Posted on 11/28/2016 11:00:04 AM PST by Academiadotorg
Can it be that the federal government has been waging war on for-profit colleges because, with all their problems, they still make traditional institutions of higher learning look bad?
For example, the Obama Administration famously created a “gainful employment” rule for for-profits to follow in which they would be barred from receiving Pell grants if their graduates were not “gainfully employed” after graduation. How many private non-profits let alone public colleges could live up to such a standard?
At a Cato Institute conference examining for-profit higher education, economist Richard Vedder showed that a comparison of just two schools—the public University of the District of Columbia and the for-profit Strayer University—within five miles of Cato is illustrative.
For example, UDC has a graduation rate of 15 percent compared with Strayer’s 23 percent. Similarly, UDC grads after college earnings average $34,000 compared to Strayer grads’ $49,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
There have been plenty of for-profit “colleges” that were nothing but scams: for example, if a school runs lots of ads on late-night TV, it might not be your best academic choice.
And if it claims to teach you how to become a NY real-estate billionaire...
No loans for degrees that don't teach a marketable skill that leads to gainful employment.
Loan amounts limited to what gainfully employed graduate can be expected to pay off in 10-15 years.
This would affect both for-profit trade schoos and Ivy League universities.
And, it would put the brakes on spiraling tuition.
How about Nonprofit Foundations ,Clinton and the soon the be Obama
Umm, a graduation rate of 23% is still unconscionable. Any institution that doesn’t hit 66% should lose funding- period. This is fraud.
Startling, yes, but the problem may not be where you expect.
Been there taught that (basic programming courses, major for-profit school), was startled at how many (1/4) just would not do the work, and how many (1/4) showed insufficient aptitude to survive the degree (might pass my 3-course series, but hadn’t the mindset for what’s next); about 1/3 were capable of graduating but whether they’d hang in that long remained in doubt, only the remainder showed any signs of actually flourishing enough for likely graduation and subsequent employability.
The oft-overlooked core problem with education is the students’ disinterest in productive learning. Marketing may be attracting such people, enhanced by government promises of free money (downplaying the astounding cost of dropping out). Sure, there may be lousy teachers & administration - address those where they exist. There are also highly competent teachers & administration, who alas cannot compel the disinterested to learn.
Although the referenced DC school doesn’t necesarily apply to this critique, as menitoned in related threads, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate schooling purposes.
In fact, vote-winning federal Pell grants are arguably state revenues stolen by the feds by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes which the corrupt feds cannot justify under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limied powers.
But patriots work with Trump to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, then the states would probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they could use for student financial assistance and many other things.
From related threads …
President Thomas Jefferson had indicated that the states would need to expressly constitutionally delegate to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate schooling purposes.
“The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
But since the states have never constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to tax and spend for intrastate schooling purposes, federal dollars being spend for vote-winning schooling purposes are arguably state revenues stolen by the feds in the form of unconstitutional taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The states need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from “helping” to manage state revenues. The states would probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they wouldn’t know what to do with after they get the fed’s big nose out of state affairs.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The problem is poor admissions screening. Maybe it didn't matter so much when college was cheaper but with todays cost things need to change.
During the reports on today’s violence at Ohio State, a commentator mentioned in passing that OSU has 60,000 students and 45,000 employees. Does anyone but me think that the ratio is considerably out of whack?
that’s the worst ratio I’ve heard yet. that’s almost one employee for each student.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.