. They shut down if a design spec given by a customer is not perfect rather than working with the customer to clarify or work through the issue.

    Argh! You kids get off my lawn!

    --
    load "linux",8,1
  24. Can the big non Tech only ones be Trusted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the big non Tech only ones be Trusted?

    look at Northwestern University $55,000 year for sex ed?

    why is SEX SD in COLLEGE?

    1. Re:Can the big non Tech only ones be Trusted? by zill · · Score: 1

      Finally I can get laid! Time to go back to school.

  25. At least they posted the corrected version by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    The original report was overly harsh and quickly got picked apart for purposefully twisted wording. Regardless, the report is highly flawed because it attempts to attribute a problem to all for profits while the investigators targeted four specific for profits. In other words, they cherry picked.

    Worse, after they used the original report to generate a lot of negative press once the updated report was put out very little was mentioned of the change. Basically it was a tool of some agenda driven politicians to put out a message they want. While some of the findings are true the interpretations of the interactions between undercover investigators and the schools left a lot to be desired.

    It also was a convenient foil to distract the public from the fact that so called not for profit schools have very rates and when backed by scholarship money that sets limits on what it pays simply move costs over to a new category called "fees" which essentially let them charge whatever they want. This is a very big problem in Georgia where HOPE pays out a specific amount but colleges get around it by charging fees for anything they can think they can get away with.

    Should you go to a for profit. You should go to the best choice you can afford if that is what you want and you determine in your best interest. Some careers practically require it while others merely require it for advancement beyond certain points. It all comes down to, did you get what you paid for and is the cost relative to what you expect to make? The rule of thumb I have always read is, do not invest more into school than what you can make in a year from the actual job.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  26. No different than most schools by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    My brother got his Associate's from ITT and Bachelor's from DeVry. Yes, his student loans will take awhile to pay off but the job he landed pays well and he often travels, so the company covers all those expenses. Before he was married he was always on the road, practically getting 20-40 hours of paid OT each week while having all lodging/food expenses covered.

    On the other hand, my cousin is an optometrist. Her school loans topped $100k, she has to work 2-3 part time jobs just to fill her time, and none of those have great pay or benefits. The schools she went to are very respected.

    So can you trust the "for profit" schools. I'd say you can trust them as much as you trust any other school. It's up to the student to make the most of the opportunity.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:No different than most schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So can you trust the "for profit" schools. I'd say you can trust them as much as you trust any other school. It's up to the student to make the most of the opportunity."

      I second the above statement. I went to ITT, then UOP. I do have student loans, but I work in IT, i made correct monetary decisions, and, something most of the complainers from for profit institutions seem to not realize, I busted tail to get jobs relavent to my major and when i graduated i was already an IT prefessional. Post graduation I started working on certs. Most seem to think that the insttituation will place them in a high paying job, so they leave thier fate in anothers hands and get very disgruntled when they cannot aford the new 7 series comming off the showroom floor. Its no different than someone who say went to Middle Tennessee State University. They can have the same problems..

  27. But if all you need is to fill a check box... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...one of these schools is fine. 15 years experience designing and managing networks but no degree or only an Associate's? Take a few online courses to get a Bacehlor's and fill in that check box employers look at. A degree from Phoenix AND experience sounds better than just experience to me.

  28. Non-profit Online School comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for, and am a graduate of, a non-profit online school that is both regionally and nationally accredited, and you wouldn't believe how many students we get coming to us from these for-profit schools. It's amazing how many people have no idea what they are actually getting themselves into, and by the time the debt load is so crushing that there's no escape, they realize that they didn't do anything but pay a lot of money for something that is completely irrelevant. Education shouldn't be something that costs untold thousands of dollars a year, nor should it be just theory - there needs to be a balance of quality, cost, and relevance. Once someone finds that (we're trying, and we're a heck of a lot closer than most)... I'll leave guessing up to you at this point.

  29. I went to ITT... by N1tr0u5 · · Score: 2

    I will never recommend any for-profit paper mill to anyone, particularly ITT. I've got 40k worth of debt for the majority of classes entailing being a teacher reading a book to us. There were only two teachers that were worth a damn (Hi Mr. Miller and Mr. Richie) and I took three classes under them, total. Going there went something like this: First three quarters: This is pretty basic stuff, guess I get to the meat of things later. Second three quarters: Well, this seems to be as good as it gets, I've already spent almost 20K, may as well finish it out. Last two quarters: Regret. At least I'll have a diploma. Not to mention there was a guy in the classes that did nothing but surf the web for nothing but entertainment sites, did poorly on all the tests, didn't turn in homework, but still managed to get on the honor roll. I hate that place with all my heart and I chalk it up one of my life's biggest lessons/mistakes. I wish I would have paid 1/10 of what I did and gone to community college for the same education.

    1. Re:I went to ITT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also went to / currently attend ITT Tech but my experience was quite different. I will graduate in June with my Bachelors in Software Applications Programming and I will agree that there are many people still in the program that should have failed out a long time ago. This school lets too much slide just for some extra money and its something that also drives me insane. I would not call ITT Tech the "same education" as a community college, however. I started core classes my second quarter I was there and had landed an excellent internship 3/4 way through my associates degree. I am now employed full time with excellent salary / benefits in my field of study. Needless to say, the school I attended had excellent instructors, at least as far as the core classes were concerned, and there was a large block of time every week that was used for hands on labs that actually had you working with tools you would be using in the "real world." This really tailored to my learning style and I got a lot out of ITT Tech. I have friends who attend the Universities of the state and I can safely say that ITT has prepared me more for a job than what my friends received from their colleges.

      My school may be the exception, and by the sounds of things I wouldn't doubt it... but needless to say, I'm glad I went.

    2. Re:I went to ITT... by systematical · · Score: 1

      same story here exactly. luckily after getting out with the aas i continued studying on my own and now have a good salary. my advice is stay away and go to a community college. way cheaper and probably better education. i dont even like teling ppl i went to itt. its embarrassing.

  30. schools are schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Full disclosure: I went to a for-profit tech school. (I flunked out of Ranken Tech's architectural technology program, but ended up with a job as a drafter that I held for 12 years, and have recently transitioned into another drafting job)

    It's generally in these schools best interest to flunk out anybody that doesn't perform. Yea, they'll take anybody, but they only want the qualified people to finish and go into the workforce with their name attached. It makes it a whole lot harder for them to maintain their high job placement numbers if they graduate non-performers.

    Having worked with several other people who have gone to tech schools and to traditional schools, I'd say it still just as much as ever depends more on the person than the university. If someone knows their shit and is good at what they do, they can be anywhere along the spectrum of college dropouts to full-on traditional college degree holders, and employers won't give a damn. If you do your job, and do it well, where you went to school means very little. All college did for me was get my foot in the door. The fact that I'm damn good at what I do and that employers talk to each other is what has made me a person in demand in my field.

  31. Everybody Wins by ddd0004 · · Score: 0

    I had a boss who got both a bachelors and masters degree from american intercontinental university. It seems like he maybe got both degrees (some sort of IT/Security nonsense) the same year too or only one year apart so that might be a red flag. His application of security techniques was terrible in the code he wrote. They may have tried but it didn't take in his case. But that being said, I guess it worked out well for him. He got a Manager/Lead job with little experience. He was also friends with the division VP and several other people the VP had hired too.

    I guess it worked out for me too. I challenged some of his decisions and he resented that so I got all sorts of crap and a good job became downright painful. I went an got a better job and a better wage.

  32. Charter schools. by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 0

    Slightly off topic, but...

    This is what really scares me about the Republican push for charter schools in this country at the expense of public schools (I live in Raleigh where the Chamber of Commerce is heavily involved with the push for for-profit charter schools). Public schools can be pretty bad in places, but at least education is the primary focus of the school. For-profit colleges and charter schools are primary interested in profit, not education.

    Sure, you can make the argument that charter schools won't be profitable if the kids don't get educated. However, there are LOTS of opportunities for charter schools to game the system (e.g. only accepting students likely to make their graduation rates and test scores look good compared to public schools) and put profit ahead of a well-rounded education for all kids.

    I simply don't TRUST for-profit schools, and they would have to be heavily regulated before I do.

    1. Re:Charter schools. by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      These paper mill "schools", ITT, DeVry, etc., they're not a very good value for your money. So, they have a few choices here:

      A) Bust their butts and make their schools better.
      B) Eventually go out of business.

      Charter schools are the same. They either do well or they are shut down and replaced with something else. If school vouchers were provided and parents were allowed to choose where their kids went to school then I don't think that people would willingly send their kids to a dump. Good schools would thrive, the bad ones would die out.

      Public schools only very rarely ever face shut downs - when they do, it seems to be budget oriented or political and not related at all to the education being provided. A terrible public school will remain there, teaching poorly, and sucking up your tax dollars while it does so.

      You mentioned gaming the system - I'm certain that charter schools do it, but so do public schools. They all do it. That doesn't make it right of course - it means there needs to be more transparency in the entire process. Keep the bastards honest. Allow schools to throw out bad teachers (Dear Teacher's Union: Because of you I suffered big time throughout high school).

      Most importantly though, the parents need to start caring.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:Charter schools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Public schooling is about giving all Americans an equal starting point. Charter schools and vouchers hurt that mission and make for a more poorly educated and therefore more easily controlled populace.

    3. Re:Charter schools. by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: FT programmer for a K-12 school system, PT community college instructor.

      For profit schools (including chartered public schools) certainly do have a different model when it comes to operation. Charter schools in the public system are competing for student apportionment from the state that would normally go to the traditional public system. They seek to operate with lower costs than the traditional public system (to maximize profit) while still providing an attractive offering to the community, usually though a specialized curriculum, alternative teaching/delivery method, or simply by avoiding bureaucracy. I would argue that charter schools who do not provide the educational service that the consumer desires are at greater risk for profit-loss than inadequate public schools are at risk for defunding.

      In post K-12 education, for-profit schools balance the profit motive to widely accept any student with a pulse and reputation for rigor; where public institutions rely only on reputation (and subsidized tuition, attracting students on price). For profit schools, to attract students, tend to reach out to non-traditional students poorly served by the traditional system through convenience or liberal acceptance. Some do so unethically by misleading students. Others, simply see the economic value in giving students a chance who could not be accepted by not-for-profit institutions due to low GPA or entrance scores. These institutions gain credibility by increasing rigor, which the public system attacks though criticizing their low graduation rates, but neglect to cite their far more liberal acceptance policies. It begs the question "Is it better to admit a student more likely to fail, or hedge failure risk by placing a high wall on admission?" The public systems tends toward the later as subsidy planning (districting), geography and create a system with more demand than seats. (e.g. the Cal State system has a legal mandate to service x% of the college-bound population of California, with campuses generally operating in geographic districts.)

      My only point of consideration would be to ask why non-profit public schools are any more worthy of trust? They have nearly no competition, and many are funded regardless of actual performance or community support by legislative fiat. The argument can be made that any competitive force in the private sector, so long as public schools are still taxpayer funded, should only improve them as their inadequacies (whatever they may be) become more apparent to the public.

      --
      Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
  33. NON tech schools do a bad job with tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/1530247/IT-Graduates-Not-Well-Trained-Ready-To-Go?from=rss

  34. there will have to be a marker event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone with a fair amount of credibility will have to start one, let's say Bill and Melinda Gates or GE (General Electric), then people will suspend judgement on that particular one. If that works, then it will blaze a trail for others willing to apply the same kind of hiring standards and controls. For now, the industry is considered a diploma mill.

    1. Re:there will have to be a marker event by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      ITT Tech was started by ITT back when they were still a highly respected conglomerate. DeVry was started by Bell & Howell (of old-school movie projector fame). I graduated from DeVry back when it was "DeVry Institute of Technology" in 1986. I had $17K in student loans and got a job making $20k. I also think that that is a decent benchmark: getting a job with a salary higher than your loan debt. How many schools today, in how many fields of study, realistically offer that sort of opportunity?

    2. Re:there will have to be a marker event by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      There's already plenty of Fortune 500 companies who pay to send employees to schools like Capella. As well, the NSA has recognized Capella's information security program, as has the ISC2 (the CISSP people).

      UoP might have an image problem, but not every for-profit school has that issue.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  35. Public by ossuary · · Score: 1

    I don't think we can really trust non-profit schools either if they have a desire to grow or become nationally recognized. They can still push through those that should never have graduated just to get more student notches on their belt when they apply for federal grants.

  36. Employers and Trust by DnemoniX · · Score: 1

    I used to work at an internationally renowned medical facility who regularly treats world leaders. They actively encouraged employees to enroll in online campuses such as the University of Phoenix and Kaplan, to continue their educational development and help further their careers. I know several IT professionals there who started off answering phones at the help desk for $12/14 and hour and now through online education and hard work are now managers earning $90-100K+ after only 10 years. It comes down to the individual, how hard you work, how dedicated you are to your education, and what you take away from the material you are presented. That is what makes a true professional, not the pedigree of your degree.

    1. Re:Employers and Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, a tech/vocational school should not be a substitute for an actual education. It is job training, nothing more. You won't understand life to any greater degree, you won't know the ins and outs of theory, you'll just learn the practice and nothing else. The problem is the engineering and cs majors that enter college that care only about scoring an interview with a high paying employer and GTFOing out of the academic realm. Some people wish to do research, start new companies, innovate, etc.; vocational schools are not for them.

  37. No Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no real difference between "for profit" and regular colleges. They both have a product to sell. They both have costs which they need to cover. They both want to build a reputation.

    I suppose some here will automatically distrust any venture that wants to make a profit, just as I automatically distrust any venture which is ultimately beholden to the government, and thus politics. But that is all beside the point. If you graduate from DeVry you will know something about computers and you will be in debt. If you graduate from anything from SUNY or Cal State up to Duke, UVA or Rice (basically anything short of the ivys) you'll be 6 figures in debt and your communications degree won't open many doors. The issue is higher education -- its costs have far outpaced its rewards.

  38. Diploma Mill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the most part, they are diploma mills. There are occasionally a few people who know what they're doing that graduate from there, but the majority lack critical thinking skills, which are needed to figure out anything beyond the standard formulaic scripts that a help desk IT position needs to follow. It's probably why these people are willing to give up cash for these places in the first place.

  39. ITT Tech & DeVry by irreverant · · Score: 1

    I went to ITT Technical Institute to get my Associate of Applied Sciences and am going to DeVry University for a Bachelors in computer science. So take it from someone that went there - First, the cost is extremely expensive; even for an AAS which I could have received from Pima Community College. The difference is that my AAS is specialized. I didn't have to take a humanities course or a psychology course, this was a huge benefit to me. I had already had experience in the small-form factor computing industry not to mention experience with servers, routers and enterprise level network infrastructure. The degree allowed me to refine my skill set and my computer practices. Second, the people that feel their getting shafted are the same type of people that would feel they get shafted from their educators at a public institution. They chose to go into computer science because they figure, "...hey it's computers, i use them everyday and I figure they should be easy to learn about." That's a quote from one of my fellow ex-students. They don't realize that computers like any skill set requires some type of training whether it be private self taught training or through a get-to-know-your-computer-class training. They start taking the classes which are intermediate to advanced level class concepts and are completely lost. These are also the type of people that don't put much effort into their education so conversely, they don't get much out of their education. Third, there is a misconception that public universities such as U of A and ASU and Caltech are not for profit institutions. Their out there to get your dollar just the same way the for-profit institutions are. What it depends on is what your looking for in a program, institution, and education. Some people don't want to spend credit hours on a degree that has you take humanities and sociology courses. I needed an advanced program that would allow me to get into my field faster. Just so happens I started my own company. Finally, It falls on the individual to have due-diligence to look into what's offered at their ITT/DeVry/U of Phoenix to make sure it's a good fit for them. Don't go into something without doing to research first. That's just reckless decision making.

    --
    Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:ITT Tech & DeVry by Relayman · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, please.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  40. I think the point here... by sean.peters · · Score: 2

    ... is that for-profit colleges have a particularly bad track record of ripping off their students. Some of the horror stories include continuing to auto-register students for classes after they've announced their intent to withdraw, and charging them for it - even though they've long since stopped attending the school. Then the student gets hit with a gigantic bill for an education they haven't even received.

    Can non-profit schools rip off students? Sure. But it seems that many for-profit institutions are particularly egregious and horrible about this.

    1. Re:I think the point here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I compare candidates from both I generally see non-profit schools being worse than for-profit schools. Why? Simple, for-profit has to justify the cost, non-profit can explain it away as a system issue. In all reality both are doing business for profit, the only difference is where the profit comes from and how they can adjust the expenditures at the end of the day. That non-profit that charged you $90,000 for a bullshit Bachelor of Arts degree sure as hell didn't do it for the warm and fuzzy feeling they get.

      Of course, education plays a very small role in my selection process in todays world, as most of what a person was taught is incorrect/out of date. I generally hire based on natural talent, work ethic, and personality. Your double Master, 140 IQ, graduate is worthless if I can't get him work complete his work on time or work with his team.

    2. Re:I think the point here... by BillCable · · Score: 1

      Do you blame that on the college, or the student who didn't fill out his withdrawal forms correctly? The problem with automated processes is that when someone doesn't do their part, the system keeps operating automatically.

  41. White Collar Votech Schools by Above · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many years ago Vocational Technical schools churned out welders, plumbers, electricians, and all sorts of other skilled trades by the boatload. Not everyone was cut out to be a white collar employee, and so if you didn't go to college you could choose these schools to learn a trade and get the skills necessary to get a good job.

    These programs have fallen by the wayside along with America's manufacturing. We don't need as many of those workers, so we don't train them.

    There is a new economy though, an information economy. Yesterdays Professional Engineers are today's MCSE's and CCIE's designing information systems. These high end jobs still require a college education, as much for the non-technical (e.g. communications) skills as for their technical parts.

    For each one of the architects of the information age there are hundreds of technicians. Just like a P.E. may have designed building built by a crew of 1,000 skilled workers in the past, today an information architect designs a data center built by hundreds. These "for profit colleges" specialize in associates (2 year) degrees with the tech skills necessary to fill these jobs. They tech the technical bits, but go really light on the reading, writing, and math skills that would actually give people the fundamentals; just like VoTech schools of old. The welder of old didn't need to know at a 14" beam was required for the weight load and how to calculate it, just how to lay down a perfect bead. The information tech of today doesn't need to know why there's a three layer switching fabric, just how to run Cat5 cables and test them.

    Where the "for profit colleges" mislead people is they want them to think they are getting the same education as a 4 year traditional college. They are not. Look at the curriculum online or talk to people who have attended one. These institutions teach you how to do, not how to think.

    Somehow it became stigmatized to have not attended college. Never mind that I've seen plenty of 6 figure skilled tradesmen, and seen plenty of 4 year college graduates struggle to get a $40k job. If these schools marketed themselves as VoTech they would be more honest, but no one would go. They are forced into marketing themselves as something they are not, and then folks are surprised, and disappointed with the output.

  42. I've done both by Amigan · · Score: 1
    I have a BS/MS from brick-n-mortar schools, and a PhD from an on-line institution. This institution got caught up in the "diploma mill" congressional hearings several years ago, and has since gone belly up :-( I can tell you from personal experience that I worked *harder* getting my on-line degree than I did on either of the two earlier degrees. Granted, I was a working professional pursuing the degree this time around, rather than a single, straight from high school, student.

    I wasn't saddled with heavy debt, but the fact that the institution I attended required you to pay for the entire degree in the first 10 months was there as an incentive to actually do the work required. They also had an additional fee for every month past their expectation that you didn't finish. The goal was to get you to complete. Unfortunately, since the degree is non-accredited, I cannot use it as proof to any local Universities if I want to be an Adjunct Faculty.

    Having the additional degree did help me get my present position.

    • BS Computer Science (Univ of South Carolina - 1983)
    • MCS Computer Science (Texas A&M University - 1985)
    • PhD Computer Science (Kennedy-Western University - 2002)

    jerry

    --
    "Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
    1. Re:I've done both by godrik · · Score: 1

      What was your PhD on ? In which journal did you got your research published ?

  43. Some people by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    Some people can make the BEST of what they learned by doing. Many cannot. This is not
    the point I was trying to make. I always appreciate people who need no formal training, they
    tend to do, rather than expect a piece of paper to bolster their abilities, they are the exception, rather than the rule.

    1. Re:Some people by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Of course, for every person who doesn't need formal training, there are ten who think they don't need formal training. Those people are dangerous.

    2. Re:Some people by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      And you find these people via brain scans? You look at people and telepathically determine that this guy over here has no degrees or certifications becasue he's been too busy being awesome to get them, while this other bunch is just lazy and didn't bother? Degrees, certifications, experience, none of them are guarantees of a knowledgeable or capable employee, but they are indications of training and examination at some level by some outside authority.

      Of course we all value the brilliant self starter that figures out everything and gets results with little or no outside help, but finding that person without either knowing them ahead of time or spending an inordinate amount of time evaluating each candidate is impossible. You pick the person with the best paper identity and hope they're also a brilliant self starter. Every time the topic of education comes up on Slashdot you get the "Education is useless, becasue the best people are self taught geniuses" contingent. No one is denying that there aren't smart and capable people out there who lack a formal education; but there's no way for me, as a hiring manager or HR drone, to differentiate that guy from the dozens of other people who also lack formal education and would be utterly inappropriate for the job.

      If you're a brilliant self starter it shouldn't be that difficult for you to see the value of a piece of paper certifying your base level of skill and knowledge, nor for you to acquire such a thing.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  44. I also went to ITT... by Halifax+Samuels · · Score: 1

    I graduated from my local ITT Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Information Systems Security as the valedictorian of my class. It took me a year to find a job and not only do I feel like I am COMPLETELY unprepared for a simple IT job but I was also informed that I was hired mainly because the senior IT guy here said he thought we'd get along well (and we do, which is nice), so that basically means I got lucky and my credentials had nothing to do with it. I've got a sizable debt still, but I haven't been out of my old retail job for a full year yet. 30K a year is double what I made in retail, but not quite what I was expecting (I am entry-level, though). All-in-all, I liked that the teachers worked in the field and really did know their specific subjects inside and out (for the most part), but I didn't like anything else about the school.

  45. In a word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  46. In Virginia... by sean.peters · · Score: 4, Informative

    Four year colleges by law have to accept all your credits obtained at accredited state community colleges. This really is a money-saver.

    1. Re:In Virginia... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think that's typical. And believe me it's a lot of work for the institutions to maintain that in a workable way. I know that at the local community college the computer science instructors regularly are on sabbatical to make sure that the courses are in sync with what the local 4 year institution is teaching and expecting.

    2. Re:In Virginia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but do they have to admit you to begin with? For many 4 year institutions, the "Transfer" applicant is severely disadvantaged from the "Freshman" applicant, purely because most (75%+) of their admissions comes from the Freshman route.

      I know of schools that admit 8k Freshmen per year (out of 16k applicants), but only accept 300 Transfers (out of 2,000 applicants). Thus, your raw statistical chance of getting in, all other factors being equal, are more narrow.

    3. Re:In Virginia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only applies if you have completed your associates degree at the community college. Otherwise you'll be lucky to have half of your credits transfer.

  47. Just educate them by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of educators, and some of them said they are routinely shocked by college administration because they've heard some form of the phrase, "We don't train them for work; we just want to educate them," too many times.

    Here is the point: You go to college, you get educated.

    You are not useful.

    You are educated.

    I know a lot about meditation, and about Go, and about philosophy. That... would be useful if all of society knew about that kind of thing, because society is a mess. As a job skill, though, it's worthless. That I can talk about all kinds of shit is not money-making.

    A degree in IT doesn't make you an awesome programmer or sysadmin or security professional. That only comes with experience-- and getting the experience first makes cherry picking your education a hell of a lot more effective than ever getting a degree. Getting a degree is a waste of time; the only ones worthwhile are the ones that earn their knowledge.

    It is said that knowledge given freely is worthless. When you pay someone for knowledge, that knowledge is given freely. I pay for Go books, I read them, I buy more, read them, I get no better; if I want to improve in Go, I have to play a lot of games and learn by losing a lot to stronger players. That I paid good money for books doesn't change the fact that the knowledge was dumped in my head with no effort on my part. Knowledge must be earned; the books give me guidance along the way, but I won't get any good until I encounter my own struggles and come to understand said guidance.

    In college, you pay money to have someone read to you from a book, tell you to read from a book, and give you a paper test asking you if you recognize this shit you read from a book. Math is an exception, since math is math; any application of math is not an exception, you must solve real problems to get good at solving real problems. Anything with a real school (medical school, law school, etc) tends to be an exception (especially with internships being required for law school, and especially since law is academic anyway-- a court case is just Ph.D. research and a dissertation to an audience that WILL challenge you on it). The key here is the real world is often based on solving problems you haven't seen before, not solving problems of structure repeated throughout the book.

    1. Re:Just educate them by mrvan · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that apparently you've not been to a good university.

      I teach at a medium-ranked university, and I can tell you that students need to be able to think and critically read and write (next to obvious substantive requirements such as knowing theories). Institutions imparting purely technical/factual knowledge should IMHO not be called universities,

    2. Re:Just educate them by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that apparently you've not been to a good university.

      I went to a community college. I'm talking about stuff I hear from educators (i.e. teachers, counselors, administration) that I know, that I chat with, who are active in the education community. People who are going out and saying, "You know, I work with the work force a lot, I like to be well-rounded and know what's happening so I can prepare my students for the world, and what I'm seeing is ...." And what they get back is, "Well, that's cute, but we just wanna educate them! ^_^" It's not just that the college administration lives in its own little bubble; they know what's going on outside, they just don't care.

      Every college has its own administration; this isn't a cartel. But a lot of them are like this. Education, not vocation. It's called education. It means you know shit, you are educated, you can talk like you're smart. Vocation means you're useful.

  48. Worthless Degrees by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

    While I'm sure the folks at these colleges are learning *something*, I never found that they were really learning much that was useful to me as an employer. Their "computer science" courses are generally about the sorts of things one can learn on the web. I need people who will use the web to learn stuff on the job. I need the school to teach them the stuff they're not likely to learn by just googling it. They're also often taught by other equally uneducated people in the industry. I never hired someone from one of these schools because none of them ever could hold a candle to the folks coming out of "real" universities. Mind you, even "real" universities produce some piss poor graduates. I don't know what it is, but perhaps the research aspect that lacks from these for-profits really makes a difference in undergraduate education.

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    1. Re:Worthless Degrees by theangryswede · · Score: 1

      The critical skills and thinking is what is really missing from some of these for-profit online programs. You may learn what, but never how or why.

  49. Elite schools versus everyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harvard has billions and billions of dollars in their endowment fund. It may not be paid out to shareholders, but it's a money-making operation regardless. Their whole system is designed around getting kids to get high paying jobs so they will give money back to the university. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't make Harvard any better than Devry or other honestly for-profit schools.

    Plus, wherever you look in the recent financial crisis, whoever you try to blame, you find one thing in common. The vast majority of people involved went to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, or Wharton. They did NOT go to Devry. So maybe we're attacking the wrong schools for deceptive practices here. Somehow Harvard taught a bunch of people to screw over the rest of the country.

  50. Computer Learning Center by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Ok, so this is a few years ago and anecdotal but there you go.

    I got out of the Army in 82, spent a year doing odd jobs before landing a part time programming position in BASIC. In 1985 I went to Computer Learning Center to get better. Better training than the hobby and part time stuff I'd been doing and a chance at a better paying, full time job. The FORTRAN instructor was very good in teaching programming. The COBOL instructor was a screw-up who threw up on the grade book after a night of partying (the staff had to look at the grades from the reverse side) and lost several projects when they blew away in the parking lot (the affected folks had to redo their projects). In general I thought it was a pretty good set of training and even taught the COBOL Report Writer in class for extra credit.

    Anyway, when I started looking for a full time position, I couldn't get past HR. This went on for several weeks until one HR woman said I should remove Computer Learning Center from my resume as they generally punted the resume once they see that.

    I took it off and the next position I applied to offered me a programming position on an IBM System/23 and on the IBM PC AT programming Funeral Home and Point of Sales programs.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  51. You Can't Trust the Profit Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    period

  52. Well, yes, they are different by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Sure, elite colleges are quite expensive, and the cost-benefit relationship in a lot of cases is way out of whack. But at least with an elite college you can 1) be reasonably sure you're at least going to get a top-quality education out of the deal, and 2) not worry too much that the university is actively trying to steal from you. The quality of education you get out of, say, ITT Tech or Kaplan is sometimes dubious, and such institutions have been known to use shady tactics like continuing to auto-register you for courses (and charging you for them) after you've withdrawn from the school. In some cases this went on for mulitple semesters before they finally "expelled" the student for non-attendence and then hit them with a giant tuition bill for instruction that they never even received.

    So, yes, in a lot of cases elite colleges are not the best value. But they're probably not actively ripping you off.

  53. I know someone who teaches at one of these... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    "...institutions."

    They say it is a very sad state of affairs because the practice of taking advantage of poor and undereducated people is all too common. This particular person teaches English and states that they are blown away by the lack of fundamental grammar and even spelling skills. That being said, if you don't have a command over language, how will you ever understand that these schools are in fact, *for* profit (for someone at least) and they do not have people's best interests in mind?

    The best suggestion I give when I come across someone who goes to one of these is "STAY AWAY AND GO TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE WHERE YOU CAN TRANSFER CREDITS IF NEEDED!!!" I don't say it in all caps but make it very obvious that it is not only the cheaper way to go, you will also become more educated, and of course, the fact you can transfer creds, which you cannot from many of these schools stated in the article.

  54. Re:well by skids · · Score: 1

    Well, you can trust them to try to get as much money for as little product as possible. (Though I do have to disagree that this is universally applicable. There are still some remnants of "honest business" out there that have not been eaten by the beast yet.)

    So how long until Congress cuts away the GAO? It seems to be getting in the way of fleecing the undesirables back into indentured servitude here...

  55. Herzing grad... by RingDev · · Score: 1

    I went to Herzing. It was on par with UW:Madison tuition. After ~$25,000 in debt I had an associate degree and two bachelor degrees, although I maxed out my transfers/test outs.

    At the time, their associates CS program was, IMO, one of the BEST systems to produce entry level programmers/consultants I've seen. I've gone to a number of other universities and public schools (while in the military, including military CS training), and I would have had no qualms hiring any of the recent grads from their assoc CS program for entry level positions.

    Their Bachelor programs seemed a bit more hit or miss. They had some really amazing profs and teachers, and a couple of really bad seeds. They were usually pretty good about getting bad teachers out in short order (usually 2-symesters and they would be gone). Really though, the Bachelor programs were 100% dependent on how much you were willing to put in. If you did the bare minimums, you could have still passed, but it would have been a waste. If you were really dedicated to the topic though, there was a lot they offered.

    That said, towards the end of my time there, they started to go in the wrong direction as far as profitability over education, IMO. They introduced some new degree programs (including a couple of video-game design programs) that were really designed, IMO, to get kids to part with their money, and not with future career in mind.

    They also merged books into the tuition cost, so students couldn't re-use books to save money.

    And the thing that really chapped my hyde was when Renee Herzing (the President) became a board member on a PAC that opposed a recent Dept of Education rule change on capping schools' tuition rates for low-employment and low-pay fields (ie: no running up $25,000 debt for a IT support desk assoc degree) and she used her position to make the faculty send students completely one sided arguments about how this rule was the worst thing ever and it would destroy their education. When in reality, Herzing wouldn't have been significantly impacted, and even then, it would have capped their tuition rates only on specific programs. Their IT and Nursing programs would have been completely uneffected.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  56. Re:I reject the premise of your argument. by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 2

    bureaucracy is the primary focus of public schools.

    In a word....BULLCRAP!

    Nobody goes into teaching because they enjoy bureaucracy. Stupid comments like that are nothing more than Republican talking points meant to demonize public schools so that for-profit schools look good in comparison.

    Nice try Glenn Beck.

  57. garbage in garbage out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to a tech school (Heald Institute) for a computer/electronics degree because it was fast - 18 months. It was filled to the rafters with people getting "retrained" because of some sort of job injury (most of them were insurance scams).
    There were very few in the program that even had the vaguest concept of what electricity was when they entered, and when they left nothing had changed.

    They "graduated" with an "AA Degree" that was accredidentially worthless, and expected to land high paying jobs. Most that could find jobs became copier repair techs, and had $20K+ in student loans.

    It was a scam from start to finish, except for a few of us who had some inkling of what we were studying actually doing something with our "diploma" afterwards.

  58. Reject: Re:I reject the premise of your argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schools become a bureaucracy because you make them that way. Focus on results for my kid, need to test the teacher, etc. Key is to work with the Teachers and the School Boards to maximize what they have. Learn to volunteer and allow the good Teacher time to prepare the lesson plans not just for the students but each individual student.

    Issue is that profit schools are for giving an R.O.I. to the shareholders. Once payed what do I have to do then? Would it be better that those Charter Schools be on a contract. Let us say, I only pay for the up front materials and profit only occurs if my kid gets a Ph.D.

    Charter Schools only mean you will be living in the Third World, oh forgot you are.

  59. Most expensive mistake I ever made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I made the mistake of transfering from a cheap county college to a private for profit college (Drexel) in hopes of completing a BS in IT. Most expensive mistake I ever made. The sales/marketing/admissions people lied up a storm to me. Claimed they do all sorts of job placement, most students leave the school with job offers, great education and hands on experience, etc. Talking to those people they claimed it would take 2.5 yrs to complete a BS with the credits they let me transfer. I budgeted for 3 yrs and figured around $80k should be enough with buffer room.

    Well tuition nearly doubled in the time I was there, they cancelled classes that were part of a sequence (prerequisites and such) several times which put me at part time enrollment yet still billed me for full time tuition costs. The "cooperative internship experience" they claimed was optional (pay tuition and take classes while on internship or don't pay and just go to work/internship) during my talks with the admissions people (I was not interested, already had a job as a sysadmin) turned out to be mandatory, to the tune of $18k for 6 months (two quarters of classes... that's 8-12 classes I paid for but was not allowed to take). During that time I had no contact with the school and simply went to work every day as I always have.

    So here I am at year 4, $122k in debt and I can't afford the $41k they want to take the final 7 classes to get my degree since I blew through my savings trying to pay down my loans. Drexel University has been the most expensive and crippling mistake of my life. I would have been better off going to a cheap state college for around $15k/yr which I could have easily paid cash without taking any loans. My advice to others is don't worry about the name on your degree, just get a degree relevant to your field wherever is cheapest. Experience and knowledge has got me all my jobs. A degree is just a peice of paper to get past HR and open up higher pay (varies from company to company depending on how much the value a degree). If you are already working in your field you will likely not learn much at school anyhow.

  60. I graduated from there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to DeVry in the 80's as well as a friend of mine. I will say when I went there it wasn't asy at all and my total investment was $30k, that included books, food rent etc... We worked our tails off 4-5 days a week just in class, forget all the extra time that was required to study, write code etc... I look at my Daughter going to college now at a Public University and she hasn't gone to school 5 days a week for 4 years. Matter fact her Jr. year she went fulltime and was there 2 days a week.

    I paid off my student loans in less than the 10 years allotted and have had a high paying job for most of my 23 years in the workforce. Oh yeah that friend of mine form HS that went to DeVry as well, he graduated and went to work for Fermi Labs.

  61. Profit grads hit the ground running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would hire a grad from a profit over a public student any day for I.T. For-profit schools skip the junk and get people up-to-speed quickly so they can hit the ground running with the latest tech when they graduate. I don't think I can say the same for non-profit.

    Development might be a different story though.

    1. Re:Profit grads hit the ground running by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      This was not my experience in IT and a for profit school.

    2. Re:Profit grads hit the ground running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've hired 2 people from for-profit schools, both were great.

  62. Kind of a one sided study. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After skimming through the report. I was a bit disappointed to see they didn't do any undercover testing at any non-profit schools. Maybe I missed it, but it's not clear if it's in there.

    It's possible this is just a problem w/ the post educational system in which easily obtainable loans have skyrocketed tuition costs. I don't have much doubt that for-profit colleges are the worst of the bunch, but I don't think it's fair to point the spotlight on them w/ out scrutinizing public, or private non-profit schools.

  63. Bah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't speak to ITT or UofP, however, I went to DeVry some 20 years ago, got an accredited Bachelor's Degree and spent about the same amount as a "traditional" university. I work in the field same field I trained for and have had a great career. I've since attended both community colleges and graduate school at a state university and can say that the education DeVry provided me was easily as rigorous as grad school. I found the classes I took at the community college level were a joke in comparison.

  64. Who gets to take the coding quiz? by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm doing hiring for my team. I don't care too much about the education: if the candidate can do a decent job on the coding quiz

    When you have a thousand resumes for two positions, how do you choose which ones even get to take the coding quiz?

    1. Re:Who gets to take the coding quiz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The online resume posting system includes half of the quiz. Each applicant has to build part of the web site in order for the resume to even post.

    2. Re:Who gets to take the coding quiz? by the_hellspawn · · Score: 1

      ooohhhh, now that is cool.

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    3. Re:Who gets to take the coding quiz? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      After ~1000 resume's the website is done and the job posting is receded.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Who gets to take the coding quiz? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      well first u write a script to compile their program and give it inputs (telling them before hand which order/files the inputs are in)
      record the amount of time it took for them to turn it in and how quickly the code ran for the ones that did it correctly, take the top 100 or so(in a score of finished time * code running time)
      and go from there

      --
      warning pointless sig
  65. Inaction is very expensive by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and just showing up isn't good enough.

    Most discussions about failure in education fails to note the student's own failure to DO THE WORK.

    About 1/3rd of my students fail, not because I'm tough or the material is hard or whatever the usual excuses are - they fail because they just don't do the work! Online quizzes not even opened/started, online discussions not participated in, homework assignments not submitted (not even a "I'm confused" text file as I recommend)...I am very sensitive and responsive to even slight attempts at effort, but if they don't do anywhere close to enough work - and I mean if I gave a 100% on every assignment they did do it still wouldn't hit 60% for the course - then there is nothing anyone else can do for them.

    If you are willing to do the work, you can get a fine education at any school at any price.
    If you are not willing to do the work, you will fail and lose a lot of money in the process.

    And yes, for-profit tech colleges can be trusted. If their product (education) sucked as bad as is implied by the question, they would soon fail because (hey, get this) they didn't do the work.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Inaction is very expensive by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      The statistics suggest that even if they do the work and graduate, that they are not capable of doing a job that will allow them to pay back the loans, but the college doesn't fail because the government is a signee on the loans.

    2. Re:Inaction is very expensive by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      The government is looking into these for-profit schools due to the amount of student loans they are consuming and the lackluster results that the students are seeing.

      Bernie Madoff did his homework - just because it's profitable doesn't mean it's ethical.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    3. Re:Inaction is very expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanna bet?

      I had a professor get fired from a for-profit private tech college (in pittsburgh, pa) because she "lost too many revenue streams" by failing students.

      This school is now notorious for turning out idiots who don't do work, can't do work, or will not do work, and are fully equipped with an entitlement attitude "because they paid for" their diploma.

      It makes it really hard for people like me, who did the work to get a job in that local market (which is why I'm not in western PA or eastern OH) because of the reputation this school has attained by doing this.

      You made the mistake of thinking that the schools care about the quality of student they turn out. WRONG. They care about keeping students enrolled, so they can bilk the public for grant money and enslave the 'student' with loans they cannot default upon and will never unload except by paying them off.

      I've been out of school for nearly 10 years now, but it's no secret (at least it wasn't after about the first 12 months) how that place (or any other like it) was operating.

      Most of the people I graduated with are not doing what we learned in school. There are a few of us (about 33% of a graduating class of 26) who are.

    4. Re:Inaction is very expensive by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Most discussions about failure in education fails to note the student's own failure to DO THE WORK.

      In our test-focused schooling regime, I've found that being good at taking tests is much more valuable than knowing the material.

      And I sure as shit did not "DO THE WORK" when I was in school. I showed up on test days, and the rest of the time was spent smiting my brain with various substances.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    5. Re:Inaction is very expensive by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      This is the truth as gospel in education. It take one to "push" on things to really learn about them - you need to "do it".

      I can remember being at Syracuse busting my ass for A's. Everyone else skated for B's and C's. My counterparts at Ivy league schools and community colleges were in EXACTLY the same boat. You could skate at Harvard undergrad and get b's and c's, but to really excel, you have to do the work. And to get A's at Rutger's and MontClair state, or even vocational schools, you were working just as hard as top students at the "best" schools. Period.

      What makes those schools the "best" is the enormous sample of students that actually want to, and do, the work.

  66. ITT Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I taught at ITT Tech in a city in Ohio for two quarters 2007-2008. The book for my class was using Fedora Core 4 just as 8, and later 9, where coming out. I offered repeatedly to update the textbook which students used, but was repeatedly denied. When my students groaned because I had them read a lot of articles outside the book, I said "This book, while only two years old, is ancient in terms of technology. You read the articles so you're learning the current practices and methods instead of ones which are two years old, or older." Of the ~9 students I had, I know that three of them went on to get good jobs in their field. Another is freelancing and making enough to live. I don't know about the rest - never heard anything from them. I can only hope that they learned something useful from me, and my class was an exception to the low standard some tech schools espouse.

  67. Prove your statement by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "those who receive a "free" education seldom appreciate it as much as the one who had to earn (and pay for) that education"

    - prove your statement please: facts, references, etc.

    1. Re:Prove your statement by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I had to work for my degree. I appreciate it more than the people I have met who didn't have to work for it.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Prove your statement by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Albert Einstein was a man. He was smarter than most of the women I have met. Therefore, women are seldom as smart as men?

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    3. Re:Prove your statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're catching on... #lulz

    4. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      I had to work for my degree. I appreciate it more than the people I have met who didn't have to work for it.

      How do you know? Seriously, I don't think you realize how dumb it sounds when you say something like that. I can only imagine the conversation, "So, Bob, on a scale of one to ten, how much do you appreciate your education? Also on a scale of one to ten, how hard did you have to work for it?" These things are subjective. I mean really, did you actually ask your friends questions such as these? Who brought it up? Did your friends volunteer the information, or did you have to ask?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Prove your statement by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      WOW...just WOW. I must have hit a nerve or something. You asked for facts on something that is by its very nature subjective. My previous statement was a fact. I appreciate my degree more than others I know who got their degree free based on my observations of their treatment of the degree. They act like it isn't any big deal. Does that mean they didn't appreciate theirs? No and I never said it did. Does that mean everyone who works for a degree appreciates more than them? No. But when you are dealing with averages and not individual cases my statement stands.

      BTW - When I say free I mean they didn't have to work for the money to go to school or pay rent or feed themselves. Somebody who gets a scholarship or such and still has to work to survive and juggle class load with work load definitely appreciates it otherwise they wouldn't even bother.

      are you the slashdot poster known as "Archangel Michael?" The sig is the same, but "ArhcAngel"

      Don't know who "Archangel Michael" is or why he uses the same sig.

      Archangel was taken and ArhcAngel wasn't

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    6. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      So, who would you say appreciates their education more, someone who got their prep school and ivy league education paid for by daddy, and then went on to a million a year job on Wall Street, or someone who had to work for their education, and now has a hundred thousand in debt and no job?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Prove your statement by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Key word is appreciates and yes I would.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      But you didn't answer the question. WHO would appreciate their education more, the ivy league scion of wealth, whose education, though paid for, got him a million dollar a year job, or the fellow who paid for his own education and now has $100,000 in debt and no job to show for it?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:Prove your statement by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on the person as I have said in each of my posts. but given a good sample of the two subjects in this case the one who got everything paid for will lean towards entitlement rather than gratitude and the one strapped with debt would likely resent the debt but still feel a sense of pride at having achieved graduation. When it comes to people there are no absolutes.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    10. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      So the guy who worked for his education, but got nothing out of it appreciates it more than the guy who got it handed to him, and then made millions out of it. Okay, got it. I think you are full of shit, and I think you know it, but are too proud to admit you wrote something you thought was "common sense" that is actually stupid and contra-factual.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:Prove your statement by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      You obviously do not know what the word appreciate means so I'll stop trying to explain it.

      I would ask a question though. Which Ivy League school did daddy send you to anyway? I can't imagine anyone getting so worked up over my comment unless it hit REALLY close to the mark.

      I will leave you with this. When I got my drivers license I was given an old Ford Granada but had to pay for gas/ins./maintenance myself. It wasn't what I wanted but I was glad to have a car. Later when I actually bought my first car (it was in bad shape but I paid for it myself) I had a grin from ear to ear because it was MINE. I had to learn how to work on cars because I couldn't afford to pay someone to do it and now have a valuable skill which benefits me to this day.

      One of my classmates got a brand new car given to them and a credit card to pay for everything (Parents paid the card). My classmate just bitched that they didn't get the color they wanted.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    12. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      Being that my mother and I were abandoned in Greece by my stepfather when I was sixteen, and I had to work under the table as a cook to get enough money to get back to the States, then had to work to get my GED, then work throughout my state university education, no, you didn't hit anywhere close to the mark.

      Lovely anecdotes, all of them, but they in no way prove your idea. You just seem to drop back to "but everyone knows it!" in shear amazement that anyone would dispute you, but you can't say why you believe it, just that you do, and that anecdotally, some of your personal experiences seem to back up that belief.

      I will leave you with this: your life experiences and friends are not a random sample, which is why personal anecdotes are meaningless.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Prove your statement by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Taking your statement as absolute truth, assuming you do know how other people you know think, and assuming that "working for" a degree has a reasonable and objective meaning....

      One person who worked for a degree appreciates it more than an unspecified number of unspecified other people sampled in an unspecified way who didn't work for theirs.

      If you think that's anywhere near a proof of what you originally said, you got rooked on that degree.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Prove your statement by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      An opinion can't be "proven" correct, so why do you demand someone "prove" their opinion?

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    15. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      Because, either people who have education given to them appreciate it, on average, or they don't. That is what is known as a "fact" which is not an opinion. Now, you are allowed to have contrafactual opinions around me, but you don't get to have them around me and have me stay quiet about my opinion, which is that your opinions are full of shit. See how that works?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:Prove your statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the person made a statement expressing an evaluation of value, that is a fact. The content of the statement which an evaluation of relative value, that is an opinion. You can ask what the subjective conditions were that the person used to make the evaluation, but since it remains subjective there is no way to "prove" the evaluation. You see how that works?

    17. Re:Prove your statement by spun · · Score: 1

      Give it up already, stop beating the greasy horse shaped patch on the ground. The flag of the USA is red, white, and blue. You can have the OPINION that it is mauve and chartreuse, but your opinion would be wrong. My point is that his opinion was just OPINION, and a bullshit opinion. I made that point and made it well.

      If he feels that "I had to work for my degree. I appreciate it more than the people I have met who didn't have to work for it." then he can either back that up, by showing evidence, or admit he's just talking out his ass. You see, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but most people aren't interested in yours.

      Personally, I quite enjoy proving that people's opinions are bullshit, and other people shouldn't waste their time by paying attention to the worthless verbal diarrhea spewing from their fetid mouths.

      Moreover, the OPINION he was spewing is hateful, hurtful, elitist self serving, self congratulatory bullshit. It is really trying to imply something very evil, without stating it outright: "You shouldn't try to help others, because they won't appreciate what they are given, you should make them work for it, so they appreciate it more." THAT is the sort of vile right wing libertarian/Republican/Teahadist bullshit I will ALWAYS combat, capiche?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  68. IT needs apprenticeships not College or a mix of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT needs apprenticeships not College or a mix of both
    .

    Maybe a 1-2 year class room / apprenticeship to start and then maybe so on going after that.

  69. Obligatory bash.org by Khoa · · Score: 1

    A: "My son got into DeVry." B: "What did he do? Open the door?"

  70. Colleges are businesses. by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I graduated from a good private university, went off to get a tech job in the finance sector and make very good money. Having been down that road now, I realize what all colleges do -- "for profit" or not. They are businesses out to make money.

    First, they steer you towards bad loans. For example in New Jersey, the financial aid office steers you towards "NJClass" loans that have a 7% interest rate. You can do better if you go down to your local bank, or even shop around online. But the college gets a cut from this, so they offer you the NJClass loan. The prices you pay, especially for private schools, don't come NEAR what you will be worth in any amount of time. If you assume no scholarships (and I had a half scholarship -- more on that later), a good school can run you anywhere from $15k to $40k a year -- the former for a public state school, and the latter for a private school. Things are variable of course, whether you commute or dorm, but the minimum you can look at nowadays is about $15k, even commuting.

    I commuted to a private university with a half scholarship, and 5 years and a major change later, I graduated 65k in debt from school. I however, am one of the luckier ones as I have a real skill and work in an industry that while full of bad ethics, pays really well. I still pay about $450 a month on my loans, and that's after consolidating and everything else. If you figure that a college graduate that comes out of school will make less than a six figure salary, that $450 is going to be debilitating to pay back. And odds are, it will be even higher just because financial firms have gotten more twisted and turned over the years. Remember how the sub prime mortgages got bundled up and sold off as good loans to other people? It happens with school loans TOO. The bank has no reason to keep the loans, and in the 10 years I've been paying back my loans, I have had six different lenders.

    The only thing we can do as parents (if you are one, as I am), is to steer your kids to making good choices and spend less money on their education. The return simply doesn't work out well in their favor, especially with the debt load they will likely have to carry. Community college for two years, then a decent school for another two, and graduate with as little debt as possible. I am one of the lucky ones as I said; I have a six figure salary, I have a really good resume, I am good at what I do and I enjoy it to boot. Not everybody is that lucky, and the really unfortunate part is that it will affect their lives in a profound way, while Wall Street (and the industry I work for) will profit handsomely as they help shrink the middle class even more than they already are.

    If you want to take a real stand, write your senator and get the allowance for federal student loans raised to a higher level. It's easier to repay a 1.5 or 2% loan than a 7% with variable interest and lots of legalese you can't follow.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:Colleges are businesses. by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      The rest of your comment was good but I had to comment on this little piece because you work in the financial sector. You need a six-figure salary to pay a $450/month loan comfortably? Really? That's funny because I have a well under six-figure salary and pay about $1500/month total in debt-service. It's not comfortable by any means but I would dream of only having to pay $450 for 65k in debt....

    2. Re:Colleges are businesses. by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

      It's not 65k any more :)

      I worked for 10 years to bring it down substantially, and working in the financial sector lent me the ability to get 20-30% bonuses that I used to immediately pay off the other loans I couldn't or didn't consolidate. At the onset, I had about 6 different loans to which I paid about $800 a month, now I'm down to two loans but still pay $450. The key is to pay off all the smallest loans as quickly as possible, and add money towards your payment towards the principle.

      The $450 isn't terrible for me, but I have other costs like kids, wife, car payments, etc that could definitely use a $450/mo addition. How much more formula, diapers, groceries, entertainment, etc, would $450 get me? Quite a bit, I bet. But I can manage just fine. It's when you graduate with the 65k in debt and only make 40k that the $800 a month will kill you.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    3. Re:Colleges are businesses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound advice. We coincidentally have similar lives. I'm also making 6 figures on wall street as a sysadmin/programmer. But I went the public university route for my comp sci degree and by working part time, commuting, and taking 5 years I graduated with no debts. I think the in-state tuition prices are even more affordable than you've stated.

  71. No... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

    I have been offered three positions with different tech institutes/training centers to be an instructor and in the end turned all of them down. I can only speak from the prospective employee side but the experience was very similar at all three and it was slimy/dirty feeling from every angle. Some of the outrageous things that were said or demanded of the instructors as well as how the "students" were regarded and spoken about put me off completely. Years later I now hire tech candidates and see many resumes and get calls from these places, the signal to noise ratio is so high it is often not worth my effort to go through 10-20 candidates to find 1 good one (which is roughly what I have found to be the case). Go to a decent community college for an associates, if you want to further it then transfer to a solid state school. You will be far better off.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  72. I trust them to cash the tuition check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beyond that, I look at who is accrediting them and ask "do I trust the accreditation agency?"

  73. I am a Phoenix... by TrAvELAr · · Score: 1

    ...and it is what it is. I spent 10 years in the military and knocked out my first two years of school at 6 different universities between deployments. I got out and got a decent job, and established myself. At some point, I decided I should finish my degree. After talking to a number of local universities and the local B&M University of Phoenix, I chose Phoenix. And I chose them for a single reason. They accepted more credits than anyone else and offered the shortest path to completion.

    Had I not been established in my field, I probably would have been pretty dissatisfied with the curriculum. However, since I was familiar with most of it, it was easy to stay ahead. And had my GI Bill not paid for it, I may be a little bitter about the experience, but since it cost me next to nothing, I can't knock it.

    Like most universities, there were some great instructors and many of the genuinely cared. There There were some bad ones. It's the luck of the draw. That said, I felt like a number when dealing with anyone in administration or counseling.

    Now that my undergrad is out of the way, I am pursuing my masters at a more reputable University.

    1. Re:I am a Phoenix... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to a state school also and dropped out in my 4th year because my online business was booming. I finished up in 2 at a ground program. The program isn't amazing but it will get you ready for an entry level position by making you ready to speak in front of people, contribute to teams and have a general understanding of whatever your degree is in. Isn't that all you need? Most of the people who were there already had jobs or kids.

  74. Re:well by RobDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People don't understand what 'non-profit' means. All it means, is that it meets certain requirements as declared by the IRS that affects how it pays taxes.

    There are employees who make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS while working for a non-profit organization. There are non-profit organizations that use hard-sale tactics. There are certainly public universities that do this. That employee people whose sole job is to market the school and/or the degree they are selling to CHILDREN.

    My public university actually decided to bull-doze parking lots because someone did some math and declared that, 'If we had less parking, more students would park illegally, and we'd net $x million of dollars over y years.' So they tore it out. I'm also 100% convinced the average starting salaries for my major were grossly inflated. I even worked at our 'telefund' while I was a student. That was the Universities calling center that would call up former students and try to get them to give us money. We were even instructed on how to 'Get them talking about the old 'ol days' so they'd be less likely to say No. And, if you have a transcript mailed to any address (that isn't another university) - even if it's not yours - they will send junk mail to that address trying to get donations and sell homecoming tickets and alumni vacation packages. You can't stop the mailings. Even when you say, 'Look, I don't live there, the people that do were just friends who let me crash there for a few weeks while I was trying to get a job. They don't want the junk mail. Stop sending it. Please. Here is my new address, send it here'.

    It's all about $$$. For-profit colleges and universities just haven't jumped through enough hoops (ahem, $$$) to get recognized as a 'real' school yet. The accreditation bodies are even worse than the universities. And thanks to Federal Student Loans, anyone can get as much money as they want. 'You want to major in Art History? And you want 70k in loans each year? Sure!'.

  75. Re:I reject the premise of your argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bureaucracy is the side effect of you wanting the schools to do all the parenting for the parents. In europe we have public schools but without the bureaucracy, because when your child doesn't care enough to do well in school the teachers don't have to answer to childish parents who think their little john jr. is the reincarnation of jesus monkeyballs christ. It's difficult to "get all As" in most european public schools (k-12 and college), it's not just "oh if you try and are responsible you'll do great". No, some subjects just are easier for some and straight up difficult for others and grades reflect that. American public schools are a joke, and american private schools are a religious-affiliated joke.

  76. CLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to CLC (computer learning center) for networking years ago, and was told all sorts of thing about how they will help me get a job ect ... then two weeks or so from graduation they lost there accreditation.

    So now I graduated from a non accreditation school, can;t use the credits as college cred and the only job they could help me get was a crappy help desk job.

    Save your money go to college.

    employers will/should be looking at sample code and real world testing any way.

  77. We'll get you funded. - no matter what by blueseraph · · Score: 1

    I am an ITT grad with an AA in multi media. The education from ITT was no better than I the community college I attended a few years earlier. ITT will flat out lie to get students. I was told my student loans were at 6.8% I later found out that some were as high as 15.24%. The paper work you sign for the student loan has the amount of the loan but no interest rate. I even found a promissory note that apparently I signed but was left blank except for my address and social. ITT's motto is "We'll get you funded." I was also told that all the programs I needed for my classes would be provided. After starting I was told to d/l cracked versions of the the Adobe suites and 3DS Max. Bit Torrent was highly recomended and so was asking for coppies from students that had already taken that class. 2 years latter I had over $25,000 in student loans and about $10,000 in cracked programs.

  78. How's it different? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

    ...Pretty much every school is 'for-profit'. Some are just better at hiding it than others...

  79. For Profit by CodeInspired · · Score: 1

    Don't kid yourself. All schools are for profit. These just happen to distribute the profit to shareholders instead of the politicians and administrators in charge.

  80. To be serious... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Getting any education out of a school is a job for the student, and it can be done almost anywhere. Unless the student doesn't understand how to learn, in which case there is trouble no matter where you go. It may be the professors' jobs to teach, but none of them can make a student learn anything.

    For a specific entry level careers in specific areas of technology, the for profits may actually have a small advantage, they can change their courses very quickly. They can drop a Visual Basic course and add a C# course with little or no faculty input. Of course that can be a disadvantage if they drop or add the wrong courses, or if they don't hire a faculty member who understands the subject.

    Apart from cost, name recognition and the hard sell, there is an additional small disadvantage to the for profit schools. Their programs tend to be highly focused on specific subject matter with little breadth. It's a small disadvantage, especially in the engineering fields, because most non-profit universities have narrowed the focus of their programs as well.

    My recommendation is to find a school that offers the program you want, will accept you, and that you can afford. California kids might have to relocate to the Midwest to find that. And once you get there, work your ass off. Show up on day one of each class being half a semester ahead of everyone else. Once you're sure you're ahead of the curve and a lost weekend won't kill you, then have some fun. Then prepare to spend a long time paying off your student loans.

  81. Hedge fund insider trading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The recent regulatory attack on for-profit colleges has been linked to apparent insider trading against the colleges by hedge funds.

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-provides-sec-new-info-short-sellers-shaping-education-regulation

    Proposed regulations were leaked early to hedge funds who profited from the drop in stock price of the for-profit colleges affected.

  82. It most certainly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    depends on the person and not the school! Intelligent individuals will be intelligent regardless of where they get their piece of paper from and less intelligent individuals will be so regardless of where they get their piece of paper. I did not do so well in high school, not as a result of low intelligence, but as a result of being from a low income family living in a rich suburb. My parents were given a house in said town by my Great Grand Father as a wedding gift and that was the only reason they could afford to live there. Consequently I endured the worst teasing and ridiculing that any child can as my family didn’t “belong” living there. As a direct result of this plight I decided most days to either not attend school or skip out early to avoid being ridiculed. I barely graduated high school, but I knew that education was important. I took a year off of school after that and then I attended one of those for profit schools that everyone is speaking of (I won't mention which one because I am not pushing a school just the idea of for profit schools). I graduated maxi cum laude and would have been valedictorian if it weren't for my hatred of the COBOL programming language. Either way one's intelligence should never be judged by how they do in high-school because some children are never given a chance due to circumstances beyond their control!.

  83. Don't you mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "excellent track record of ripping off their students" ?

  84. Yes and No: As an Instructor by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Disclaimer/Cred: I've been an instructor at a for-profit "tech" school, and at a NFP community college from 2008 to present.

    While teaching at a nationwide chain of tech schools, I personally found the certificate programs to be of dubious value based on their high-cost, almost $14,000, and the mandated grading structure in which students that completed software guided "labs" and had daily attendance were mathematically incapable of receiving a failing grade. I also felt like admissions/recruitment staff overstated the value of the program, but that most students had more sober expectations than our marketing hype suggested.

    (Note: I've found the actual degree track AS/AA or BA/BS or Masters programs to be of significantly higher quality. Granted, having gone to a large Midwestern university, I find the for-profit "college" experience to lack some of the extra-curricular qualities that I think heavily contribute to quality college education. Particularly at the AS/AA level, I find the career-ed (tech) coursework to be similar to accelerated CC offerings.)

    While I felt the program was not in the interest of the student (and eventually resigned), I will admit that it did serve a population that would have been likely to fail in the community college environment. Additionally, it did give them minimal exposure to the industry that they would have otherwise had a difficult time getting. The most valuable service was career placement, in which most of them got jobs at very rudimentary scripted help desks, which could get them enough "experience" to get past the HR goons and maybe get some attention with vendor certs or good interviewing toward more hands-on tech gigs.

    Granted, as I've sat on hiring boards, I would find the certificate alone to be of minimal value, and would identify more strongly with an untrained applicant who showed similar skills through self-education (e.g. repairing family computers, experimented with Linux, authored simple web pages) on the basis that self-education can be extremely valuable with a good on-the-job training program.

    I try to make it a point to discourage college certifications (and to set realistic vendor certification expectations) and push the AS as being far more valuable to employers that also opens the door to 4 year schools should they decide to go. Most of the counselors at the for-profit or non-profit community colleges generally tend to encourage students to simply do whatever they've already chosen to do, which is usually certification as a low-hanging fruit, as most simply want to avoid the general education courses.

    Unfortunately, the for-profit schools are doing a far better job of providing instruction of any quality that is often more ideal for working individuals. Working two jobs (FT programmer, PT instructor) and living fairly far from any university, has made me use University of Phoenix for my MBA program. As a student, compared to other peers taking programs in low-middle quality state-schools, I find UOP's offering to be comparable on content. That said, I do think that the accelerated nature does cause some topics to be handled superficially, and without proper self-motivation, promptly forgotten.

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
  85. No by pcjunky · · Score: 1

    No!....No!...No!

  86. No Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've hired too many idiots from these sorts of colleges, and we immediately throw out any resumes that list these schools. Just can't take the risk of trusting them anymore.

  87. Hiring Effects by haydensdaddy · · Score: 1

    Many moons ago, a company I was with had a ban on applicants from Devry. At that point the candidates they were producing were so completely lacking of any usable skills, that they cost a great deal more to train just to get them to a client.

  88. Trust the school? How about the student? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as an institution has received proper accreditation, which isn't hard to verify, that serves as reasonable assurance that their educational offerings are sound. So if it is possible to achieve a well-rounded education through an institution, whether it be for-profit, non-profit, public, private, online, offline, prestigious, ill-reputed, etc...doesn't that place the outcome of the student's education squarely on his or her shoulders?

    I did my research before enrolling and found that the institution I went with, which is for-profit, had tuition rates comparable with the national median. There were also statistics that proved alarming - the graduation rate, the ability of graduates to pay back their loans, the student to teacher ratio. I decided that with the right level of dedication those things could be overcome. I'm not worried about my willingness to complete the work or my preparation for a college-level curriculum, as I'm doing just fine. I am worried about the amount of debt I'm taking on, but it's not excessively more than I would face anywhere else, including state schools. I simply cannot attend a brick-and-mortar school that requires you to be physically present each week...it's not an option, at all...so this is really the only opportunity I have to obtain a four-year degree. If I take my education seriously, and bring more to the table than a piece of paper that says I'm a graduate (i.e. experience, certifications, attitude), I am confident that I will be able to find gainful employment that will allow me to pay my loans back at a reasonable rate and still be able to support my family.

    It seems like 90% of the problems people bring up when talking about for-profit schools have to do with the students and not the institutions so much. Yes, they regularly recruit people who probably shouldn't have made it past high school. Yes, the vast majority of these people probably wash out, with a few thousand more in debt for the whole debacle. As long as I'm not targeted by some HR or hiring manager's prejudice against the institution my degree came from, as long as I'm given a fair shot, I am willing to be accountable and honest about my knowledge and capabilities.

    It's just rough out there, and my goal is to have everything a potential employer could possibly want out of a candidate - a degree, relevant certifications, and relevant experience. Is this worth tens of thousands of dollars in debt? God, I hope so. I've always believed, even before I ever considered enrolling in a for-profit institution, that education is what you make of it - not where you went, not what instructor you had, not what you majored in. If this debt drives me to destitution, I will likely have only myself to blame, not some predatory for-profit school that bamboozled me into enrollment.

  89. Frontline... by frank378 · · Score: 1

    There was an interesting episode of Frontline on PBS recently that dealt with this topic. I think it first aired last year, but still current I think. You can see the whole thing on-line for free if you are really interested... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/

  90. So he paid $'s to encourage the status quo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that a college education can serve as a "foot in the door", so H.R. can check-mark that little box that says you have it. But IMHO, it's foolish to buy into today's overpriced college education simply for that reason. Doing so perpetuates the status quo, which is essentially a big sham.

    Let's face it... the ONLY reasons someone like your friend is successful at his or her job, once hired, are their level of intelligence, willingness to work hard and see things through to completion, and adapt to their surroundings. As you said, your friend is good at what he does NOT because of anything he learned at DeVry, but because of his intelligence. So why do we perpetuate the idea that it's a good idea to start out multiple tens of thousands of dollars (often hundreds of thousands!) in the hole, because we owe it in student loan debt, all so someone with little common sense about hiring appropriate people for a job can tick a check-box saying "college degree"?

    I think there are very legitimate reasons to attend college, but they depend on what a person is trying to achieve. You probably have enough specific information you need to learn to become a doctor that medical school makes sense. If you want to do advanced research science, an advanced degree in your field, again, probably makes sense. If nothing else, in these fields, you'll need access to a lot of expensive equipment that you simply won't have access to learn how to work with, hands-on, any other way.

    On the other hand? If you want to be a software developer, what can a college REALLY offer you that you can't do on your own? Surely, they can't give you an imagination if you don't already have one -- and that's half the battle to create original software that people enjoy using! And for FAR less money than you shell out in tuition, you can build yourself a very nice home computer environment to code your software on, and pay for a high-speed Internet connection and even a web site to sell your software from or host web applications from.

    And even for a field like law, I was recently reading an article talking about what a bad "value" a law degree is for most people. Unlike most degrees, a law degree doesn't really involve any "lab classes" or need for any special equipment. It's pretty much a matter of having someone to act as instructor, and a lot of books to read. You could essentially open up a law school in your own basement if you just hired one qualified person to teach it, and gave students a list of appropriate textbooks to purchase and bring with them. So WHY is it such an expensive degree to obtain?

  91. Uh, no! by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I would not go to a for profit college for anything, let alone technology. We all know the disaster that is the University of Phoenix. It has essentially become a degree mill or a degree for sale.

  92. TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is obviously someone from one of those shitty school trying to get some opinions for their marketing department.

  93. Really? by sexconker · · Score: 0

    "For-profit schools carry a stigma in some eyes because of their reputation for hard sales pitches, aggressive marketing tactics, and saddling students with big loans for dubious degrees or certificates"

    What do you think every single school is?
    Academia isn't some magical, pure, honest, well-intentioned society of ivory tower egg heads. Academia is all too often a heavily politicized, dysfunctional, counter-productive institution centered around cronyism, plagiarism (on the part of those teaching and directing), indoctrination, money-grubbing, and all-around bullshit. Any education of students or advancement of a field that takes place in ancillary.

    The legal status of these institutions may be "not for profit", but if you take 2 seconds and look at the salaries, benefits, and other perks (forcing kids to buy your friend's book, him doing the same with your book) of the professors and administrators, you'll see it's all a joke.

    And generally, the more "respected" (i.e., elitist, selective, expensive) a school is the more this holds true.

    The actually quality of education of these tech/profession schools is comparable to traditional universities. The only difference is the type of applicants they attract, and thus how dedicated they, individually, are to taking advantage of that education.
    Traditional universities are stagnant. They fear the job-focused tech schools. They fear the online schools. Decades of increasing course load and requirements for shit unrelated to the degrees students are seeking has resulted in many capable people quitting or skipping college, and the wrong sorts of people sticking with it. The intelligence of college graduates continues to drop. The price of a diploma continues to increase. The usefulness of the diploma rapidly approaches nothing more than a checkbox on a resume.
    Traditional universities haven't changed much in centuries. Their teaching style and air of self-importance and "tradition" is thousands of years old. When you're teaching art or literature, you can still rely on the pointless Greek-style, name-dropping form of education. Ideas are instilled and indoctrinated, not created. Arguing a point is done in the form of "Famous Dead Guy said ...". Actual research is minimal, and follows no scientific rigor. But when you're teaching a result-driven subject (like any sort of engineering-related or programming-related field), you can't go this way. If you're not spending most of your time with hands-on shit, you're not going to produce competitive graduates in those fields. Every time you have a computer science/engineering major take a mandatory art/etc. class, you harm them. They could have used that time to graduate earlier and be less in debt. They could have used that time to take another class in their field. There's supposedly been an outcry of "Engineering students can't write!", or "We need more well-rounded graduates!". I say "supposedly" because I've only ever heard academia refer to it, never an employer, and the typical college graduate is no more literate than your typical high school graduate - the problem is endemic to our entire society now. And yes, we can in part blame the internet, text messaging, and the retard culture that worships and celebrates imbecility, from Paris to Palin to The Situation (be it the Room on CNN or the guido on The Jersey Shore).
    Either way, the ever-increasing art/writing/history/ethnicity/etc. requirements have done nothing to produce graduates who can write competently, in English or any language, or express themselves, or appreciate art, etc. And the idea of a "well rounded" graduate has just produced job applicants who lack focus (both in education and in drive) in their selected fields. Ultimately, most end up taking a job unrelated to their degree.

    When traditional universities see other institutions basically opting out of the rankings and accreditation game, they get antsy. They seek to defame those institutions while secretly being enviou

    1. Re:Really? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 2

      "Every time you have a computer science/engineering major take a mandatory art/etc. class, you harm them. They could have used that time to graduate earlier and be less in debt. They could have used that time to take another class in their field. There's supposedly been an outcry of "Engineering students can't write!", or "We need more well-rounded graduates!". I say "supposedly" because I've only ever heard academia refer to it, never an employer,"

      I couldn't agree more. I have been saying for ages (since high school really) that all of these required electives and such are a waste of time. More so in college. If I have to pay for it, then I only want to learn what is directly beneficial to my desired major. The rest is a waste of my time and money. Sure, you can test out of a lot of the courses early on, the community college stuff, but you still have to pay for it. really makes no sense to me at all.

  94. ITT Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm currently a student at ITT Tech, about to graduate in three months. So far my loan has reached $90,000 for a a BS in networking. Currently I work at apple making $10.50. You do the math.

  95. Not at all. by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    I learned the hard way that Certification Mills are not worth a damn. I made the choice to go to CEI years ago. They got me Pell, and Stafford Sub/Unsub loans, and I had to round out with a nice 19% interest Sallie Mae loan. In all about $15K just to get an A+, MCP, Network+ and some other cabling cert that I'd never heard of and have never heard about since. About 3 weeks into the first class, I decided I'd made a mistake, and decided to drop out so as not to incur major debt. they tried to talk me into staying, but relented. They returned the Pell Grant, and all of the Stafford loans, leaving me with about $3K in 19% interest Sallie Mae as a thanks.

    Had I had my druthers, I would've just spent the money on a few books and study guides to brush up on what I didn't know, and taken the A+ and MCP tests on my own for a grand total of maybe $1K and avoided the debt altogether. Hindsight and all..

  96. Which would be? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    What career would a Spanish major be earning more money in than IT? I don't really think it's a high demand field.

    1. Re:Which would be? by desertfool · · Score: 1

      As a Portuguese major in IT, I am getting a kick....

      --
      Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
  97. More genius from the Slashdot brain trust by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Whatever you say, Che.

    I'm assuming you don't have a job, which is basically selling your skill set to an employer.

  98. MBA by callmebill · · Score: 1

    U. of Phoenix lied outright on a phone call. I was applying for their MBA program and asked very specifically "Is UoP AACSB accredited?" They said yes, and I said thanks, call me back in a couple days. In the meantime I checked with AACSB and they said UoP is most certainly NOT accredited. The UoP recruiter girl called me back as scheduled and I told her what AACSB had said. She then went on to explain how the accrediting board must have made a mistake, and that UoP is legit. So I ended up at UMass which probably ended up being less expensive, anyway. Effin den of thieves and liars. No better than vinyl siding salesmen in my opinion.

  99. Depends I went to ITT tech, they will pass anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went through ITT Tech, They will pretty much pass anyone. I had guys in my track that had no business taking the class but they would keep passing them with a C. The material was great. Much better than a bunch of boot camp cert classes, thats for sure. These schools are a great alternative for people with a full time job. My gripe is because they are a for profit, they will pass anyone and make the degree less credible. The degree is great to get your foot in the door but I worry if they interview some of these "C" students and think thats typical from an ITT grad, it makes my education look less credible. A smart hiring manager has to keep this in mind during the interview process. Thats my only advice. I graduated with a BS in Telecomunications Engineering 10 years ago and work as a Senior Engineer and so I am not sure if its the same today.

  100. What you're really saying here by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Practically all the for-profits are tech schools - if you're getting a "bullshit Bachelor of Arts degree", you're not getting at, say, DeVry. What you're really saying here is that you don't think BAs are worth the money. And you may well be right about that. But you ought to compare apples to apples: is a degree from a for profit tech school a better value than, say, a degree from Texas A&M? Given the fact that many of these for-profits have been accused of actively ripping off their students (not just providing a legitimate education of dubious value, but actually stealing their money), I think that's a hard case to make.

    In all reality both are doing business for profit, the only difference is where the profit comes from and how they can adjust the expenditures at the end of the day. That non-profit that charged you $90,000 for a bullshit Bachelor of Arts degree sure as hell didn't do it for the warm and fuzzy feeling they get.

    Only if you redefine the word "profit" to mean something that it, well, doesn't. For-profit organizations have investors/owners, who have put money into the organization and expect to be taking out something of value at some point, either in the form of dividends or increased capital value. Non-profits are organized as quasi-government agencies or as foundations of some sort. There are no investors or owners - just contributors, and there's no profit to be taken out. That doesn't mean that non-profits don't try to increase their revenue - of course they do. Either for the noble goal of increasing the quality and quantity of service they provide, or the less noble one of growing someone's empire, but either way, yes - they want to take in more money. That doesn't doesn't make them equivalent to a for-profit organization.

  101. It depends on the tax by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    The US may have once had tax rates north of 70%, but there were a vast number of deductions and shelters. When they lowered the rates, they tossed a lot of those deductions. You'd have to ask an old tax professional with a few decades experience whether things are actually better or worse now. I couldn't tell you as I entered the workforce in 1988.

    If you combine state and federal rates, the U.S. has higher corporate tax rates than some EU members.

    However we have generally lower income tax rates. It's a mixed bag, in other words, and yet another topic that fails to follow the Oversimplified World Rule Set of the Slashdot Brain Trust.

    I'd be happy just to see the system simplified. The AMT, for example, is a fucking abomination.

  102. Wow. Someone just cited a fable. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I dunno. Has "The Fox And The Grapes" ever been peer reviewed?

    1. Re:Wow. Someone just cited a fable. by spun · · Score: 1

      I dunno, you got something better to back up the original assertion? The guy who makes an outrageous claim should be the one to back it up with some proof. What is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof, therefore, I am not the one who has to prove anything. I just have to say, "You haven't proved anything." and until the guy does, we can all consider his comments worthless. That's just how it works, you present proof of your claim, or you don't make a claim. I don't have to prove your claim false if you haven't even supported it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Wow. Someone just cited a fable. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I made no claims. That was the other guy. I was just wondering if *you* could support *your* claim about the meme.

      You know, seeing how you're all about proof and stuff.

    3. Re:Wow. Someone just cited a fable. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      If it had been, it would cost about $200 a paragraph to read. That's what I like about hearsay and gossip, everybody will offer that up for free, and in spite of that, it has become a most valuable commodity, garnering $400 million dollar contracts and private jets for some.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Wow. Someone just cited a fable. by spun · · Score: 1

      As I said, I don't have to prove anything here. We can take it as a given that there is no support for the hypothesis that people handed a free education don't appreciate it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  103. Can For-Profit _anything_ be trusted? by saucercrab · · Score: 1

    Always assume people are out to screw you out of your money, so do your research before you give money to anybody for anything.

  104. a response without personal attacks by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Schools and teachers are not the same thing. They are two different entities.

    I hear time and time again from friends who get into teaching, that they just hate all the politics and bureaucratic nonsense in their school. Young fresh teachers want to teach. They want to work with kids. They spent time and hard earned money on getting a diploma because they were enthusiastically for the idea of being the teacher.

    But then you learn what it is like to deal with the administration staff. That rather than enabling educators to do their jobs, they act as a barrier that teachers struggle against. Teacher with experience eventually learn how to work in and around the system. And how to swallow your pride and tell an administrator that their way is right when you know that it's a terrible idea, because sometimes you gotta choose your battles and avoid making the wrong kind of enemies.

    It's a massive system, as insidious and painful as other massive government organizations (air force politics being perhaps the most extreme example, making state level DMV organizations appear tame and efficient by comparison)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  105. They're JUST NOW looking at this?? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    The amount of my loan at DeVry doesn't seem like much now as it was in late-70's dollars, but it took me until 1991 to pay it off at punishing interest. And then a collection agency called me a year later and said I still owed money (a few hundred). So I paid it. And then a different collection agency called me a year and a half after that and said I still owed money (a smaller amount, but still in the hundreds). After fighting with them for some time, I ate the cost and paid it. I lived in some anxiety for the next decade expecting yet another call.

    My BSET from DeVry qualified me for a engineering assistant position at about 50% above what was minimum wage at the time. The ads show you working in the space industry or military electronics and you can get those jobs (I did) but what they don't tell you is that stringing wires is still stringing wires, whether it's a PBX or a command module.

    My financial situation didn't turn around until I taught myself programming and system integration, which positioned me to ride the internet / dot com wave. DeVry had little to do with that -- their few programming classes were still on punch cards when I was there.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  106. In defense of for profit schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Profit schools have been in existence for decades. They are not a new class of instution, they are just a different method of delivering instruction.

    I have worked for both a public non profit school and a private for profit school in a teaching role. In my experience, the teaching requirements, professional development and oversight are much more stringent in the for-profit school than the non-profit school.

    The for-profit school, provides a quality instruction for those students who are not a good match for a traditional non-profit school. Instructors typically have both experience in their field and a strong teaching background. The for-profit school, delivers a product based on what employers want in their new hires. No fluff, no 'useless' knowledge. A student starting in a for-profit school will know exactly what classes are needed to graduate, and will know exactly how long until graduation.

    The non-profit school, will deliver a quality instruction for those with the will power to learn. Instructors tend to highly educated, while poor teachers. The product delivered by the non-profit school, often has not changed for years. I remember my Economics professor teaching from hand-written notes that had yellowed with age. to get my 4 year math degree I took karate, racquetball, and weightlifting as electives. The term I was to graduate with my math degree, my school changed the graduation requirements. Despite a 3.59 GPA I was unable to graduate on time, and had to take 2 additional terms of classes to get a Bachelors Degree.

  107. Re:I reject the premise of your argument. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Well I don't agree with that as an explanation for the bureaucracy in the US public school system. Major corporations have layers of idiots that interfere with the primary function of business. Just as other government services have the same sorts of idiots getting in the way of their primary function. I think of public school as just another state run local service. Some states operate it better than others. But the instances where it is ran poorly have such a profound impact on society that we all want to stand up and exercise our American right to bitch and moan about it.

    Should a school's primary function be the education of children? Ideally yes.
    But what if you allow politicians to oversee the operations of said service, should we be surprised that it becomes a politically charged environment?

    There are non-religious private schools in America, some of them quite good (Le Lycée for example). But most of us cannot afford such extravagance. And ultimately for the poor majority, I would prefer they go to public school than no school at all.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  108. wrong question by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's a "for profit" issue, or even a "trust" issue. Whether a college has a reputation for giving value for the cost of tuition, or not, should be verifiable fairly easily. If they have a record for punishing tuition to prepare people for low paying jobs, (which was my own experience) then the point has been proven, and whether they're "for profit" or government supported doesn't have a lot to do with it. (Except, in the case of the former, if people stop signing up they go out of business.)

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  109. Is there a difference? by hoppo · · Score: 1

    "For-profit schools carry a stigma in some eyes because of their reputation for hard sales pitches, aggressive marketing tactics, and saddling students with big loans for dubious degrees or certificates."

    I'm failing to see the distinction between for-profit schools and not-for-profit schools here.

  110. No, greed corrupts everything by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

    you can't trust public organizations much, but you can trust private ones even less

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
  111. Re:ITT is too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I taught a course in a program at ITT for one semester and I was disgusted. I wasn't allowed to set my own curriculum, I wasn't allowed to set my own standards for pass or fail. If a student did the assignments in the book that I was obligated to assign them then I had to pass them. I couldn't fail them if their work was sub standard. I could only fail them if they did the work. It was appalling.

    To make things worse:
    The curriculum was out of date and they wouldn't let me update it so I was forced to teach my students expired skills.
    Students walked into a class that required programming skills (but wasn't supposed to teach them) and didn't even have a basic understanding of a conditional IF statement. I found myself teaching them programming concepts just to get them through the class.
    There were really only two students in the class of 30 that had the chops to pass the course, but in the end I was forced to pass all of them.
    The school made no attempt to teach them the ethics of the field. They were constantly handing in work that used material they'd stolen from online sources and had no idea what was wrong with that. If they tried to get away with that in the industry their companies would wind up sued into oblivion.

    It was depressing.

  112. Simple answer: no. by Krater76 · · Score: 1

    My alma mater doesn't pay money to have the naming rights to the stadium of a professional sports franchise. If you wonder where several million dollars worth of Pell Grants have gone, look no further.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  113. Re:well MOD UP PARENT by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Can you trust someone who has something to sell? NEVER.

    Good Point! This is a philosophical issue of ethics in any exchange: can you trust in the "value" of what you buy with money? Transactions don't always equate to fairness where value is exchanged for profits.

  114. Some are especially bad by fyzikapan · · Score: 1

    Frontline has a nice program about for profit schools. They seem to fall mostly into two categories: failing private colleges (usually religious non-education places) that are trying the online gig in order to stay afloat, and schools started for the sole purpose of exploiting the student loan system for fun and exorbitant profit. There are almost certainly some good for profit schools out there, but they're overshadowed by the seemingly endless parade of slimy bastards who are just in it to make a quick buck. Some schools have absolutely dismal repayment rates, with many of the biggest managing less than 35%.

  115. No they cant be trusted by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You might get lucky and come out ok in spite of them, but you still cant trust them.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  116. only if the school is abet accredited by CoderFool · · Score: 1

    I think going to an abet accredited school, whether for profit or not, is your best choice. While it is true that after a couple of years experience it will depend on the person, some of the big companies will not even talk to you if you don't have a degree and even fewer if you don't have a degree from an abet accredited school. Check abet.org to see if your school is on their list.

  117. The problem is easy fake money, not profit by ChucktheMan · · Score: 1

    I concur. I turned in assignments to UoP from ~ 15 different cities, because my projects could not stop just because I wanted an MS. There was no way to do that at a trad campus. I would not have lasted one semester at the usual pace. To those that talk about 30k in debt, you need to talk about 75-80k in lost income, at least for us mid-career types. In those terms the for-profits are an excellent deal. Of course, nothing prevents Average State University from implementing on-line courses as well.

    I think you could make a case for the evil inherent in the true socialism that most State Us practice as well. If there is a lesson to learn here it is that government should excuse themselves from the education process because government is inherently poorly suited to meeting individual needs. This means massive inefficiency and bloat, and the non-profits are just as good at suckling the federal sow as the for-profit universities.

  118. Yes they are for-profit. by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Key word, being, "Buildings".

    The buildings are *very* high profit, and at least in my hometown, it appears that the university president was on the board of directors of the construction firm that got all the contracts, regardless of price and regardless of cost overruns.

    Oh, he did have to report the [huge] side income, which is how we know.

    Corruption lives large in our state. But I don't think that our state is unusual.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  119. No one sees the other side of the coin by johncandale · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of people posting about how ten years later they realize that college wasn't worth it, in so many words. I think these posters really don't realize the odds against them without it. While you might have a lot of debt, you also had a real job and are able to pay it off, and another real job, and the experience then to get another job, plus the ability to change careers if you really wanted. So many entry lvl positions just want a 4 year degree, in the field or not. I don't see many posts about "I went bankrupt from my student loans and now share a apartment with 3 strangers" I think it's mostly the perceived stress from the loans that bring this talk about. All the posters are still doing ok

    1. Re:No one sees the other side of the coin by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

      Respectfully disagree... yes, I agree many jobs require an entry level degree and tech jobs are no exception to that. This is the reason that most people go to school, so that they can get a job. However, it's the people that go to college and graduate with a degree that won't get them a great job like I have. And on a related note, a degree is meaningless if you suck at the job, so you can't get to where I am now without putting in a lot of hard work.

      That aside... these folks are hand to mouth. They may not be bankrupt, but they are what they call the "working poor". This generation will have a vast amount of the "working poor" as opposed to prior generations. When that generation went to school, tuition was $5000 a year for a GOOD school. The costs have risen dramatically, at a far faster rate than inflation or income, and the disparity isn't going to really hit us until some years later. We are putting the next generation into debt for the benefit of a few (Wall Street and others) in the name of profit, and when we fast forward the clock a little and find that the US has one of the weakest middle classes, the worst rates of innovation and manufacturing, and a steadily increasing criminal element, we'll wonder where we all went wrong.

      It starts with education and a strong middle class.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  120. Trailers are just fine. by ChucktheMan · · Score: 1

    -2 for a lack of thought on the topic at hand, Take another two and half off for offending people without a reason. Not everyone buys the American Dream baloney, particularly since the wipe out of '10 made renting for the last decade a wiser decision than the 3bd/2ba suburban track.

  121. Might as well post my own anecdote by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Since we have so many complaints about the for profits. I went to a major american university.(Supposedly a top 50 in the world but I'm not buying that.) I guess I could point out I started out in orientation taking a calc and physics placement test. I did excellent on the physics test(which was basically repeatedly asking me if I got Newton's first law, yeah because I've watched Mr. Wizard) and lousy on the calc test. So of course they put me in the freshman physics for physcist majors even though calc was a pre-req. That didn't turn out well. (Since it was basically an applied math course.) I probably should point out that the only thing the university actually managed to accomplish with me was to drive crazy and literally make me mental ill with their antics. I managed to graduate in spite of them but they had done such a huge amount of psychological damage that I was basically unemployable for years.(Honestly I was a mess after they were done with me a spit me out.) Lets just say a BA from them wasn't worth very much and what was more noticible was the years of unemployment in the years immediately following graduation. Oh and just to twist the figurative knife they shoved in my ribs they sometimes send mailings asking for donations or very rarely call. I'm thinking the next time they call I'll say the following "To quote the former vice-president go fuck yourself."

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  122. They mostly suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those schools mostly suck if you expect to learn from them, and are not motivated to teaching yourself along the way. I don't know much about the IT programs, but take the various arts, fashion, media, and "game design" schools that are run as private businesses; They accept whoever pays for the tuition, rather than vetting applicants for some base levels of aptitude in the given subject. The result is 95% of their grads have no business looking for work in the field they think they just graduated into. Trios, Academy of ______, etc... Stay away. You'll have wasted your time and money and be no closer to a career.

  123. From a DeVry Grad. by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

    Here's the take from a DeVry graduate, (B.S. Computer Information Systems, Summa Cum Laude, Outstanding Student in Major): A nearly complete waste of time and money.

    Mr. DeVry had a good idea. Start a college to teach electronics along with the liberal arts courses necessary to earn an accredited bachelor's degree, with this twist: Instead of "professors" the electronics courses would be taught by industry professionals earning extra money by teaching at night. He supposed that the advantage of using industry pros would be that they would provide students more of a real world point of view, like getting on the job training while at school. It worked well for the electronics students, so the organization grew. That's when the problems started.

    My IT "industry pros" were a complete bunch of losers who couldn't get hired as engineers at real software companies if their lives depended on it. One of the few instructors who was not actually a loser taught "systems analysis". He was one of the stars of the DeVry Fremont faculty because he had a successful career at Sun. Only he has never analyzed a system in his life. He is a bus. major whose role at Sun was to do "team leading" or whatever the latest buzzword is for the guy who knows jack about tech, but is charismatic enough to keep a room full of engineers more or less on project when they have a meeting or whatever they're calling meetings this year. His lectures were interesting because we learned how to use buzzwords to sound smart, and how office politics can play out, but we learned NOTHING about systems analysis.

    So, I learned nothing useful at DeVry except stuff I taught myself while working on projects I devised, and that if you need to know something, you can usually find it in Google if your google-fu is strong, and you don't give up. That's about it. I am now the head IT guy at a bio-tech start-up with multi-billion dollar potential, and thanks to that may well get very rich doing IT, but I owe my father for this situation, because he sent me to a fancy boarding school for high school where I met the founder of my company. I owe DeVry a kick in the nuts, and a lot of money to the feds.

    BTW, while I was there, I observed the electronics guys and gals getting what they claimed was a pretty good tech education. I recommend DeVry to someone interested in electronics, but the rest of their programs are a joke.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  124. Thank God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that comes to mind when I read this is: "Thank God I'm British!"

    Education should be a right for all, not just the ones who are lucky enough to come from a wealthy background.

  125. University of Phoenix is a Joke. by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

    A colleague of mine, a phys ed major when he was in school, decided to get his Masters of Education from U of P. He handed me an essay that he'd gotten a 98% on. I read it. The essay was garbage -- illogical, unfounded assumption, few references. The kind of thing that would pull a C or a D in a freshman English class.

    Bad education options are not limited to for profit colleges.

    I was looking for an online horticulture course. Came across University of Waterloo's program. A course cost $350, and consisted of 20 lessons with quizzes. There were 3 sample lessons online. I went through the lessons. Each lesson consisted of about 10 minutes of reading, and 10 multiple guess questions. I was able to do all 3 lessons in less than an hour.

    I think it was something like 5 required and 5 optional courses made up a diploma.

    I expect more bang for your buck. An online tech course should be on par with running a highschool. In our country a highschool costs about $6,000/year/student, not including the building facility, for the government to run. A high school student typically takes 6 courses in a year, each with 125 hours of required instruction time. So high school education runs about $8/hour for instructional time.

    If we naively equate instructional time for student time, then the Waterloo horticulture course should have cost $30-$40.

    There may be good distance learning courses out there. I haven't found them yet. Do your due diligence.

    --
    Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  126. this is a different statement by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "those who receive a "free" education seldom appreciate it as much as the one who had to earn (and pay for) that education"

    is a very different statement from

    "I had to work for my degree. I appreciate it more than the people I have met who didn't have to work for it."

    It is the former statement I objected to as it suggested you were offering a proven statement based on research across a large pool of people using a respected research methodology. My bias: I am a post doctoral researcher in education and technology at a UK university. So I am critical about such statements, I spend lots of time reading academic papers about issues like the impact of education on people's lives and their perceptions of it. Probably I should chill out as slashdot is just us all hanging out talking nonsense at the water cooler, not an academic forum... :-)

    Your later statement is more of a personal opinion based on a limited informal survey (you chatting to your pals) so of course I can't comment on that. Plus you're clear there that you're offering a subjective opinion rather than a researched fact.

    anyhow, probably should take it too seriously eh?