They concentrate on students who are nontraditional (aka the new normal: working adults) and underserved by traditional colleges. They offer them help filling out the FAFSA forms, more convenience and better customer service. They aggressively pursue growth in enrollment -- growing at an estimated rate of 5% to 10% a year or five times to 10 times faster than the overall market. That type of growth is needed to fulfill student demand, not to mention our national goals of a more credentialed population.Of course, these businesses masquerading as educational institutions peddle an unreasonable dream that reflects the "national goal of a more credentialed population". The college degree has lost its status as a marker of the elite and has devolved into an assumed "achievement" for all. As Ms. Kamanetz notes, these colleges do provide an alternative path to the erudite study offered at more traditional universities. But even with the practical focus, most of their constituency can't handle a rigid academic schedule:
they are not so much "serving" the underserved as they are targeting or exploiting them. Although enrollment rates are high and growing, graduation rates are very low. And students who attend these colleges are twice as likely to default on their loans.I made the exact same point in regards to regular college admits, a cohort that fails in a similarly miserable fashion. However, I diverge from the author's analysis in who we find culpable for this avarice. She admonishes these fake universities for peddling a worthless product to unqualified idealists. And while I understand her criticism, I find the prevailing zeitgeist to blame for this calamity. Two social norms contribute.
Some have argued that this situation is highly reminiscent of the mortgage crisis: these colleges are peddling yet another false promise of the American Dream (in this case, the college diploma part of the dream, rather than the homeownership part) to those who are truly not qualified to take advantage of it. That their graduates and especially their non-graduates will have a very hard time pulling in salaries commensurate with their debt.
First, in an effort to normalize achievement, there's a burgeoning movement to legitimize community colleges, online universities, and other institutions of piddling academic value. This reflects the degradation of virtue that pervades our society, whereby actual achievements are equated with those of significantly lesser value. Thus, many laud a degree from the University of Phoenix as worthy of our veneration when in actuality, it represents a picayune accomplishment with little practical or intellectual importance.
Second, the insistence on education instead of apprenticeships, even in the vocational field, encourages these individuals into a path that's ultimately counterproductive. A piece of paper and the commensurate social capital do little to buttress one's economic value. The author ends with a plea for accountability (was this really published on HuffPo?!):
The second is that the same kind of policies that would improve the performance of for-profits would improve the performance of all colleges, but they freak traditional higher ed out. Things like administering tests to see what students are actually learning, or imposing real accountability for terrible graduation and default rates.Agreed. Not much to add there.
18 comments:
not to mention our national goals of a more credentialed population
Whose goals of a credentialed population, and why? The author assumes without evidence this is desirable and meaningful.
It should be noted that credentialism, rather than achievement, is an idea most favored by feminists and the left in general, including the government bureaucracies they support. "Comparable worth" legislation is the spawn of credentialism, elevating degrees earned over actual conditions of labor in determining compensation.
We've got a million for-profits here in Atlanta.
Some of them (like Atlanta Intercontinental) are literally 100% black since they are located on public transportation, do not have any entry requirements besides a high school degree, and give very heavy help to prospective students to acquire Sallie Mae and/or other student loans. They bring in students who couldn't even cut it at the weakest of the HBCU's here.
A lot of their local ads look like a hip hop video with "Strayer University" slapped at the bottom of the screen.
These for-profits are quite a racket. From what I understand, DeVry is quite profitable as a business venture, they are publically traded.
I think this is one of your points, but the larger problem isn't about for profit vs non profit, old vs new, etc. The problem is the whole higher education business is more or less a racket. As Sailer has so clearly pointed out, much what we are paying for is the right to say we have a high IQ without being called a snob, and to get around the EEOC prohibition against employment testing.
New for profit schools are disruptive, so the old order is rightfully upset. They've got a good thing going after all. Over time, this disruption should shake things out and improve the whole process. In the meantime, it will probably get worse before it gets better.
In a tight job market, every opening attracts lots of applicants, so people seek credentials. And if you didn't quite make the cut at Harvard or Yale, why, the University of Phoenix will just have to do.
I don't know if this is really a bubble, but students are accumulating loads of non-dischargeable debt acquiring useless credentials. This behavior isn't limited to the for-profit colleges by any means. Most advanced degrees in the humanities are pretty useless. Students spend five or more years getting doctorates in things like English literature and then end up with no job prospects or, at best, a non-tenure-track slot at some community college, which doesn't pay nearly enough to service their debt. TTT law schools are the same - this country produces at least twice as many lawyers as it needs, and low-end graduates usually end up with no jobs or part-time paralegal slots.
Eh, tell that to Richard Vedder and his gang at CCAP. They strongly support for-profit colleges and their blog has plenty of posts in defense of them.
http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/
I'm a little skeptical of his bold backing of the for-profit college enterprise, but he and his colleagues do make some valid points in their support of for-profit colleges.
If for-profit colleges are just degree mills churning out credentials, then there is a problem. But some of these colleges actually give students real-life skills that may be well worth the cost of attendance.
For-profit colleges that are degree mills are more or less doing the same thing that lower-tier colleges are doing, the distinction being, they are actually quite honest about their motives. Make money.
I agree with Dalrock. The problem isn't for-profit colleges, but the higher education system in the States.
Black Death: "TTT law schools are the same - this country produces at least twice as many lawyers as it needs, and low-end graduates usually end up with no jobs or part-time paralegal slots."
This is actually an understatement. Lots of 1st tier soon-to-be law grads have few to no prospects right now. Blame the ABA for giving accreditation to so many schools. Also, even if the legal market turns around, this year's grads will still have a lot of competition from huge numbers of last year's grads who still don't have jobs (at least not in law).
Saint Louis -
I'm sure you're right - I'm not a lawyer, so all I know is what I read about it.
Because of antitrust laws, the ABA is not allowed to hold up law school accreditation to restrict the supply of lawyers. The ABA may indeed set the standards for its accreditation process but must be very careful not to play "pull up the ladder" in doing so. The Federal Trade Commission looks at this very carefully, which is probably one reason why so many law schools get accredited - the ABA no doubt wants to avoid even the appearance of trying to restrict the supply. This is one of the reasons why the AMA does not accredit medical schools or set standards for physicians' licenses.
Black Death,
I didn't know that about the antitrust laws and I'm in law school. Of course, I haven't taken Antitrust yet.
Um, all the Ivies are run "for profit", in reality and sometimes even in theory. Why do you think Columbia U is stinking rich and one of the biggest (maybe the biggest) landlords in NYC?
Whatever the merits and
shorcomings of places like DeVry, their basic business model is no different than that of the "prestige" colleges and universities.
the ABA no doubt wants to avoid even the appearance of trying to restrict the supply.
Of course they have other ways of restricting the supply. The bar itself is an old-fashioned guild system, not much different in kind from the UAW.
"Um, all the Ivies are run "for profit", in reality and sometimes even in theory. Why do you think Columbia U is stinking rich and one of the biggest (maybe the biggest) landlords in NYC?"
Of course. The Ivies, especially HYP, are essentially hedge funds that run schools.
But they output cutting edge research and do educate people who SHOULD comprise the intellectual class. In other words, they provide a necessary product to the group that generally should be receiving it. So while they make a profit, that isn't the sole implication of them existing.
Making money doesn't undermine the utility of one's enterprise. This is an argument used against pundits like Glenn Beck or highly inspirational religious leaders like Joel Osteen. Fine, they make huge profits and perhaps that's their primary motivation; but what they do doesn't entirely reduce to a value transference scheme like the for-profit colleges.
OT - Galtonian, your comments are needed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/racist-email-harvard-law_n_557147.html
Making money doesn't undermine the utility of one's enterprise.
Sure. I'm just reacting to the formulation that for-profit colleges are worthless. Some are, some are not.
they output cutting edge research and do educate people who SHOULD comprise the intellectual class.
Agree on the former, disagree on the latter. America would be a more intellectually healthy country if its "intellectual class" were not composed of people who learned to regurgitate liberalism on command at the Ivies.
I said:
"they output cutting edge research and do educate people who SHOULD comprise the intellectual class. "
You said:
"America would be a more intellectually healthy country if its "intellectual class" were not composed of people who learned to regurgitate liberalism on command at the Ivies."
I was referring to the fact that these are the individuals who should legitimately be in college on account of their higher intelligence.
This is one of the reasons why the AMA does not accredit medical schools or set standards for physicians' licenses.
The AMA actively lobbies for restricting the number slots at medical schools. That's why there aren't any more slots available than decades ago, when the population was much smaller. The AMA argues that a "glut" of physicians will harm patients. The excessive cost of medicine harms patients too.
While it is no reason to brag I have taught at the biggest assortment of schools in the universe. As I got quietly removed from some jobs for giving blacks real grades that conflicted with their expected grades, I decided to try the for-profit variety. For about 5 years I taught at a thing called National-Louis University. My bag was biology and ecology.Then one day I had a black student who complained bitterly about how hard my biology test was and soon NLU and I parted ways.
The difference most of you ignore is all the difference in the world.OneSTDV mentioned one vital factor: the real intellectual class goes to public colleges and universities.Only there will you find this elite, a group which may be brain-washed these days in the liberal arts but who mega-distances removed from the slothful denizens of Phoenix and other diploma mills.Additionally, there are social, cultural, and intellectuial dimensions that separate good universities from the lesser lights while the for-profits are entirely practical and even anti-intellectual. They are stultifying if you have a brain that works. However, some of their credentials will mean more pay,etc. so for some the effort is worth it.
If Charles Murray is right then perhaps half of all degrees these days are mickey mouse rewards. That many NFL players went to college tells us that colleges nurture athletes with whole programs akin to basket-weaving.Many a professor these days must justify a D or F to a hostile black or hispanic ready to hire a lawyer. Careerts have been ruined by this nonsense. How do professors survive in a racially-charged atmosphere? Grades are inflated everywhere and pressures exist to meet liberal expectations of a Wobegon society where everyone has a college degree and brain surgeons are black! Unless their supreme dreams are dashed by conservative politics, this parade of Disneyworld Academia will persist.
I take pride in having talked several people out of getting a worthless Strayer / Phoenix degree.
While there is no reason that the product of a for-profit college necessarily should be worthless, there is a high likelihood that it is. Why would a student be enrolled there if he could be enrolled at a better school instead? What would the attraction of the for-profit be?
The flexible hours of on-line instruction might be an attraction, the reduced requirements for actual time in residence on campus might be another attraction. These are things that would appeal to a person returning for a degree in mid-life, perhaps with a family and other responsibilities that cannot be abandoned. They also represent, in themselves, compromises to the learning environment and process.
The best educational values today are at our premier state institutions. They are publicly funded, which means that the student does not pick up the full burden of the educational cost at all, but rather it is substantially subsidized by the taxpayers.
Conversely, you pay too much for what you get at either a traditional private college or a for-profit college.
Post a Comment