No one is much willing to listen to its defenders, who point out, for instance, that higher default rates are inevitable given the higher-risk populations being served, or that state schools also receive enormous taxpayer subsidies that just don’t happen to be as obvious, or that the allegations hurled at the for-profit schools are sometimes overblown or unfair. Educating the poor and the working class is something that should be encouraged, rather than scorned, they say. Jeffrey Leeds, whose private-equity firm owns a big chunk of Education Management, says, “Our mission is straightforward, and one we are proud to take on — to help students, typically nontraditional students, successfully complete college programs with workplace skills that enable them to get good jobs in a tough economy.”
The bad part, of course, is that capitalists will always behave more or less like greyhounds chasing a mechanical rabbit, motivated by whatever incentives are put in front of them. Just as the federal government created perverse incentives that helped bring about the subprime crisis, so have the government’s rules for the for-profit industry unwittingly led to its excesses. When industry reaps all the profit from student loans and the taxpayer has to pick up the losses, how can we be surprised when things turn out badly? What is needed now is creative, enlightened policymaking that will change the incentives so that good outcomes matter more than sheer volume.
Recently, the Department of Education issued a series of regulations that are supposed to do just that. Unfortunately, the new rules are cumbersome, complicated — and more than a little punitive. The most controversial of them, known as the gainful employment rule, is built in part on the actual earnings of all the graduates of a given for-profit college. Yet, astonishingly, the schools themselves are never allowed to see the income numbers of individual graduates because the government considers them private. Rules like that aren’t likely to help fix anything.
There is an easier way. Robert Silberman, the chairman and chief executive of Strayer Education, widely regarded as one of the better for-profit companies, suggests replacing the plethora of regulations with two simple changes. First, he says, the government should force the for-profits to share in the losses when a student defaults. And second, the government should set up a national eligibility test to screen out students who lack the skills to attend college. Would there still be defaults? Of course. But plenty of students at nonprofit universities default, too. Silberman’s solution would help ensure that both the government and for-profit companies are taking smarter risks on the students they enroll and educate.
Joe Nocera BIO:
Corporate, Domestic, Ethics, For-Profit, Investors, Legislation, Recruitment, Required, Retention Rates, University & College - Written by Paul Glader on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:00 - 0 Comments
NYT’s Joe Nocera Decries Decline of For-Profit Colleges
The New York Times OpEd columnist Joe Nocera writes a defense of For-Profit colleges Sept. 16 in The New York Times, “Why We Need For-Profit Colleges.” He runs through some of the typical background of lawsuits, misdeeds etc. and offers some standard fare industry defense. But then he moves beyond that and mentions a few key financial players in the space and their thoughts on the way forward. We find those parts and his Nocera’s ideas interesting. Here are some highlights of his arguments:
Leave a Reply
We welcome Tips & Pitches
Latest WA Original Features
The Pulitzer Prize winning investigation newsroom digs into for-profit education.
- Interview: UoPeople Founder Shai Reshef On Edu Tech, Free Tuition & P2P Learning
- Cheating in School— How the Digital Age Affects Attitudes About Plagiarism [Infographic]
- U of Phoenix: Raises tuition, Enrollment drops, Still Making Plenty of Cash
- Guest Column from Hansoo Lee of Magoosh.com: SAT Scores are Falling – Now What?
- Edublog Award Winners For Mobile App, Web Tool, Wiki Tool
MARKET INTRADAY SNAPSHOT
- Education & Tech Companies We Follow
Cost of Education, Domestic, Education Quality, Ethics, For-Profit, Regulatory, Required, Students, University & College - Mar 11, 2012 21:17 - 0 Comments
More In For-Profit
- Heard: MOOCs Growing From Stanford to Georgia Tech to MIT to Udacity and Udemy
- Heard: California Applies Headlock, Begins Clamp Down On For-Profit Colleges
- Heard: Capella University On The Ropes But Planning For A Comeback In Round 4
- Hungry Hippos: For-Profits Gobble Up Half of Military Education Benefits
- Researchers Find Students At For-Profit Colleges More Likely To Be Unemployed
Blended Learning, Domestic, Elementary / Primary / Junior, Flipped Classrooms, High school / Secondary 2, International, Open Source Education, Required, School teachers, Startups, Students, Technology - Mar 12, 2012 19:04 - 0 Comments
More In Technology
- Opinion: Online Tutoring Disrupting Traditional Tutor Model, But Expanding The Tutor Industry
- The “Mathlash”: Mathmeticians Strike Back Against Silicon Valley’s Foray Into Math Edu
- Shantanu Sinha of Khan Academy Explains The Gamification Approach of Khan
- Fast Company Ranks The 10 Most Innovative Education Companies
- Must See: Interactive Tour of the Universe — Online Tool for Teachers and Gawkers
Domestic, Education Quality, For-Profit, Friend, Fraud, or Fishy, Required, University & College - Feb 10, 2012 16:36 - 0 Comments
More In Friend, Fraud, or Fishy
- Infographic & Video: Is America Witnessing A Growing Education Bubble? Part II Of II
- Investigative Opinion: For-Profit Kaplan University’s $250 Million Payout To Former Executives
- Heard: Mitt Romney Takes Money From, Offers Praise To Full Sail University Leaders
- Heard: New York Attorney General Is Investigating Pearson Education – NYTimes.com
- Guest Column: A Response To Occupy Wall Street’s View Of Student Debt