Do you think for-profit models of education (i.e. Pheonix, Capella, ITT) are helpful or harmful?
Asked by LeetronI have always been fasinated by the for-profit model of education. Personally, I see them all as advertising scams that push people to believe an education will give them the dream job they have always wanted and are decieving. Yet, traditional universities do the same. The reasons I found I hate the for-profit model are basically categorized in three areas: 1) No admissions standard. 2) Bottom line is to please share holders (why number 1 exists) 3) Sales people as admissions councelors decieve people into enrolling. I think these schools have their place because they do provide accessable education to everyone. But it seems to me that the money spent on these schools would fair much better to have local communities create their own community college. Profit should never be a driving factor in education. But the same argument can be made for traditional tier 1 schools that live off of enormous grant money for research. But at least its not decieving. What do you think?
Favorite Answer
Answered by CoachT
1) No admissions standard. This is not exclusive to the proprietary schools. Very many public and private colleges have no quantifiable admissions requirements. Very many highly reputed schools have open or nearly open admissions. It's not entirely true that these have "no" admission standards either. At a minimum, they all require a HS diploma for entry to their undergraduate and a bachelor's for entry into their graduate programs. Many have a performance standard in place that requires a certain minimum GPA be maintained in order to continue. The truly stupid then will "fail out" in a semester or two. I like the idea of giving everyone a chance regardless of their GPA when they were 14-17 years old or their ability to perform on the SAT or ACT. But only if giving those people a chance doesn't take an opportunity from someone who did perform well in HS and has a good SAT/ACT performance. Open admissions schools (proprietary or not) are a perfect ground for those students to be given a chance to prove themselves. 2) Bottom line is to please share holders (why number 1 exists) While increasing shareholder wealth is the underlying objective of any business CEO, this is done in a number of possible ways. One way is to provide the best possible product to the most people at the highest price the market will tolerate. That model isn't "bad". Private and public colleges have "stakeholders" to answer to also. It's most often the case that the present students are not who the college is interested in answering to. They have a Board of Trustees for example with their own agenda. They have an association of alumni. They have major donors. And the publics have political pressure. Bottom line is that the bottom line matters. A college run in the red will have accreditation removed. Financial solvency is a leading cause of probation and suspension. Any college administration that isn't thinking of the bottom line is doomed to fail. 3) Sales people as admissions councelors decieve people into enrolling. This is indeed the case at some proprietary schools. More so than at highly selective colleges. It does however exist everywhere at varying levels and is an issue of ethics. If you take a look at the job posting for any open admissions counselor position, you will find that it reads like a position for a car salesman. It's the nature of that job - they call it 'recruiting' instead of sales but the result is the same. * In communities where there is sufficient need (customers) you will find a community college. These don't offer the same level of education as the proprietaries like UoP or Capella though - many of these proprietaries offer bachelor's and master's degrees that you can't get at your local community college. In fact, they offer some programs you may not find at your local state university. It might be ideal if all people interested in furthering their education could take 2 years off work and move to the location of their state research university in order to work on a master of arts degree; reality is though, most of us can't. * Profit (operating in the black) is a motivator in every educational institution. It's simply a matter of who gets the left over money. The seriously high ranking universities don't live off of grants (some departments do) - the survive on $35,000 a year tuition charges to their students. 10K+ students at $35K per year -- that's a big piece of change. Personally, I think there are generally better options than the proprietaries if not in cost then in reputation. While I own stock in two of those (APOL and COCO), I don't hold a degree from one. I don't see them as a scam - they have a valid place in the hierarchy of higher education. Their place though is among the bottom feeders. It would be an ideal world if everyone who wanted to could study at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, etc... but it's not an ideal world. UoP and their kin found a market and they are supplying product to that market. I then have another option on the market and can buy their product or not. In that way, that we have new choices, these schools are good for education.
1) No admissions standard. This is not exclusive to the proprietary schools. Very many public and private colleges have no quantifiable admissions requirements. Very many highly reputed schools have open or nearly open admissions. It's not entirely true that these have "no" admission standards either. At a minimum, they all require a HS diploma for entry to their undergraduate and a bachelor's for entry into their graduate programs. Many have a performance standard in place that requires a certain minimum GPA be maintained in order to continue. The truly stupid then will "fail out" in a semester or two. I like the idea of giving everyone a chance regardless of their GPA when they were 14-17 years old or their ability to perform on the SAT or ACT. But only if giving those people a chance doesn't take an opportunity from someone who did perform well in HS and has a good SAT/ACT performance. Open admissions schools (proprietary or not) are a perfect ground for those students to be given a chance to prove themselves. 2) Bottom line is to please share holders (why number 1 exists) While increasing shareholder wealth is the underlying objective of any business CEO, this is done in a number of possible ways. One way is to provide the best possible product to the most people at the highest price the market will tolerate. That model isn't "bad". Private and public colleges have "stakeholders" to answer to also. It's most often the case that the present students are not who the college is interested in answering to. They have a Board of Trustees for example with their own agenda. They have an association of alumni. They have major donors. And the publics have political pressure. Bottom line is that the bottom line matters. A college run in the red will have accreditation removed. Financial solvency is a leading cause of probation and suspension. Any college administration that isn't thinking of the bottom line is doomed to fail. 3) Sales people as admissions councelors decieve people into enrolling. This is indeed the case at some proprietary schools. More so than at highly selective colleges. It does however exist everywhere at varying levels and is an issue of ethics. If you take a look at the job posting for any open admissions counselor position, you will find that it reads like a position for a car salesman. It's the nature of that job - they call it 'recruiting' instead of sales but the result is the same. * In communities where there is sufficient need (customers) you will find a community college. These don't offer the same level of education as the proprietaries like UoP or Capella though - many of these proprietaries offer bachelor's and master's degrees that you can't get at your local community college. In fact, they offer some programs you may not find at your local state university. It might be ideal if all people interested in furthering their education could take 2 years off work and move to the location of their state research university in order to work on a master of arts degree; reality is though, most of us can't. * Profit (operating in the black) is a motivator in every educational institution. It's simply a matter of who gets the left over money. The seriously high ranking universities don't live off of grants (some departments do) - the survive on $35,000 a year tuition charges to their students. 10K+ students at $35K per year -- that's a big piece of change. Personally, I think there are generally better options than the proprietaries if not in cost then in reputation. While I own stock in two of those (APOL and COCO), I don't hold a degree from one. I don't see them as a scam - they have a valid place in the hierarchy of higher education. Their place though is among the bottom feeders. It would be an ideal world if everyone who wanted to could study at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, etc... but it's not an ideal world. UoP and their kin found a market and they are supplying product to that market. I then have another option on the market and can buy their product or not. In that way, that we have new choices, these schools are good for education.
