That means half of all defaults are from the "other" kind of school. And the loans from the "other" kind of school are much, much more than 10k +, and many of those students are "never landing any kind of job", too.
Sounds like a LARGER part of the problem is "conventional" higher education.
And isn't the median student debt something like 25k? Not really "much much more" in my book. Anyone with a real degree should be able to handle that sort of debt.
What we should be doing is allowing lenders to discriminate by major and school. Good school with a good degree? Lend. Good school with a shitty degree? Lend with extreme caution caution. Fake school with any sort of degree? Tell them to kindly fuck off.
No disagreement here.
I don't want to give the perception that I think "for-profit" higher education is problem-free. I do think they have severe problems, but putting a disproportionate amount of attention on them is distracting to the problem that the "non-profits" are - which has a bigger societal impact, since they are serving more people. "For-profits" are just an easy target because of the broad social perception that profits breed evil, where many of those evildoings are just as bad in the "non-profit" higher educational sector.
To put my objection more clearly: Don't use the IRS designation to whitewash "non-profits", which are in many ways acting just as atrociously as "for-profits" anyway. Your statistics miss something important - the socioeconomic class that is consuming the non-profit product comes with some inherently lesser risks vis a vis default (for example: I presume more "non-profit" college consumers are going to be able to cover their asses, debt-wise, with help from their parents). What happens when you correct for that, what is the magnitude of difference? The "non-profit" statistics also encompass schools where you are clearly going to have less of a problem getting a job afterward. What happens if you look at the LOWEST tier of "non-profit" university and compare it to the "for-profit"? I would presume that you would find very little difference.
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_24041125/profit-coll...
The good news:
"Last year California cut from its tuition aid program more than 130 private colleges with low graduation rates and too many student loan defaults. Some wonder if the federal government will follow the state's lead to hold colleges responsible for their performance.
Today, only 50 for-profit schools in California remain eligible for state-subsidized tuition; 115 do not"
> hold colleges responsible for their performance
Sounds like a recipe for lowered standards...
To add to that, they tighten the noose with every legislative session. It appears to be the intention to make our pay proportional to "graduate success"; which will likely end up meaning GPA. That would put the same incentives in place for public college instructors that have existed in for-profit schools.
Which is not to say that should necessarily impact the degree of scrutiny those schools receive. But perhaps worth considering - if they are serving students who are likely to get no education at all, is it better / worse? Honest, question - no implications here. Just think its something worth discussing.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering-ba...
This discussion also seems to be missing the fact that students who attend many of these for-profit schools are poorer and thus more likely to default, regardless of the quality of education obtained. Any study is useless without an adjustment made for median household income of the student (and perhaps high school GPA).
"Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable."
People going to public schools are getting loans for unjustifiably expensive 'educations' which are nearly universally absolutely worthless. That is why such a staggering number of people attending for-profit schools have trouble.
You can dig up more and more data, looking for a way to make for-profit schools look good, but all you are really doing is shoveling more data onto the heap of reasons why they are predatory shitheads.
If not, the credits are generally non-transferrable and many businesses will simply toss your resume.
My college actually shouted "we're accredited" at the top of their lungs, but I didn't give a fart until I was half way through the degree, and one of my profs talked to me about why they worked so hard ensuring accreditation (for the same reasons you state) - at which point I said, "pheww it's a good thing this place is accredited"
I had no difficulty getting a job after grad. But I certainly didn't know that accredited was important before I entered the course.
Although I'm doing ok in my career I know many people who go to these types of schools do not. Now I don't know what to do. I would love to have gone or go to a 4 year state school. At this point in my life I make too much money and have too many responsibilities to be able to quit and go back to school. I also have 10 years in the field which I hope makes up for the education gap in some cases.
Are there any actually decent (accredited) programs that have hours for working people? The only way I see myself getting a BS is if there is a full night program somewhere but at this point I'm not even sure that it's worth taking on more debt.
They should have. :( It's sort of important.
School accreditation is done by a regional accreditation organization and validates every diploma the school grants.
Program accreditation is only available for certain degrees to begin with, and is usually under the authority of a professional group in that area of study.
Practically every state university is an accredited institution, even if they offer (i.e.) accounting or engineering programs that are not accredited by a relevant organization.
the issue is that public money is being used for this scheme, not that there's anything wrong with taking money from idiots in general.
Hence the argument that public money[1] should not be involved. The school management can't say "no" to it (from any angle), and the would-be students think it's free; nobody, lender in particular, hammers home the point "if you don't do the work, you'll be in deep financial $#!^".
It's the borrower "putting them into debt". Society pressures kids into getting a degree, the school makes it easy to start the process, government makes it easy to borrow the money, but ultimately it's up to the enrollee to sign for the loan and do the work to make it pay off. Every self-appointed pundit is pointing fingers at the school (for "fleecing" students) or the government (for "wasting" public funds), but nobody is pointing at the students for not making the effort.
[1] - "public" insofar as it was legally confiscated from the public at implied gunpoint.
I'm calling complete bullshit on this one: isn't that the very definition of admissions? Even if you claim it's not, I think that if you look at any student's previous grades / work experience / references, you can quite reliably determine who will do the work and who will not.
These schools simply don't want to: they want to admit everybody so they can take their money in exchange for basically nothing. I would fully support legislation to bar for-profit institutions from receiving any federal tuition aid (whether loans or grants).
> public money[1] should not be involved. The school management can't say "no" to it
This is false: schools are not required to accept federal loans.[1]
[1] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865576111/No-more-student... to accept federal loans
By "won't do the work", I mean really simple things. A student has a week to take a simple on-line 10-question multiple-choice quiz, but doesn't even look at it. For every creative assignment, I make clear "submit something - even if it's just a text file saying 'I have no idea', I'll work with you on it", but nothing is submitted. I'll take a submitted "program" of pure gibberish, write a detailed explanation of what's wrong and how to make it work, tell them to fix it, and give them until the very end of the course to do anything & everything to make it passable, but no resubmission is attempted. Online group discussion participation is required with a weekly N-post minimum (N very small) with very low content standards, a very simple requirement, but little or no participation occurs. These are students who passed high school, hold jobs, can hold competent conversations, show up for class, etc.; I have no reason to doubt they have references, adequate prior grades, and work experience. Yet...when given a very basic collegiate task, they won't do it to a mere 60% sufficiency.
There's a fundamental difference between high school and college: the latter is not obligated to pass you. Every opportunity is given, every task may be simplified to near-triviality, but if the student won't take the steps on their own, they reap the consequences of willful inaction.
But, of course, you refuse this experiential insight and insist it's all about malicious greed.
You miss my point: it's not about rejecting federal loans, it's about rejecting an applicant who does satisfy grade/work/references/funding criteria when there are openings, but the admissions personnel concludes admission still isn't a good idea. The mortgage industry knows what I'm referring to.
No it wouldn't. Admission to selective schools isn't based on criteria, it's competitive among the other applicants in the pool for a limited number of slots. Counselors routinely state that the vast majority of their applicants are academically qualified; students are selected based on interestingness (communicated through essays & recommendations), extracurricular talents, race, gender, and other factors. Sometimes even virtuosos are rejected because there are already enough virtuosos with that particular talent in the university.
As far as I know, it is only very low-end schools in the US that run admission solely off of standards.
But if tiny community colleges start turning people away when they have half empty classrooms, there will be a lot of negative press.
They could probably figure out how to sell it as "raising the bar," talk about providing a more individualized education, ride the negative press as actually increasing the value of their degrees, etc.
The process of getting accepted to a school and receiving financial aid may be long, but considering the student is borrowing tens (and sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars it's also incredibly simple.
If public schools are going to promote using public funds for continuing education, it's their responsibility to teach how to use those funds.
The for-profit schools being accused here have no way to not accept those monies. Public agencies advocate public school graduates use public funds for continuing education, but do not teach what not to do with those funds and punish any organization which does not accept those funds. Looks like it's the "public" at fault here.
I don't know how anyone would look at the cost and their future earning potential and decide that paying for a for-profit is a good idea. I know people who have gone the that Full Sail program and ended up 100+k in debt, and with nothing useful to show for it.
Education in this country is in a terrible, terrible state.
Since the job market doesn't necessarily need double the number of college grads it means that competition for the jobs that do need filling is fiercer. And that means that people who need to pay back loans for school don't necessarily have the ability to. A race to the bottom in terms of accepting a lower paying job ensues, and people are left with very little agency.
Sometimes it seems like the better-intentioned a social justice law is the worse it'll end up being years down the road.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/talent_ten...
If it's easy to graduate once you've been admitted, increasing the number of graduates isn't going to help alleviate the "shortage of college graduates" because the real shortage is in talent.
In other words, not so much "half of all defaults" but "at 4 times the rate."
As an engineer working in medical imaging this I loved!
When even state schools spend money on facilities, staff, and materials, not directly toward educating the student, they are for profit.
Further, as easy as it is to be offended by brand-new facilities, you'll find that 1) many are paid for by oustide grants and the money never could have gone towards reducing tuition, and 2) those that are paid for with students' money amount to pocket change per student.
A for-profit college educates students as cheaply as possible (in terms of cost to the institution, not price to the student) to maximize the amount of surplus the owners can pocket.
I knew several people I grew up with who went to these schools. They took out huge loans, 10k plus, and they never landed any kind of job with their "certificates" / degrees.
[1] Half of all defaults are from these kind of schools.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/career-education-corp-will-pa...