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.
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.