07-14-2018, 05:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018, 05:31 PM by alexf.1990.)
(07-14-2018, 04:41 AM)Why sanantone Wrote: When it comes to the education field the goals are different, so how students are treated is different. Students at for-profits are more likely to be treated as customers. Some might think this is a good thing, but this often leads to students dictating how they are educated. From a more objective standpoint, federal government investigations found that many for-profit college admissions advisors were being paid a commission based on how many students they could get to enroll, which is against the law.
When everything can't be understood with stats, field studies are often done. I don't know if any education researcher has done a qualitative study. I just know that I've been on the inside as an instructor and student at for-profit and non-profit colleges.
The goals are the same for both organizations: maximizing profit. Traditional non-profits throw this profit into their endowment, and for-profits pay dividends to shareholders. I don't disagree with you on the current state of things. For-profits are generally scummy schools. I think we only differ on the solution. I think that banning for-profits will force them to simply reorganize as seedy non-profits that pay out huge salaries to management and exorbitant interest payments to "creditors."
What we should really be addressing is why these schools can function while charging so much in tuition and providing little value to students. Why is it that students choose to attend these schools? How can traditional universities fill this need while offering a better value to students? How can we make the market more transparent to prospective students? I think finding the answer to these questions will be a better long term solution to the problem of predatory institutions.