The high cost of for-profit education
U.S. taxpayers invest billions in for-profit colleges, yet more than half of students leave without a degree or diploma.
Even their harshest critics acknowledge that the country needs for-profit colleges to fill a gap between the growing demand for post-secondary education and existing capacity at public and nonprofit colleges and universities.
The staunchest supporters of for-profit institutions ought to acknowledge, but do not, that many of the biggest providers are wildly successful at raking in profits, but not at educating students. And that’s a problem.
August 6, 2012 - 6:20 AM
I agree that this is a problem and it needs to be looked into. It appears that educating students is completely irrelevant to getting the money from students/parents or government funding and that is wrong. It is adding to the cost of college loans without any benefit.
I believe that any changes affecting financial aid for for profit colleges should also be universal for all colleges, especially non-profit private colleges. There seems to be a disconnect between the ability of for profit colleges making a sizable profit whereas private colleges continually charging higher fees, accepting the same type of students, yet claiming non-profit status and show little profit. Since many of the teachers are the same part-time educators at the different institutions, you have to wonder if the private colleges are being adequately investigated as well.
2 – nationalize everything, eh Rich? Right in line with CPUSA/Dem Party thinking.
To #3 (Richard): I definitely agree that having one set of rules covering “for-profit” schools and another set for traditional state-supported and private non-profits makes no sense. After all, some of the “for-profit” schools actually do pretty well in terms of providing a high-quality education at a reasonable cost. And many non-profits have high drop-out rates just like the crappier “for-profits”, leaving students with a lot of debt (particularly at the pricier private schools) and no degree to go with it. One should judge the schools by their performance, not their “profit” vs. “non-profit” classification.
I know that Sandi won’t like it, but I’ll call for it again: The government should restore bankruptcy protection to student loans and should establish lending standards for federal student loans. Shoveling money at schools where “educating students is irrelevant” is both foolish and outright harmful to the students involved.
4 – the education bubble expands…I’ll back you up on the bankruptcy protection, Brian.
3. 89hoo – Eh?
Another timely article on the subject of excess student lending: http://www.smartmoney.com/borrow/student-loans/grandmas-new-financial-problem-college-debt-1344292084111/
Seizing Social Security checks? Ouch.
The moderator did not like my answer so I will try again. Brian, can you show me where I have ever said I was against allowing student loan debt to be allowed into bankruptcy or where I refused any lending standards?
To #8 (Sandi): We’ve debated lending standards for student loans several times in the past. You said that such standards would result in the formation of a “plutocracy”. Several times.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/04/students-are-not-political-pawns/#comment-131246
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/04/davis-fixing-higher-education/#comment-130086
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2011/11/long-these-young-adults-today/#comment-124384
I don’t recall you expressing an opinion on allowing student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy court. Note that if it is (as I’ve suggested in the past), student loans will become harder to get.
Again Brian, I did not say that “such standards” would do any such thing.
Link 1:
I said: “The loan process should be as comprehensive as is possible without being punitive. And taking into account the red flags that are out there, should be part of it. Not being able to pay your own way, or prove ability to repay the school loan (stricter loan standards alone) is not the answer.”
Link 2:
“I have repeatedly said I am not against applying fair lending standards, but I want more: add better education on the process, the possible outcomes and a much tighter rein on the for profit schools and guileful guidance that steers kids with no realistic prospect into massive debt that ends in no degree and no chance at repayment. Such a system has to ensure that it is not a rigid “show me how you can guarantee payment”, that it does not discourage those with promise but no money, or that it enables those with neither because someone advised them it was the way to go. Right now, veterans are being taken advantage of in “for profit” school scams to get the GI Bill money, student and outcome be damned. You are only talking about putting the focus on the lender and I submit the problem has more facets than that one and the solution must as well.”
Link 3:
“The “driver” in all of this is federally guaranteed money. That is the way the banksters and the schools want it and that is the way they have made sure it is legislated. Why you cannot see that the government, while being the facilitator they paid handsomely for has some culpability, NO ONE makes any school encourage a student who should not be there (BUT THEY DO) and NO ONE makes the banking or financial industry loan to a bad risk (BUT THEY DO). Funny how you can so clearly see the government as the bad guy but the banksters who bought and paid for that government (and will continue to do so) are pretty much an afterthought.”
No where have I said I was against the student loan debt being considered in bankruptcy and no where did I say that I was against better lending standards. You just keep repeating it because you want to.