Benefits Of Profit Post Secondary Institutions

Colleges and universities are financed in ways consistent with both the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government and the belief that market competition tends to improve quality and efficiency. While government plays an important role in financing, American colleges and universities are supported mostly by diverse revenue sources that reflect the market choices of students and parents as well as other consumers of the goods and services that institutions provide. The major sources of revenue include tuition and fee payments from students and families; grants, and contracts from federal, state, and local governments; private gifts; endowment and other investment earnings; and sales from auxiliary enterprises and services. Because American higher education is not controlled or merely financed by the government, tuition fees are not set and therefore are very high making education not affordable for

Kevin Carey is direct with what he believes is wrong with for-profit universities. He believes that they do offer classes that may be a better option for non-traditional or low-income students. However, these universities are doing these while scamming taxpayers throughout the country. These universities receive millions of dollars in funding from the government in grants and are still able to make a profit, although, many students are unable to repay their student loans in a timely manner. Some personnel within these universities use tactics to convince students to apply for loans, knowing that it is not a financially intelligent decision. Not only is this borderline unethical, but many students that receive these loans default on the payments. The for-profit universities are even attempting to change the funding from the current 90/10 rule, which states, the amount of federal funding cannot exceed 90 percent of total revenue. One quarter of all of federal aid is given to for-profits, even though, they account for less than 10 percent of students. Considering this information, government funding would be better served elsewhere.

My mother grew up on a street consumed with abandoned houses, needles and filth. She was born into a lifestyle with limited luck. From the very beginning, she was the older of three siblings, two sisters and one brother forced into responsibility—just her luck. She was given a mother, which this is okay, but of course her mom had to be strung out on drugs and alcohol—just her luck again. I could go on and on about the misfortunes in my mother’s life but then I wouldn’t be able to drain you all with the despairs in my dad’s life. He on the other hand had nine brothers and three baby sisters him being the eldest as well that’s just his luck, he grew up with a strong southern minded mom, but no dad and that’s just his luck. From the dangers of the neighborhoods they grew up in to the exposure they got from walking on the streets they figured they had the worst deck of cards.

Since the first GI Bill was passed after World War II universities have been steadily increasing. Currently there are more than 4000 college like institutions in the United States. Public policy has been making higher education more reachable for example by creating federal student loan programs so everyone has a chance to attend college. But recently we have seen the cost of a four year degree drastically increase because Americans are seeing college as an obligation. “On “Real Education”” Robert T. Perry argues that we need more university and community college graduates. “Is College for Everyone” Pharinet is

There are several characteristics of for-profit colleges that make them vastly different from two-year community colleges or four-year state or private universities. The first major difference is that for-profit colleges are run more like a corporation than traditional colleges. This allows them to hire professors on short-term contracts, without requiring them to gain tenure. This practice is beneficial to for-profit colleges because if the professor’s statistics are horrible, he or she could be let go of sooner without having to go through a review board process, the college could simply not renew their contract. Another difference from tradition colleges is that classes can start at for-profit schools more often and classes can continue all-year. This is due to the fact that most of the student body at for-profits schools are online students who may be located thousands of miles away from the base campus. Another major difference of for-profit colleges is that new courses can be

Kevin Carey takes a deep look into the controversies concerning for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges have received harsh criticism from institutions because of the way they recruit new students and use the loan system to gain even more of a profit, added on to the price of schooling. Even though only 10 percent of students get enrolled, a quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profit colleges. That seems extremely unfair. Carey begins with bringing us bad news, for-profit colleges do abuse the system of student loans, however they also bring educational opportunities for those who may have not had the option to attend college.

In case, you are not aware, for-profit tuition is much higher than that of public institutions, and for profits receive a quarter of all federal aid while only enrolling 10 percent of all students (216). The real problem is that students of the much more expensive for-profit institutions tend to borrow a lot more money than the students of public institutions do and are often unable to repay these loans upon graduating and entering the work force. In fact, most graduates of for-profit institutions are unable to even get a job with their freshly awarded on line diplomas and therefore default on their federally subsidized student loans due to lack of income. Clifford refutes indications that the excessive amount of student debt is directly related to the cost of education, and therefore, disapproves of the Obama administration’s proposal to disallow further federal aid to any student who has exceeded a certain percentage of debt in relation to income. In spite of statistics that predict more than half of his students’ loans will enter default, he simply does not feel that it is the responsibility of

“At a time when American public higher education is cutting budgets, laying people off, and turning away students, the rise of for-profit universities has been meteoric.” If other colleges are turning down students how will the graduation rate increase like President Obama wants it to. We need these for-profit schools to help the economy and to get more people educated and working.“Enrollment in the country’s nearly 3,ooo career colleges has grown

1. Matt Taibbi argues in his Rolling Stone article “Ripping Off America: The College-Loan Scandal” that the government, colleges and universities, are all perpetuating this scandal of ripping off unknowing students. He states that students have essentially been backed into a corner because any good paying job requires a 4 year degree, but the debt gathered in doing so makes life after getting a degree just as difficult. Taibbi’s first point of surprise was “In 2010, it estimated that one in five had defaulted on their loans since 1995, that 31 percent of community-college students default and that an astonishing 40 percent of students attending for-profit schools end up defaulting” (Taibbi). Pursuing a higher education is something that has been disguised as doable for everyone, but what such high defaulting percentages, the current method clearly does not support this. Furthermore, Taibbi went on to say that, “After the latest compromise, the 10-year revenue projection for the DOE 's lending programs is $184,715,000,000, or $715 million higher than the old projection - underscoring the fact that the latest deal, while perhaps rescuing students this coming year from high rates, still expects to ding them hard down the road” (Taibbi). This is surprising because it further shows that deceit is a very prominent theme when it comes to understanding and pursuing a higher education. They make it appear like they are finding a solution or trying to be fair, when their true

Proprietary education dates back to the late nineteenth century where institutions focused on professional training in teaching, medicine, and law (Breneman, Pusser, & Turner, S., 2000). The 1972 Higher Education Reauthorization Act included for-profit institutions in federal financial aid programs and changed the vernacular of higher education to postsecondary education (2000). This piece of legislation along with new technologies along with increased demand for higher education and prompted a resurgence of for-profit institutions in the latter half of the twentieth century (2000). From these changes, a new era of postsecondary education was born

I am sympathetic to the instinct to ignore the question of whether a college is accountable to owners (for-profit), or, alternatively, is answerable to a financially disinterested board (nonprofit or public). While there is a higher incidence of problematic behavior at for-profit colleges, there are also nonprofit and public institutions that don’t do right by students and the public interest.

Arthur C. Brooks presents his opinion on an idea gaining prevalence across the United States in his published article, “My Valuable, Cheap College Degree.” This new idea is a college degree which costs the student a total of $10,000, also known as the 10K-B.A. Inspired by a challenge to educators from Bill Gates, governors in the states of Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, and a state assemblyman in California have recently made efforts to make this idea a reality.

The way higher education is being financed is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. State appropriations are declining; educational cost is rising; and cost per student is increasing faster than inflation or family income. Affordability is directly affected by a financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and universities to take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and productivity. Public worry about increasing expenses might eventually add to the disintegration of open trust in higher education. Only through reform can confidence in higher education in America be renewed. The Secretary of Education’s report states that America must ensure that our citizens have access to high quality and affordable educational, learning, and training opportunities throughout

For-profit schools are not just charging students a lot money and providing a regular education; they are charging more money because of the quality of education they are providing. Professors are hired based on how well they can teach, and then are continuously trained to improve their teaching skills; for-profit schools spend a good amount of money to train their teachers the skills they should possess (Seiden, Michael). Professors at for-profit schools are trained to provide rigid coursework and have high standards when grading; by doing so, for profit schools provide a better education. The amount of student: teacher ratio in for-profit schools is substantially

For profit education was deemed as a second chance for people who do not have their degree. They were “targeting so-called ‘nontraditional students’—who are typically older, often have jobs, and don’t necessarily go to school full time” (Surowiecki). A majority of students who attended for profit schools, especially branches of the Corinthian Colleges, fits under this category, and money is a big issue in the atmosphere. The reason students attended Corinthian Colleges is to get their degree faster to have a better income at home, and to find out that their education was a waste of money and time is devastating to some families. In most cases, people ended up with thousands of dollars in federal loan debt