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?'"

Comments

as always depends on the person

[alen]

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

Re:as always depends on the person

[tripleevenfall]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[floop]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[koyangi]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[fermion]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[Gradius]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[Kohath]

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

Re:as always depends on the person

[wickedskaman]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[Gribflex]

"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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[iamhassi]

" 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.

Re:as always depends on the person

[brainboyz]

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.

It's hard to gain credibility...

[Drakkenmensch]

... 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.

Non-Profit?

[Joe Mucchiello]

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

Re:Non-Profit?

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[shis-ka-bob]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[Artraze]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[eepok]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[Gadgetfreak]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[Americium]

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.

Re:Non-Profit?

[eepok]

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.

For profit schools are not the only ones

[jimbolauski]

that leave students in high debt for jobs that pay little

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

Re:For profit schools are not the only ones

[exhilaration]

Is that you, Garrison Keillor?

Re:For profit schools are not the only ones

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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.

Re:For profit schools are not the only ones

[eepok]

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.

No you cant

[Gaijin42]

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.

Re:No you cant

[tripleevenfall]

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.

Re:No you cant

[jayme0227]

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

Re:No you cant

[Bengie]

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.

Re:No you cant

[Ruke]

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.

Re:No you cant

[Gaijin42]

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.

Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'?

[pak9rabid]

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

Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'?

[shis-ka-bob]

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.

Re:Aren't all colleges 'for-profit'?

[fropenn]

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.

Ripoff

[kugeln]

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...

yeah, I don't care about the school

[FooAtWFU]

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.

Re:yeah, I don't care about the school

[1s44c]

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.

Re:yeah, I don't care about the school

[Anonymous Coward]

>> 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".

Re:yeah, I don't care about the school

[VAElynx]

"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.

All Schools are for some kind of profit

[zoomshorts]

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?

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

>

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.

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[peragrin]

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?

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[WindowsTroll]

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.

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[thedonger]

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.

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[spun]

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?

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[spun]

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

Re:All Schools are for some kind of profit

[spun]

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!

DeVry is very expensive

[EmagGeek]

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.

Re:DeVry is very expensive

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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.

Re:DeVry is very expensive

[Angst Badger]

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.

Re:DeVry is very expensive

[hedwards]

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.

Short answer: No

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:Short answer: No

[e9th]

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.

Re:Short answer: No

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Short answer: No

[martyros]

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.

Not just for-profits

[emagery]

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.

Re:well

[commodore6502]

"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

Are the Ivies and top10 any different?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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?

Re:Are the Ivies and top10 any different?

[CrazyJim1]

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+

I went to ITT...

[N1tr0u5]

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.

Re:Garbage institutions.

[grapeape]

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".

I think the point here...

[sean.peters]

... 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.

White Collar Votech Schools

[Above]

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.

In Virginia...

[sean.peters]

Four year colleges by law have to accept all your credits obtained at accredited state community colleges. This really is a money-saver.

Re:I reject the premise of your argument.

[FriendlyPrimate]

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.

Inaction is very expensive

[dazedNconfuzed]

...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.

Colleges are businesses.

[HerculesMO]

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.

Re:well

[RobDude]

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!'.

Yes and No: As an Instructor

[Ohio Calvinist]

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.

Re:Really?

[Red_Chaos1]

"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.

Re:ITT is too

[Anonymous Coward]

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.