pros and cons of for profit education

[clep3705]

In case you don't know, The Onion is a satire site The Pros And Cons Of For-Profit Colleges - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

From Forbes Forbes Welcome

[bjcheung77]

In case you don't know, The Onion is a satire site The Pros And Cons Of For-Profit Colleges - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

From Forbes Forbes Welcome

The Association for these For Profits changed their name again in hopes of making a comeback as I was reading it on the sister forum. I am not sure how that will work out, as 2 or 3 of them have gone under or gone private.

[dfrecore]

The Onion article was good (and funny) - but the Forbes one even better. If the government would get out of the student loan business, capitalism/market forces would take over, and costs would go down!!

[cookderosa]

The Onion article was good (and funny) - but the Forbes one even better. If the government would get out of the student loan business, capitalism/market forces would take over, and costs would go down!!

All day +1

There is zero incentive for colleges to control costs. There is zero incentive for them to reduce a student's debt burden. There is zero incentive for the college to kick in any scholarship money. And, if a student is in default, there is zero incentive for them to negotiate. I don't think people really get how bad it is...... by the time they do, Obama will be moved on. His plan for increasing access to student loan borrowing is a disaster.

[sanantone]

All day +1

There is zero incentive for colleges to control costs. There is zero incentive for them to reduce a student's debt burden. There is zero incentive for the college to kick in any scholarship money. And, if a student is in default, there is zero incentive for them to negotiate. I don't think people really get how bad it is...... by the time they do, Obama will be moved on. His plan for increasing access to student loan borrowing is a disaster.

Do you have a link? I don't remember him doing that, but maybe it was something I missed in the news cycle. The Pell Grant award has gone up since he's been in office, but it's normal for the award to go up. He expanded the number of people who qualify for the Pell Grant. He also added a student loan forgiveness program and eliminated the banks as the middle men for federal loans, but I can't remember him expanding access to student loan borrowing.

One thing that is never mentioned here is how the states decreased higher education funding during the recession, and it only started going back up in 2014. Over a dozen states are spending less money on education this year than they did in 2011. So, we have states spending less even though inflation is still increasing the cost of almost everything.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...rcent-2016

[sanantone]

This article is from 2012, but it illustrates how much less states spent on higher education in 2011 in comparison to 1980 when adjusting for inflation. While the trend of reducing spending has ended in most states, we are still nowhere near what we were spending in 1980.

States are all over the map on their retreat from higher education. At one extreme are the two states that have managed to maintain their fiscal 1980 investment through 2011: Wyoming (+2.3 percent) and North Dakota (+0.8 percent).

But these are the exceptions. All other states have reduced their support by anywhere from 14.8 percent to 69.4 percent between fiscal 1980 and fiscal 2011. The biggest losers:
Colorado has reduced its support for higher education by nearly 69.4 percent, from $10.52 in fiscal 1980 (and a peak of $13.85 in fiscal 1971) to $3.22 by fiscal 2011. At this rate of decline Colorado appropriations will reach zero in 2022, 11 years from now. Projections using more recent data find that Colorado could hit zero as soon as 2019.
South Carolina reduced its state investment effort in higher education by 66.8 percent, from $16.72 in fiscal 1980 (and a peak of $18.19 in fiscal 1975) to $5.54 by fiscal 2011. Extrapolating this trend, state funding for higher education will reach zero in 2031.
Rhode Island reduced state higher education funding by 62.1 percent between 1980 and 2011, from $9.81 to $3.72. The state effort peaked at $10.35 in fiscal 1981. Extrapolating this trend, state funding for higher education will reach zero in 2031.
Arizona has reduced its annual state investment effort by 61.9 percent from $12.27 in fiscal 1980 to $4.68 by fiscal 2011. This effort had peaked earlier at $15.13 in fiscal 1974. The trend between 1980 and 2011 will reach zero in 2032, although more recent data indicates it could be even sooner.
Oregon reduced its state higher education investment by 61.5 percent, from $10.85 in fiscal 1980 (and $12.77 in fiscal 1970) to $4.18 in 2011. Extrapolating this trend since fiscal 1980, state investment will reach zero in 2036.
Minnesota has reduced its higher education investment by 55.8 percent, from $14.17 in fiscal 1980 (and a peak of $15.08 in fiscal 1978) to $6.27 by fiscal 2011. Extending the trend since 1980 into the future, state funding for higher education will reach zero in 2037. But another extrapolation hits zero in 2032.
Montana is scheduled to reach zero, based on extrapolated trends since 1980, in 2034. Montana has reduced its support from $10.88 per $1000 of state personal income in 1980 (and a peak of $12.13 in fiscal 1983), to $5.08 by fiscal 2011.
Virginia reduced higher education funding by 53.6 percent from 10.47 in 1980 (and $11.37 in FY1979) to $4.86 in 2011. At this rate, state funding will reach zero in 2038. Another more recent projection reaches zero in 2032.
Vermont reduced its investment by 51.3 percent from $7.78 in 1980 (and $10.88 in fiscal 1970) to $3.79 by fiscal 2011. Extending this trend, Vermont will reach zero in fiscal 2032.

State Funding: A Race to the Bottom

[dfrecore]

That also goes to support my point: the government (state as well as federal) is too much in the business of education. Federal government gives people access to loans, and State government gives out money to the schools.

This keeps the money flowing to the schools in a never-ending spigot. They can't figure out how to spend the money fast enough! New swimming complexes, basketball arenas, dorms with granite counters and travertine flooring, the list goes on and on. If that spigot (loans) turned off, they would be forced to act like people with common sense.

Why should the states spend money subsidizing the craziness too? The states that DO continue to subsidize it aren't getting a lot for their money. Same number of students are dropping out as before, and prices continue to rise.

[sanantone]

That also goes to support my point: the government (state as well as federal) is too much in the business of education. Federal government gives people access to loans, and State government gives out money to the schools.

This keeps the money flowing to the schools in a never-ending spigot. They can't figure out how to spend the money fast enough! New swimming complexes, basketball arenas, dorms with granite counters and travertine flooring, the list goes on and on. If that spigot (loans) turned off, they would be forced to act like people with common sense.

Why should the states spend money subsidizing the craziness too? The states that DO continue to subsidize it aren't getting a lot for their money. Same number of students are dropping out as before, and prices continue to rise.

Without state support, there would be no such thing as public colleges and universities, and you wouldn't be earning your degree at TESU. State-supported schools have been around for over 200 hundred years. Football usually funds itself and even has enough money to fund other sports.

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN

[cookderosa]

Do you have a link? I don't remember him doing that, but maybe it was something I missed in the news cycle. The Pell Grant award has gone up since he's been in office, but it's normal for the award to go up. He expanded the number of people who qualify for the Pell Grant. He also added a student loan forgiveness program and eliminated the banks as the middle men for federal loans, but I can't remember him expanding access to student loan borrowing.

One thing that is never mentioned here is how the states decreased higher education funding during the recession, and it only started going back up in 2014. Over a dozen states are spending less money on education this year than they did in 2011. So, we have states spending less even though inflation is still increasing the cost of almost everything.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...rcent-2016

He eliminated the FFEL program, which was essentially the various student loan options most people who went to college pre-2009 are aware of. Now, 100% of student loans are guaranteed by the Federal government. You could find details at various sources including the FAFSA site, but I stumbled on this while I was looking for a summary- seems to do the trick. Atlas

EDIT: the result is that you can't default, the debt follows you to the grave. (I'm not arguing for default, I'm saying that this now has a huge impact on the motives I spoke of in my earlier comments)

[sanantone]

He eliminated the FFEL program, which was essentially the various student loan options most people who went to college pre-2009 are aware of. Now, 100% of student loans are guaranteed by the Federal government. You could find details at various sources including the FAFSA site, but I stumbled on this while I was looking for a summary- seems to do the trick. Atlas

EDIT: the result is that you can't default, the debt follows you to the grave. (I'm not arguing for default, I'm saying that this now has a huge impact on the motives I spoke of in my earlier comments)

You can default, but you can't discharge the debt in bankruptcy. This is a matter of the government getting its money back and has nothing to do with the tuition schools charge. The schools don't need to negotiate when a student defaults because they've already been paid. It's the government that has to worry about getting its money back when it comes to government loans. If people could get rid of their debt, it would actually give colleges more of an incentive to raise their tuition rates. Schools, such as ITT Tech, have directly offered students loans, but their loans have no connection to the government.

According to the link you provided, FFEL was guaranteed loans offered by banks and non-profit organizations. Now, instead of having banks and organizations as middle men, the federal government directly offers the loans. There is no difference in the share of students who now have access to federal loans. You just get your federal loan from the government rather than through a bank. There was never a credit check for Stafford loans offered through the banks. People can still get non-government, student loans from banks. That has not changed.

Also mentioned in the article you linked to, is that Bush I and Bush II pushed for direct loans to be used more than guaranteed loans because it would reduce administrative costs, eliminate subsidies to banks and make the system simpler. All Obama did was further the goal of eliminating FFEL, and it will result in a cost savings of $68.7 billion over 10 years. Nothing about eliminating FFEL has to do with expanding access to student loans or eliminating private, student loans.

Here is a chart showing the differences between Direct, Perkins, and FFEL loans when it comes to forgiveness, discharge in bankruptcy, and other types of discharges and cancellations. Essentially, there is no difference between Direct and FFEL loans, except that Direct loans qualify for public service forgiveness. Both of them can be discharged in bankruptcy, but it is very difficult to do.

https://6173-presscdn-0-2-pagely.netdna-...id_new.pdf