PDA

View Full Version : Colleges may get new rules.



imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:52 PM
Lets get a serious discussion about this. What is the difference between Public, Private, and for-profit schools?

This article I read today about how Obama is trying to pass regulations on all colleges, which supposedly will harm "for-profit" schools more than the other two (FNC spin). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/obama-administration-proposal-targets-for-profit-colleges-over-student-debt/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.campuscorner.com/articles/general/public-private-colleges.htm
I read an article that explained the differences but the discription of "for-profit" schools doesnt make sense with the article from Fox news reports from the US Education Department, headed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, could review, "72 percent of for-profit colleges produce graduates who earn less than high school dropouts." How can that be possible if most of these colleges are trade schools, taught by people with experience in the trade the students are going for like electrician, plumbing, construction, etc? Other than the stigma of going to a trade school like ITT or Devri, what accounts for the lack of pay these graduates get?

This article seems vague and seems like it is missing some numbers, like when it talks about "22 percent of for-profit student borrowers defaulted on their loans within three years. At public colleges, that number is 13 percent of borrowers." Where is the private school numbers? Since on average, the private schools are the most expensive of the three. And the other part that I seem to be missing is what type of degrees account for the majority of the defaults? Web design I think is offered at these places, but this field is like being a painter, not everyone is going to be hired for your artistic ability.

Do these numbers and the article make sense and require this kind of bill to be passed when the biggest reason for high tuition is the government backed loans giving colleges a reason to increase tuition? The government will get their money from these students two fold. We know college graduates tend to make more, so they will be taxed more. And the government will collect on the debt by garnishing their wages and tax refunds if they get any.

So, let get this discussion started.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100598257

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 05:56 PM
If I had my way, they'd all be "For Profit" or "Private"!

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 06:09 PM
Obama is right, and this has been an issue LONG before he took office.

For-profit schools like DeVry, University of Phoenix, Strayer, Capella, Kaplan - just to name a few. Worthless shit schools where, if an employer sees any of them on your resume... your resume just earned a trip to the trash can.

For-profit schools treat students like CUSTOMERS, and not STUDENTS. Fail a class or didn't get the grade you want? Argue with a "counselor" and threaten to leave, and they'll cave. They don't want to lose a "customer," afterall.

So why should the government be backing loans for schools, when it's students won't be able to get jobs that will afford them the ability to pay those loans back?

Especially when these for-profit schools are many times more expense than non-profit schools who's degrees are actually worth something?

TSat75
03-14-2014, 06:46 PM
If the metric is applied fairly, then I do not see a problem. If your school is producing educated students who can make a career in the workforce that gives them the abili to pay their student loans, then you should have no problem passing the metric. There are a ton of crap schools out there that are degree mills. Especially the ones where you pay a tuition per semester and take as many classes as you want.

And I don't have numbers, just speculation, but I imagine some of the larger, more etablished schools, wouldn't necessarily fall below the metric (DeVry, ITT). My uncle went to DeVry years and years ago and was able to quite nicely for himself. I'm thinking of some of the smaller "for profit" schools - the low hanging fruit - the ones that all you have to have to enroll is a pulse. Kids go to those schools because (for whatever reason) they cannot get into more established schools...pay them money on promises of a good paying career - paid for by student loans that the government gives the schools. Then they get their paper diploma, put together their resumes, and cannot get a job any better than they could get before they went.

For those schools, I think this metric will flush them out. And I could be wrong on the bigger schools...again, just going off of my gut here...but I would think the larger schools (especially technical) wouldn't be hurt by this law.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 08:41 PM
It's just another way to control people. Give it time and the curriculum of the colleges will be threatened with loss of funding if the government doesn't agree with it. That's probably already happening, since most of the "for-profit" schools tend to be more "conservative" (or, more accurately, less "liberal") than the others.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 08:45 PM
LOL. Everything is a government conspiracy to reduce liberty, huh?

Well, I'll say this, you've got the radical libertarian talking points down to a science.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 09:08 PM
LOL. Everything is a government conspiracy to reduce liberty, huh?

Well, I'll say this, you've got the radical libertarian talking points down to a science.

Not a conspiracy. Conspiracy requires collaboration. This is all done by one person who has stated several times that he no longer cares what people think of him because he won't come up for re-election again.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 09:27 PM
I'm still laughing at you. Do you realize how ridiculous you appear?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 09:38 PM
I'm still laughing at you. Do you realize how ridiculous you appear?Glad I could provide some entertainment.

It's not about anybody reducing liberty. I wasn't talking about liberty at all. I was talking about schools promoting liberal views being viewed as being more deserving schools for funding.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 09:45 PM
And I don't have numbers, just speculation, but I imagine some of the larger, more etablished schools, wouldn't necessarily fall below the metric (DeVry, ITT). My uncle went to DeVry years and years ago and was able to quite nicely for himself.

There are possible explanations for why your uncle did so well. Including, but not limited to, the following:

1. He may have already had experience in his major.

2. A degree probably wasn't required for the job anyway.

3. If it was "years and years ago," as you said, a degree from a for-profit school was more likely to hold SOME weight, since not everyone and their mother was getting degrees back then.


That's probably already happening, since most of the "for-profit" schools tend to be more "conservative" (or, more accurately, less "liberal") than the others.

Oh, come on! You sound like WJ5 right now - shit like this shouldn't be coming from you.

If for-profit schools are "conservative," it's only to extent that they exist to make money. Other than that, they don't give a damn about indoctrinating students into a political ideology. Hell, they don't even give a damn about EDUCATING their students; or whether or not their product does what they say it does - provide credentials that employers want. They care about money. That's IT.

Your more conservative schools tend to be the religiously affiliated ones; like Regents U and Liberty U.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 10:01 PM
It's not about anybody reducing liberty. I wasn't talking about liberty at all.

No?


It's just another way to control people...

Certainly seems that way to me.

As to your point,
The proposed regulations would penalize programs that produce graduates without the training needed to find a job (from the article)

And maybe they need to be:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303819704579318872286744010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/for-profit-colleges-face-new-wave-of-coordinated-state-probes.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/profit-college-scams-hurt-students-taxpayers-121740602.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/22/for-profit-online-university_n_4481451.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/young_black_and_buried_in_debt_how_for_profit_coll eges_prey_on_african_american_ambition/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/carrie-wofford/2013/11/11/this-veterans-day-help-a-vet-avoid-a-gi-bill-for-profit-college-scam

I dunno, maybe this time the government is doing its JOB, and protecting citizens from getting defrauded. Rather than advancing some "liberal agenda"

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:09 PM
Oh, come on! You sound like WJ5 right now - shit like this shouldn't be coming from you.

If for-profit schools are "conservative," it's only to extent that they exist to make money. Other than that, they don't give a damn about indoctrinating students into a political ideology. Hell, they don't even give a damn about EDUCATING their students; or whether or not their product does what they say it does - provide credentials that employers want. They care about money. That's IT.

Your more conservative schools tend to be the religiously affiliated ones; like Regents U and Liberty U.

Yes, I realize that more conservative schools are most likely religious schools...that's why I put in parentheses "less liberal". I should have deleted the "conservative" part as many schools aren't political at all and do attempt to educate without persuading.

Most schools have become more liberal because of supply and demand. Schools tend to be more liberal because their students are liberal. If they weren't they wouldn't get as many students and wouldn't make as much money.

And really it's no big deal, anyway, because rich white guys (I won't use the term "conservative" because that is implied with the use of "rich white guys") will continue to pay the tuition for the private schools anyway, so don't rely on the loans, etc.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:24 PM
No?



Certainly seems that way to me. Persuading a college to teach what you want them to teach has nothing to do with the liberty of individuals. Now, if I am forced to go to those schools and listen to that bullshit, then it becomes a liberty issue.

As to your point, (from the article)

And maybe they need to be:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001xxxxxxxxxx0381970xxxxxxxxxxxx6744010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/for-profit-colleges-face-new-wave-of-coordinated-state-probes.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/profit-college-scams-hurt-students-taxpayers-121740602.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/22/for-profit-online-university_n_4481451.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/young_black_and_buried_in_debt_how_for_profit_coll eges_prey_on_african_american_ambition/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/carrie-wofford/2013/11/11/this-veterans-day-help-a-vet-avoid-a-gi-bill-for-profit-college-scam

I dunno, maybe this time the government is doing its JOB, and protecting citizens from getting defrauded. Rather than advancing some "liberal agenda"[/QUOTE]I know we've discussed this before, somewhere. And my point is still the same. The school isn't defrauding anyone. That is such a misnomer. The people attending the schools should do a little more research. I'm not sure why everyone feels we need to be protected from everything and that it's the government's job to do so.

As far as producing graduates that can't find a job? How about creating enough jobs? Hell, there are thousands and thousands of people, right now, with "valid" degrees from "prestigious" schools who can't find jobs.

Maybe this should be another thread, but it's not the purpose, no should it be, of ANY college to ensure someone is able to find a job. It's their responsibility to educate. If that education leads to a job than that's great. It's all part of the deception of the importance of college.

Oh, and those Devry recruiters sound a lot like our military recruiters. Tell 'em what they want to here to keep the numbers up. I wonder why a report hasn't been done about that.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 10:44 PM
I think all post-secondary education is of a "questionable" value if it's never effectively applied. The only institutions in my mind that are defrauding their students are those that continuously fail to provide their students with the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform the functions required of an individual's desired vocation. I do think there's way too much of a "good old boys club" paradigm that automatically assumes that an individual with a certain academic institutional background will automatically outperform one from a different background. My undergraduate degree was from an institution of a very decent "reputation" but if you asked me to remember ten things about it I would probably get stopped somewhere around three. However, my graduate degree did happen to be from a "for profit" institution and, in my candid self-assessment that is where I felt my own ability to think critically beyond my own biases improved by leaps and bounds! Also, I still retain much of the information from that experience, although I have to submit the years between them might be a partial factor in that as well. King for a day, I would see how well the Universities stand up to everything else without the substantial amount of funding they receive and when left to their own devices. I would contend they would probably fail to simple bureaucratic inefficiency above all else, and there would be an absolute realignment over what is considered a "reputable" degree.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 11:27 PM
Maybe this should be another thread, but it's not the purpose, no should it be, of ANY college to ensure someone is able to find a job. It's their responsibility to educate. If that education leads to a job than that's great. It's all part of the deception of the importance of college.

No, but it IS the job of the government to be good stewards of taxpayer money. Consider the following:

1. For profit schools are far more expensive than public schools or private not for profit schools.

2. Employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably.

3. The article is about the government no longer giving financial aid to students who wants to attend schools that fail to meet the standards.

So let's think about this... why should you, the taxpayer, fund education that produces degrees that are not competitive in the job market? Why should we allow those pursuing the education to be put in a situation, where they can't pay back your tax dollars?

This is an investment in our economy, as the more money Americans make, the higher our GDP. Why invest money where it does absolutely nothing for our economy?

And... why shouldn't the government be selective about which schools qualify for federal financial aid? By this logic, we should allow those on WIC to be able to purchase any brand of a particular item they want, instead of placing restrictions.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:31 PM
No, but it IS the job of the government to be good stewards of taxpayer money. Consider the following:

1. For profit schools are far more expensive than public schools or private not for profit schools.

2. Employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably.

3. The article is about the government no longer giving financial aid to students who wants to attend schools that fail to meet the standards.

So let's think about this... why should you, the taxpayer, fund education that produces degrees that are not competitive in the job market? Why should we allow those pursuing the education to be put in a situation, where they can't pay back your tax dollars?

This is an investment in our economy, as the more money Americans make, the higher our GDP. Why invest money where it does absolutely nothing for our economy?

And... why shouldn't the government be selective about which schools qualify for federal financial aid? By this logic, we should allow those on WIC to be able to purchase any brand of a particular item they want, instead of placing restrictions.

The government shouldn't fund ANY colleges.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 11:34 PM
The government shouldn't fund ANY colleges.

Um, yes they do. They do it in the form of government programs, such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. And for profit colleges eat that money up by tax payers paying for students to go to them.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:35 PM
Um, yes they do. They do it in the form of government programs, such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. And for profit colleges eat that money up by tax payers paying for students to go to them.

I didn't say they don't. I said they SHOULDN'T.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 11:38 PM
I didn't say they don't. I said they SHOULDN'T.

You mean the government shouldn't care about its country's GDP or economy?

imnohero
03-14-2014, 11:41 PM
And here we are, right back to the radical libertarianism.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 11:44 PM
Georgetown.............founded and run by The Society of Jesus (Jesuits).

Notre Dame

Duke

Fordham

Baylor

Pepperdine



Founded by religious organizations/people

Brandeis

Tufts

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:50 PM
You mean the government shouldn't care about its country's GDP or economy?

Of course they should. I said they shouldn't fund colleges.

Just over 1/4 of college students graduate from college, according to chronicle.com. To add to that, there is this article from npr.org.


The federal government each year gives needy college students billions of dollars they don't have to pay back — $34.5 billion to be exact. More than 9 million students rely on the Pell Grant program. But a new study says much of the money is going to people who never graduate.

Sandy Baum, an expert on student financial aid, has been leading a group in a study of the 48-year-old Pell Grant program. Their report, commissioned by the nonprofit College Board, confirms what many have known for years about grant recipients.

"We have always known that the completion rates are lower than what we'd like them to be," Baum says. "But what we really learned was that there are so many students who are not the traditional Pell Grant student, who are not young people from low-income families but rather are adults seeking to improve their labor force opportunities. So understanding how important Pell Grants are to these students, and how poorly designed they are to actually serve these students, was something of an awakening."

Baum says these are people 25 years and older who were hit hard by the recession — lost their jobs, went back for more training and education, but have struggled to complete their schooling.

Baum says they get little or no guidance about what to study or even what school to choose.

"If you're an adult, you're more likely to see a sign on the bus or hear that your neighbor went to school someplace. You really don't have many options," she says.

Older, nontraditional students, Baum says, now make up nearly half of all Pell Grant recipients, but only 3 percent ever earn a bachelor's degree.

High dropout rates, though, are not limited to older students. Among 18- to 25-year-olds in the program, only a fraction earn a bachelor's degree within six years — often because they're just not ready for college-level work


So if you're really worried about the tax dollars, you would agree that Pell Grants are just a big a waste of those dollars as funding for the "for-profit" schools.

We'd be much better off if less money went to college that would never be completed and more went to elementary/high schools to ensure the students were educated enough to attend college.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:56 PM
And here we are, right back to the radical libertarianism.

That's where you're wrong. There is radical liberalism, radical conservatism, but libertarianism is libertarianism. It's neither radical nor moderate.

imnohero
03-15-2014, 12:11 AM
LOL.

You need to read more.

sandsjames
03-15-2014, 12:13 AM
LOL.

You need to read more.

And you need to learn how to hit the "reply with quote".

imnohero
03-15-2014, 12:19 AM
Why, you already know I'm talking to you.

sandsjames
03-15-2014, 11:53 AM
Why, you already know I'm talking to you.

Actually, in the case of your post about me needing to read more, I'm not sure if you were talking about my comment about libertarians or the article I quoted from NPR. So a reply with quote would have greatly helped.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-16-2014, 09:27 PM
Obama is right, and this has been an issue LONG before he took office.

For-profit schools like DeVry, University of Phoenix, Strayer, Capella, Kaplan - just to name a few. Worthless shit schools where, if an employer sees any of them on your resume... your resume just earned a trip to the trash can. Thats the a stigma of the online schools. Kind of like prejudice or stereotyping people based on where they went to school. Elitist like a Harvard person looking down on an FSU grad. Thats the difference FSU and the online schools. Some people just can't make it to an actual college campus. Kind of like saying, "don't do online schools single parents who work full time because it is the most convenient for you, continue to stay poor and living off the government tete". But yes, some of those schools offer crap liberal arts degrees like web designing or photography. The artsy crap that if you are good, shouldn't need a college degree to be good.


For-profit schools treat students like CUSTOMERS, and not STUDENTS. Fail a class or didn't get the grade you want? Argue with a "counselor" and threaten to leave, and they'll cave. They don't want to lose a "customer," afterall.Actually, thats public schools now. And the for-profit schools would prefer you to fail, most people would just repay to take the class than fight with the professor.


So why should the government be backing loans for schools, when it's students won't be able to get jobs that will afford them the ability to pay those loans back?They back loans for doctors. I agree though, liberal arts degrees typically get crap jobs or no jobs and are pointless degrees in the most part anyways. Best the graduate can do out of a liberal arts degree is become a teacher in a university passing along that worthless info to other suckers who can't function in the real world.


Especially when these for-profit schools are many times more expense than non-profit schools who's degrees are actually worth something?Thats because the "non-profit", which i don't think there really are any of these, get their finances from other sources other than the government backed student loans. For-profit get 90% of the tuition paid through government backed loans. Do you think the Public (profit making school like FSU), Private (profit making like U of Florida), get all their money from trust fund babies who never use government back loans? There are scholarships, lottery winnings taxes, grants and other such sources of income the traditional schools get money from to lower the cost of education to a degree.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-16-2014, 09:36 PM
Oh, come on! You sound like WJ5 right now - shit like this shouldn't be coming from you.

If for-profit schools are "conservative," it's only to extent that they exist to make money. Other than that, they don't give a damn about indoctrinating students into a political ideology. Hell, they don't even give a damn about EDUCATING their students; or whether or not their product does what they say it does - provide credentials that employers want. They care about money. That's IT.

Your more conservative schools tend to be the religiously affiliated ones; like Regents U and Liberty U.
Are you saying that if the School makes money, they are more conservative? Liberal schools like Harvard, MIT, Yale, UofF, Stanford are just conservative schools in disguise of liberal teachings? And when they raise their tuition every year just after the government raises the cap, do you think its because its become more expensive to teach the kids the inner working of liberalism, or because they know they can make more money? Now, remember that the tuition is going up more than inflation is, so do blame it of the FED taxing everyone through mandatory inflation.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-16-2014, 09:45 PM
As far as producing graduates that can't find a job? How about creating enough jobs? Hell, there are thousands and thousands of people, right now, with "valid" degrees from "prestigious" schools who can't find jobs.

Well, if 47 of the 100 people that graduate from the for-profit schools can't find a job due to having crap degrees like web-design or photography because that is what most people go to for those kinds of degrees because its actually cheaper than a campus school, and 200 of the 1000 people who graduate from a normal campus school can't find jobs because they have more degrees offered, then of course it looks like for-profit schools look like the villain that is wasting more money than the other two types of schools. Although the 20% from the other traditional schools waste more per-captia and overall than the for-profit, the percentages workout in the favor for this story. Like I said, i believe this is the FNC spun story like the way libs did against AZ.

sandsjames
03-16-2014, 09:55 PM
Well, if 47 of the 100 people that graduate from the for-profit schools can't find a job due to having crap degrees like web-design or photography because that is what most people go to for those kinds of degrees because its actually cheaper than a campus school, and 200 of the 1000 people who graduate from a normal campus school can't find jobs because they have more degrees offered, then of course it looks like for-profit schools look like the villain that is wasting more money than the other two types of schools. Although the 20% from the other traditional schools waste more per-captia and overall than the for-profit, the percentages workout in the favor for this story. Like I said, i believe this is the FNC spun story like the way libs did against AZ.

What's wasting money is the Pell Grants. That's far more of a waste than a crap degree, as a large majority of Pell Grant recipients never graduate.

efmbman
03-16-2014, 10:02 PM
Thats the a stigma of the online schools.

Not quite. There are 100s of accredited, established, and respectable schools that offer online programs - particularly graduate programs. A degree from University of Southern California (online or not) carries the same weight.

CYBERFX1024
03-16-2014, 10:20 PM
No, but it IS the job of the government to be good stewards of taxpayer money. Consider the following:
1. For profit schools are far more expensive than public schools or private not for profit schools.
2. Employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably.
3. The article is about the government no longer giving financial aid to students who wants to attend schools that fail to meet the standards.
So let's think about this... why should you, the taxpayer, fund education that produces degrees that are not competitive in the job market? Why should we allow those pursuing the education to be put in a situation, where they can't pay back your tax dollars?
This is an investment in our economy, as the more money Americans make, the higher our GDP. Why invest money where it does absolutely nothing for our economy?
And... why shouldn't the government be selective about which schools qualify for federal financial aid? By this logic, we should allow those on WIC to be able to purchase any brand of a particular item they want, instead of placing restrictions.

You do know that alot of "Nonprofit" and public universities are getting about as expensive as for profit schools right? Some employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably, some do not. It also has to do with experience as well.

Why should the taxpayer fund education at public schools to people that bs degrees like women's lib or medieval dance?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-16-2014, 11:56 PM
No, but it IS the job of the government to be good stewards of taxpayer money. Consider the following:

1. For profit schools are far more expensive than public schools or private not for profit schools.Prove it. Walden vs yale. No grants, no state funds, what is the price tuition paid out of pocket between for-profit, private, and public, so out of state costs.
For-profits: Walden, Devry, U of Phoenix, ITT.
Private: Yale, Brown, MIT, Harvard, U of FL, Stanford.
Public: FSU, UGA, UT, and so on.


2. Employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably.I agree, its a stigma and bias against something they don't know. Figured you wouldn't be for this type of stereotyping.


3. The article is about the government no longer giving financial aid to students who wants to attend schools that fail to meet the standards.About colleges who's degrees don't produce a productive member of society. FSU's college of underwater basket weaving is going to fall under this cut too.


So let's think about this... why should you, the taxpayer, fund education that produces degrees that are not competitive in the job market? Why should we allow those pursuing the education to be put in a situation, where they can't pay back your tax dollars?Why should we fund the grants, scholarships and schools directly who have any of these programs? This doesn't touch the funding to colleges with worthless degrees who are public or private schools.


This is an investment in our economy, as the more money Americans make, the higher our GDP. Why invest money where it does absolutely nothing for our economy?If it only stopped all of the wasteful spending on higher education.


And... why shouldn't the government be selective about which schools qualify for federal financial aid? By this logic, we should allow those on WIC to be able to purchase any brand of a particular item they want, instead of placing restrictions.Because this doesn't fully stop the worthless degrees, it just stops the people from getting gov backed loans on worthless degrees, mostly from online schools.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-17-2014, 12:03 AM
Um, yes they do. They do it in the form of government programs, such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. And for profit colleges eat that money up by tax payers paying for students to go to them.

Huh, no they don't. 90% of for-profit schools tuitions are from government backs school loans, not grants. There is $1trillion in outstanding college loans as it is. That is not from the For-profit schools who own just 8% of the college education business.

3748
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/business/economy/the-bane-and-the-boon-of-for-profit-colleges.html?_r=0

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-17-2014, 12:20 AM
If a college is regionally accredited, which is peer review right? Why is it the governments job to say whether or not the school should get the loan that the student applied for and wants to waste on a crappy degree that won't net them a job? You know that these loans are not actually defaulting like the grants to people that don't pass right? The government will garnish your pay, and your tax returns until the loan is paid back, sometimes that means twice or three times as much as the original loan. So no tax money is truly being "wasted" when most of these loan rates are well more than the rate of inflation.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-17-2014, 12:24 AM
Not quite. There are 100s of accredited, established, and respectable schools that offer online programs - particularly graduate programs. A degree from University of Southern California (online or not) carries the same weight.USF offers online school. Its more about the stigma of the traditional online schools like DeVry and ITT.

But also, these "for-profit" schools are trade schools for welding, plumbing, computer programing, accounting, electricians. Schools that don't milk more money out of you through other classes that really don't pertain to your job. Honestly, does it really cost that much more for a kid to be educated at UofF than it does at FSU?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-17-2014, 12:55 AM
As I dug to gather more knowledge of for-profit schools, I find the reason behind possibly RJ's contempt and the Democrats targeting of these schools. Its IS about control. Control of minorities. For-profit schools offer the best and easiest way to educate minorities and has been accepting more and more minorities as traditional schools turn those away who can't play sports. These schools actually give the average minority from low income families a chance to be educated and have a degree and possibly move up in class and income level. Seeing this, in come the race baiters and hustlers who feared the old democratic slave master ideas that an educated slave is dangerous slave, they have started attacking the for-profit schools with absolutely zero basis to any claims that the for-profit schools target minorities out of deceptive practices.

At a June Senate hearing on high student debt levels at for-profit colleges, civil rights advocate Wade Henderson pointedly criticized what he called the "cruel," "unjust" and "immoral" attempts by some for-profit colleges to actively recruit low-income minority students with assurances of bettering their lives through college education.

"The deceptive practices which many of these institutions have employed, the emphasis on recruiting among the most vulnerable and emotionally ill-prepared … this is nothing less than the hijacking of the American dream," said Henderson, the president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group that has supported stronger regulations for the burgeoning for-profit college industry.What I find amazing is that this "civil-rights" leader is calling the blacks that choose to go to for-profit schools as "vulnerable and emotionally ill-prepared", and no one feels that his racial slam of low income blacks is an issue.

This is too freaking hilarious. Having a minority being educated and defaulting on their loan is the same in the dems and "civil-rights" leaders eyes as when they pushed to loosen the lending practices of banks so minorities could get a home? Yet the knowledge and the degree can never be taken away, but the home can be. So giving a minority something that could be taken away was ok, but knowledge, nope, can't fight for that.

In essence, the for-profit college industry has seized on its high rates of minority enrollment in much the same way as the subprime mortgage industry pointed to growth in minority home ownership during the real estate boom, asserting that too many regulations would leave black and Hispanic students lacking in educational options.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541.html

TSat75
03-17-2014, 03:50 PM
Wildjoker - I must say I didn't even think of minorities (or classes in general) when I read about this. I saw two things - these schools are in the business of making money over education, and a disproportionate number of loans that are defaulted. The point, at least in my mind, is not that the loans are defaulted on - but why. Students from these schools are not provided what they paid for - an education respected by employers that will give them a let up - which they were seeking.
Maybe I'm naive - but I do not see this is as an attack on economic class. I see it more as a protective measure - like legislation on predatory lending. These "colleges/trade schools" are accepting more minorities and lower economic classes, not to HELP them out because the schools are such good citizens…they are doing so because they see $$$. They see federal aid…they don’t care who pays the tuition (the student, grants, loans) – as long as they are getting tuition payments (ie: Profit).
Then these kids (who yourself said were vulnerable based on their economic or social backgrounds) leave with a piece of paper that isn’t worth much more than their HS diploma.
Is it an easy way for them to get SOME sort of education. Yes.
Is it worth the price they are paying? No.
Why do they go? Because the schools prey on them for one reason - $$$
They could take that same student loan/grant money and go to a traditional community college or state school. Sure, they may not be able to get entry into some of the more prestigious schools, but for that same money, they can do better than “Mom & Pop’s Certification School”.
If a school is doing a good job preparing their students to make a decent living because A) their education curriculum is on par with what employers expect and B) their diplomas/degrees/certs are respected by industry hiring managers – then the students will be able to make a living and pay back their student loans (at least at the same rate as traditional school graduates). If the school cannot provide that foundation for the bulk of their students, then it will show in this metric and the school should not be rewarded for preying on students, making an insane profit, and graduating students who are in no better condition than they were when they started.
In short – students (especially vulnerable ones) should at least get what they paid for…and the government, who lends the money, should have a way to ensure the schools they are paying provide what they say they provide.
Just like you couldn’t buy a $500,000 house without the lender having some idea of what the house values at…and having it appraised…and is relatively assured you will be able to pay it back. And if the builder of said house has a bad reputation of building houses that on the surface are $500,000, but in 4 years, the foundation cracks, and the roof leaks…well, the lender will probably be leery of that builder in the future.
To me, that is all this is saying. If your school has a reputation of graduating students who are not ready to enter the workforce at the level you proclaim in your academic program synopsis, and yet you still charge the same $$$ for the program, than you are ripping people off – plain and simple.

Rusty Jones
03-18-2014, 12:15 PM
Thats the a stigma of the online schools. Kind of like prejudice or stereotyping people based on where they went to school. Elitist like a Harvard person looking down on an FSU grad. Thats the difference FSU and the online schools. Some people just can't make it to an actual college campus. Kind of like saying, "don't do online schools single parents who work full time because it is the most convenient for you, continue to stay poor and living off the government tete". But yes, some of those schools offer crap liberal arts degrees like web designing or photography. The artsy crap that if you are good, shouldn't need a college degree to be good.

A Harvard grad looking down on an FSU grad is not the same thing.

First off, if a Harvard grad is looking down on an FSU grad, the major likely has something to do with it. Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania is the #1 ranked business school in the nation. That said, someone with a business degree from UPenn will likely have more lucractive networking contacts than someone with a business degree from Harvard. Wharton School of Business is also the world's first and oldest business school, which probably would make it difficult for them to get knocked off of the #1 spot. Sloan School of Business at MIT is #2, and definitely earned that spot. As is the case with a Wharton grad, a Sloan graduate has more lucrative connections than someone with a business degree from Harvard.

However, when it comes to getting some entry level financial analyst job at the local corporate building downtown; a degree a from (your town here) State University is good enough. DeVry, University of Phoenix... definitely not.


Actually, thats public schools now. And the for-profit schools would prefer you to fail, most people would just repay to take the class than fight with the professor.

You're speculating and talking out of your ass. What I told you about for-profit schools caving and giving students higher grades when they threaten to leave is REAL. This is a common occurance that many students who have gone to these schools have spoken about.


Thats because the "non-profit", which i don't think there really are any of these, get their finances from other sources other than the government backed student loans. For-profit get 90% of the tuition paid through government backed loans. Do you think the Public (profit making school like FSU), Private (profit making like U of Florida), get all their money from trust fund babies who never use government back loans? There are scholarships, lottery winnings taxes, grants and other such sources of income the traditional schools get money from to lower the cost of education to a degree.

Sigh... the "you're no better than us" argument.

Do you have a business degree? I don't think you do. Maybe you might. I have an MBA, and I'm sure there are quite a few people here who have MBA's too. However, I bet I'm the only person here with an AACSB MBA.

Do you know what the difference is between a profit and a non-profit?

In the case of for-profit schools, there are owners. Owners who do not participate in the operation or management of the schools. In most cases, they're not sole proprietorships - they actually trade stock on Wall Street. Apollo Group, for example, is the corporation that owns University of Phoenix and Axia College. Apollo Group... trades stock on Wall Street.

In the case of non-profit schools, ALL of the tuition money is reinvested back into the school in order to pay staff, maintain the campus, fund research, etc, etc. There's no one behind the scenes pocketing money.

At least not legally.


Are you saying that if the School makes money, they are more conservative? Liberal schools like Harvard, MIT, Yale, UofF, Stanford are just conservative schools in disguise of liberal teachings? And when they raise their tuition every year just after the government raises the cap, do you think its because its become more expensive to teach the kids the inner working of liberalism, or because they know they can make more money? Now, remember that the tuition is going up more than inflation is, so do blame it of the FED taxing everyone through mandatory inflation.

No, this was in response to SJ saying that for-profit schools are conservative. My response was that this was the only extent to which they are. That is to say, not very... if at all, since that "extent" is pretty negligible. Quit trying to argue with everything, dude.


Well, if 47 of the 100 people that graduate from the for-profit schools can't find a job due to having crap degrees like web-design or photography because that is what most people go to for those kinds of degrees because its actually cheaper than a campus school, and 200 of the 1000 people who graduate from a normal campus school can't find jobs because they have more degrees offered, then of course it looks like for-profit schools look like the villain that is wasting more money than the other two types of schools. Although the 20% from the other traditional schools waste more per-captia and overall than the for-profit, the percentages workout in the favor for this story. Like I said, i believe this is the FNC spun story like the way libs did against AZ.

You're assuming that people with degrees from-profit schools tend to have them in "web design." Hilarious.

What was controversial a few years back, were employers with classified ads specifying the requirement for college degrees, and then saying things "DeVry and Phoenix grads need not apply." That actually got outlawed when your boy Obama pushed for legislation to employers from posting ads that show discrimination against the long term unemployed.


You do know that alot of "Nonprofit" and public universities are getting about as expensive as for profit schools right? Some employers view degrees from for profit schools unfavorably, some do not. It also has to do with experience as well.

And the ones who do not view them unfavorably probably don't, because they don't have as much ability to be selective.

I know that this isn't the case with the federal government, but then again... the federal government is probably the nation's most objective employer when it comes to hiring and promotion. I'm a federal employee, and I'm considering going for my doctorate... and it might not even be at an AACSB business school.


Why should the taxpayer fund education at public schools to people that bs degrees like women's lib or medieval dance?

I can agree with that, if there's no intent to become a teacher.


Prove it. Walden vs yale. No grants, no state funds, what is the price tuition paid out of pocket between for-profit, private, and public, so out of state costs.
For-profits: Walden, Devry, U of Phoenix, ITT.
Private: Yale, Brown, MIT, Harvard, U of FL, Stanford.
Public: FSU, UGA, UT, and so on.

You're using THE most prestigious public and private non-profit schools for this? That's like putting Superman in a fight against Punisher, in order to say that DC heroes are better than Marvel heroes.

Let's be realistic here: if Harvard or FSU was even an option for someone, they wouldn't be going to DeVry in the first place.

So we need to compare for-profit schools to places like... Old Dominion University. University of Maryland at the Eastern Shore. Eastern Connecticut State University. University of the Incarnate Word. Wesley College. Schools like THAT. ALL of which - by the way, have a greater chance of actually getting you a JOB (and a decent paying one at that) when you graduate.


I agree, its a stigma and bias against something they don't know. Figured you wouldn't be for this type of stereotyping.

No... these schools are known for providing shit education that doesn't prepare them for the jobs that they're seeking. This is exactly why I tell people to stay away from these schools. Get the better education from a REAL school, and spend LESS money doing it.


About colleges who's degrees don't produce a productive member of society. FSU's college of underwater basket weaving is going to fall under this cut too.

Can you provide me a link to that particular school's website?

Tell me something: do you have a degree from a for-profit school? Because this sounds like sour grapes to me.


Because this doesn't fully stop the worthless degrees, it just stops the people from getting gov backed loans on worthless degrees, mostly from online schools.

Which is the only thing that should matter from the taxpayer perspective.


Huh, no they don't. 90% of for-profit schools tuitions are from government backs school loans, not grants. There is $1trillion in outstanding college loans as it is. That is not from the For-profit schools who own just 8% of the college education business.

3748
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/business/economy/the-bane-and-the-boon-of-for-profit-colleges.html?_r=0

You didn't dispute anything I said with this.


If a college is regionally accredited, which is peer review right?

Uhh... what? "Peer review" is a process in which experts with doctorates review the findings and research methods used to come up with the conclusions, in order to determine accuracy of the information, and suitabilty for use in academia.

It has nothing to do with regional accreditation.


Why is it the governments job to say whether or not the school should get the loan that the student applied for and wants to waste on a crappy degree that won't net them a job? You know that these loans are not actually defaulting like the grants to people that don't pass right? The government will garnish your pay, and your tax returns until the loan is paid back, sometimes that means twice or three times as much as the original loan. So no tax money is truly being "wasted" when most of these loan rates are well more than the rate of inflation.

Because the government is the one GIVING these loans, that's why. If I run a bank, and you come up to me wanting $15,000 to buy a Ford Pinto; what in the FUCK do you think I'm going to tell you? Are you going to question whether or not it's my job to tell you "no?" Get the fuck outta here.


As I dug to gather more knowledge of for-profit schools, I find the reason behind possibly RJ's contempt and the Democrats targeting of these schools. Its IS about control. Control of minorities. For-profit schools offer the best and easiest way to educate minorities and has been accepting more and more minorities as traditional schools turn those away who can't play sports. These schools actually give the average minority from low income families a chance to be educated and have a degree and possibly move up in class and income level. Seeing this, in come the race baiters and hustlers who feared the old democratic slave master ideas that an educated slave is dangerous slave, they have started attacking the for-profit schools with absolutely zero basis to any claims that the for-profit schools target minorities out of deceptive practices.
What I find amazing is that this "civil-rights" leader is calling the blacks that choose to go to for-profit schools as "vulnerable and emotionally ill-prepared", and no one feels that his racial slam of low income blacks is an issue.

This is too freaking hilarious. Having a minority being educated and defaulting on their loan is the same in the dems and "civil-rights" leaders eyes as when they pushed to loosen the lending practices of banks so minorities could get a home? Yet the knowledge and the degree can never be taken away, but the home can be. So giving a minority something that could be taken away was ok, but knowledge, nope, can't fight for that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541.html

Oh, boy; here we go. A conservative pretending to care about minorities, while using shit that's designed to win arguments... and will not convincing anyone of anything. This shit gets old. Just stop it, dude.

CYBERFX1024
03-18-2014, 01:09 PM
[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]A Harvard grad looking down on an FSU grad is not the same thing.
First off, if a Harvard grad is looking down on an FSU grad, the major likely has something to do with it. Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania is the #1 ranked business school in the nation. That said, someone with a business degree from UPenn will likely have more lucractive networking contacts than someone with a business degree from Harvard. Wharton School of Business is also the world's first and oldest business school, which probably would make it difficult for them to get knocked off of the #1 spot. Sloan School of Business at MIT is #2, and definitely earned that spot. As is the case with a Wharton grad, a Sloan graduate has more lucrative connections than someone with a business degree from Harvard. However, when it comes to getting some entry level financial analyst job at the local corporate building downtown; a degree a from (your town here) State University is good enough. DeVry, University of Phoenix... definitely not.[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]

True, I have gotten looks by people I work with when I tell them what school I am going to. But I don't care about their looks or what they think. UOP is a good school with some really good instructors in their field. I am going their to get my second bachelors, this time in a field that I am actually in (IT). The majority of us who are actually going to UOP are those of us who are "Working Professionals" trying to advance in our career and such wise. The majority of us recognize that a degree alone won't increase your chances of getting a good. But it's what experience you bring to the table, and in my case what certifications you have.

[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]You're speculating and talking out of your ass. What I told you about for-profit schools caving and giving students higher grades when they threaten to leave is REAL. This is a common occurance that many students who have gone to these schools have spoken about.[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]

I have never seen any of this happening and I have been going for over a year now.


[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]Do you have a business degree? I don't think you do. Maybe you might. I have an MBA, and I'm sure there are quite a few people here who have MBA's too. However, I bet I'm the only person here with an AACSB MBA.[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]

I have a Bachelor of Business degree and I am getting a Bachelor of Science degree now.

[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]Do you know what the difference is between a profit and a non-profit?
In the case of for-profit schools, there are owners. Owners who do not participate in the operation or management of the schools. In most cases, they're not sole proprietorships - they actually trade stock on Wall Street. Apollo Group, for example, is the corporation that owns University of Phoenix and Axia College. Apollo Group... trades stock on Wall Street.[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]

Yes, I know the difference between the two. Do you? You are wrong in a couple of aspects. When a Non-Profit school has proceeds yes they do put some of it back into the college. But the majority of that goes to the higher ups in the administration with their grossly inflated salaries and perks.

[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]In the case of non-profit schools, ALL of the tuition money is reinvested back into the school in order to pay staff, maintain the campus, fund research, etc, etc. There's no one behind the scenes pocketing money. At least not legally.[QUOTE=Rusty Jones;670784]



No, this was in response to SJ saying that for-profit schools are conservative. My response was that this was the only extent to which they are. That is to say, not very... if at all, since that "extent" is pretty negligible. Quit trying to argue with everything, dude.

So you do know that people pocket the money through their high salaries and perks, also through corruption.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2014, 01:38 PM
Wildjoker - I must say I didn't even think of minorities (or classes in general) when I read about this. I saw two things - these schools are in the business of making money over education, and a disproportionate number of loans that are defaulted. The point, at least in my mind, is not that the loans are defaulted on - but why. Students from these schools are not provided what they paid for - an education respected by employers that will give them a let up - which they were seeking.Thats not the schools fault. The schools who have accreditation are peer reviewed about their curriculum, so their education service is on par with the other schools. If the employers have a problem, that is their fault, not the students or the schools.

Maybe I'm naive - but I do not see this is as an attack on economic class. I see it more as a protective measure - like legislation on predatory lending. These "colleges/trade schools" are accepting more minorities and lower economic classes, not to HELP them out because the schools are such good citizens…they are doing so because they see $$$. They see federal aid…they don’t care who pays the tuition (the student, grants, loans) – as long as they are getting tuition payments (ie: Profit).You have some serious naivety if you don't think the other schools aren't doing the exact same thing. They just so happen to get more money from sports, alumni, and...oh yes, federal grants for research and taxes from states they collect from lottery winnings. These schools like DeVry and ITT who promise jobs for their graduates, these schools can't keep sending businesses low educated graduates and still keep a decent reputation with their partners in the business world. Just like everything in "for-profit" world, if you don't produce a quality product, you aren't going to get new customers. For-profit schools find the best way to educate people with the lowest cost to themselves. Every school raises the price of tuition to the amount the government is willing to back. Some colleges cut the price to attract some more kids, but in the end, its all the same.

Then these kids (who yourself said were vulnerable based on their economic or social backgrounds) leave with a piece of paper that isn’t worth much more than their HS diploma. No, I didn't say that. The civil-rights activist said that. I find it amazingly hypocritical that a black guy can say such a thing and no one claims racism. If a white guy or the GOP was trying to push this type of regulations, the liberal media would be all over them like they were when the banks didn't want to give out the subprime mortgages. The difference between education and a house, when those "high-risk" loans for homes were made, the house has no possible way of increasing the person's stand in life or ability to rise in work. Plus, a college education roughly costs around $50k at most for the BS degrees. This is by far less than the home loans of $70-300k the subprime mortgages that were given out.

Is it an easy way for them to get SOME sort of education. Yes.
Is it worth the price they are paying? No. In what way is an education not worth the price? I know many people who get their BS in accounting or business management and get their promotions for their education. On the flip side, I know people who got their education in web-design who still work at a gas station.

Why do they go? Because the schools prey on them for one reason - $$$In what way have they been preyed on? Offering an education in a way they don't waste time traveling to a campus? Accepting everyone? Remember, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Giving the people the opportunity to people isn't the problem. Its the responsibility of the kids to get the loan, use that loan on a degree that means something, or at the least, the banks to deny such loans without the student showing a degree plan. We in the military can't get TA for a BS without a degree plan. Its not the schools that are at fault for other people making bad choices.

They could take that same student loan/grant money and go to a traditional community college or state school. Sure, they may not be able to get entry into some of the more prestigious schools, but for that same money, they can do better than “Mom & Pop’s Certification School”.You have any proof that a community college is better than say Walden? Sure, I will agree, some for-profit schools are trash, and most degrees are crap. Penn-Foster says they offer 9,000 degrees....can you think of 9,000 jobs that need a degree?

If a school is doing a good job preparing their students to make a decent living because A) their education curriculum is on par with what employers expect andIf the school says they will work to get you a job when you graduate, do you think they aren't teaching you what their business friends are looking for?

B) their diplomas/degrees/certs are respected by industry hiring managers – then the students will be able to make a living and pay back their student loans (at least at the same rate as traditional school graduates). If the school cannot provide that foundation for the bulk of their students, then it will show in this metric and the school should not be rewarded for preying on students, making an insane profit, and graduating students who are in no better condition than they were when they started. Do you have a number for these "insane profits"? Like I said before, most of the traditional schools have many other ways of making profit. TX and AL colleges rake in over $23 MILLION just from football proceeds.

In short – students (especially vulnerable ones) should at least get what they paid for…and the government, who lends the money, should have a way to ensure the schools they are paying provide what they say they provide.What do you mean by "vulnerable"? Are you saying because they are poor or minorities they can't figure out how to decide on a good college? Or that they have no self-control to pass up on what they see on TV and follow it blindly? I agree they should get what they pay for, but just because you choose to spend $50 on gas station sunglasses, its not the fault of the gas station for selling you something that is crap. Not all degrees from these schools are crap, but its not the schools fault if you want to take a class in photography or web-design or women's studies or liberal arts and then you can't find a worth wild job to pay back the loan. Buyer beware.
http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/#

Just like you couldn’t buy a $500,000 house without the lender having some idea of what the house values at…and having it appraised…and is relatively assured you will be able to pay it back. And if the builder of said house has a bad reputation of building houses that on the surface are $500,000, but in 4 years, the foundation cracks, and the roof leaks…well, the lender will probably be leery of that builder in the future.I agree. Colleges shouldn't be offering crap degrees. The government shouldn't be backing them either. The colleges are raising the price of tuition AFTER the government raises the cap of what they back. If the government didn't have sally mae, the bubble for tuition wouldn't be outrageously climbing faster than the housing or medical insurance bubbles climbed.

To me, that is all this is saying. If your school has a reputation of graduating students who are not ready to enter the workforce at the level you proclaim in your academic program synopsis, and yet you still charge the same $$$ for the program, than you are ripping people off – plain and simple.In what proof does anyone claim that the degrees for accounting from say Walden online course is any less than USF online or FSU or Harvard? These colleges grade each other, and being accredited is not something simple to attain. You are saying they are crap cause the employer is saying the employee is crap. That doesn't make the school crap. I certainly didn't know crap after tech school, but after OJT, I was very proficient on what I was doing in no time.

Rusty Jones
03-18-2014, 01:42 PM
True, I have gotten looks by people I work with when I tell them what school I am going to. But I don't care about their looks or what they think. UOP is a good school with some really good instructors in their field. I am going their to get my second bachelors, this time in a field that I am actually in (IT). The majority of us who are actually going to UOP are those of us who are "Working Professionals" trying to advance in our career and such wise. The majority of us recognize that a degree alone won't increase your chances of getting a good. But it's what experience you bring to the table, and in my case what certifications you have.

Your choice. At least you know what you're getting into.


I have never seen any of this happening and I have been going for over a year now.

Probably because you've never been in the position to use that leverage.


I have a Bachelor of Business degree and I am getting a Bachelor of Science degree now.

Nice, but that question was directed toward WJ5.


Yes, I know the difference between the two.

No, you don't.


Do you?

Yep. You don't.


You are wrong in a couple of aspects.

Oh, please.


When a Non-Profit school has proceeds yes they do put some of it back into the college. But the majority of that goes to the higher ups in the administration with their grossly inflated salaries and perks.

If you knew as much as you claimed to know, you'd know that inflated salaries and perks are NOT considered "profits." Have you ever taken an accounting class at a REAL school? I suggest you do, before speaking on this again.


So you do know that people pocket the money through their high salaries and perks, also through corruption.

Which has nothing to do with the status of the organization. The law is the law, even if people break the law. Right?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2014, 03:27 PM
A Harvard grad looking down on an FSU grad is not the same thing.

First off, if a Harvard grad is looking down on an FSU grad, the major likely has something to do with it. Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania is the #1 ranked business school in the nation. That said, someone with a business degree from UPenn will likely have more lucractive networking contacts than someone with a business degree from Harvard. Wharton School of Business is also the world's first and oldest business school, which probably would make it difficult for them to get knocked off of the #1 spot. Sloan School of Business at MIT is #2, and definitely earned that spot. As is the case with a Wharton grad, a Sloan graduate has more lucrative connections than someone with a business degree from Harvard.

However, when it comes to getting some entry level financial analyst job at the local corporate building downtown; a degree a from (your town here) State University is good enough. DeVry, University of Phoenix... definitely not.And what is the criteria to make those schools the rank they are? Other than networking and longevity? What does one school provide over the other? Yes, they probably have more people in the fortune 500 businesses, but how many of them are a top failing companies like GM or airline businesses? Why does DeVry not get you into the door of a local corporate building?


You're speculating and talking out of your ass. What I told you about for-profit schools caving and giving students higher grades when they threaten to leave is REAL. This is a common occurance that many students who have gone to these schools have spoken about.Then the proof would be in your link. Most people don't want confirmation. Some will fight. Even public schools (k-12) cave to parents disagreeing with their kids teachers, so I don't think that is a problem set solely for-profit colleges. But hey, I guess if you are right, the only people disputing their grades are the ones that graduate. That is one of the big arguments against for-profit is the low graduation rate, especially among minorities which was about 15% I think.


Sigh... the "you're no better than us" argument.

Do you have a business degree? I don't think you do. Maybe you might. I have an MBA, and I'm sure there are quite a few people here who have MBA's too. However, I bet I'm the only person here with an AACSB MBA.And this ads something to the argument how? Other than showing my first point is pretty accurate that its a stigma against for-profit schools from those that went to traditional schools.


Do you know what the difference is between a profit and a non-profit?

In the case of for-profit schools, there are owners. Owners who do not participate in the operation or management of the schools. In most cases, they're not sole proprietorships - they actually trade stock on Wall Street. Apollo Group, for example, is the corporation that owns University of Phoenix and Axia College. Apollo Group... trades stock on Wall Street.

In the case of non-profit schools, ALL of the tuition money is reinvested back into the school in order to pay staff, maintain the campus, fund research, etc, etc. There's no one behind the scenes pocketing money.

At least not legally.Yes, I know the difference. And I see its semantics really. The professors pocket money. The dean pockets money. Administration pockets money. There is money, LOTS of money being made in "non-profit" schools. A lot of the highest paid public workers for states are part of the coaching world in the NCAA.


You're assuming that people with degrees from-profit schools tend to have them in "web design." Hilarious.

What was controversial a few years back, were employers with classified ads specifying the requirement for college degrees, and then saying things "DeVry and Phoenix grads need not apply." That actually got outlawed when your boy Obama pushed for legislation to employers from posting ads that show discrimination against the long term unemployed.Yes, that is an assumption on my part. Since no-one is reporting on what degrees don't yield adequate returns for the money spent on them, all I can do is go off the numbers already out there. I could have just said
1. Drama / Theater
Starting Salary: $26,000.
Unemployment Rate: 7.8 percent.
But then I will be leaving out the rest. So I will just post the top 10 worst paying jobs and I can bet I will find every single one of them in a "for-profit" college. But yeah, web-design isn't one of them. My bad.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/29/10-worst-paying-college-majors/


You're using THE most prestigious public and private non-profit schools for this? That's like putting Superman in a fight against Punisher, in order to say that DC heroes are better than Marvel heroes.LOVE the analogy. Except the punisher can pull out kryptonite and destroy Superman. But hey, if you don't believe me, here is a website which doesn't include state funds, grants, and taxes subsidizing public schools.


Let's be realistic here: if Harvard or FSU was even an option for someone, they wouldn't be going to DeVry in the first place.Unless they can't afford Harvard or FSU. FSU costs $34,000 for tuition and you usually have to move away to go there. Harvard is $62,000. Walden is $32,000. Can you guess which one has no tax rebates, federal government grants for studies, or revenue from the athletics departments?



So we need to compare for-profit schools to places like... Old Dominion University. University of Maryland at the Eastern Shore. Eastern Connecticut State University. University of the Incarnate Word. Wesley College. Schools like THAT. ALL of which - by the way, have a greater chance of actually getting you a JOB (and a decent paying one at that) when you graduate.I am not fluent on the for-profit school names, which one in the list was it? Cherry picking is fine i guess, I couldn't find the prestigious for-profit school listings, so I just went with one that gets people jobs. You know there are over 126 for-profit schools right. And they only have 8% of the college market.
http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/#

No... these schools are known for providing shit education that doesn't prepare them for the jobs that they're seeking. This is exactly why I tell people to stay away from these schools. Get the better education from a REAL school, and spend LESS money doing it.Stay away from Devry or ITT I agree with, but still really no one has shown anything to say these graduates of the for-profit schools preform any worse than the traditional schools. We know for-profit schools in the K-12 arena way out preform public schools, where is the disconnect when it comes to colleges? For-profit accounting from walden vs accounting from FSU. Anyone know the difference in curriculum or scoring of test? Just saying a lie long enough, you really do start to believe it. As for the costs, the individual may get stuck with higher cost, but that is what colleges are for really, individuals to become their own and make it on their own. But when you factor in the cost to the collective people, the thing that you are so totally against, the numbers don't add up. The public loses its money from those that drop out of public schools or who are on pell grants, not government backed loans. The government will ALWAYS get its money back from these loans. The tax payer doesn't lose a dime unless the the borrower dies.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/myths-for-profit-schools.aspx#slide=1

Can you provide me a link to that particular school's website?Wow, really? You never heard of "underwater basket weaving" as a joke degree for pilots? You really need me to provide proof of this degree? Well, then I will make this basic for you.
2. Anthropology / Archaeology
Starting Salary: $28,000.
Unemployment Rate: 10.5 percent.
^^^This is a degree that can't repay its loans. Are you in favor for this to be cut from colleges to save them from being able to "prey" on those that like to dig in the dirt?


Tell me something: do you have a degree from a for-profit school? Because this sounds like sour grapes to me.No, I am against the government picking winners and losers and then trying to claim the free-market has failed. The traditional schools already have leg up on for-profit schools, but are losing share of the business and with 99% of law-makers coming from traditional schools and the dems leading the charge, I can't help but to see the motive behind why they are trying to squeeze these schools that offer more chance to minorities to become educated.


Which is the only thing that should matter from the taxpayer perspective.Then get rid of the subsidies for the public schools that pay their football coaches millions of dollars. Get rid of pell grants which waste millions of dollars because of drop outs. Get rid of all state funds for Public schools such as Kent State University at East Liverpool in Ohio, Texas Southern University in Houston and Rogers State University in Claremore, Okla., all have six-year graduation rates of 12 percent or less among full-time students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Private schools have their share as well with schools such as Martin University in Indianapolis and Allen University in Columbia, S.C., boasting graduation rates of 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively. There are tons more ways to save tax payer money before this. And since the government stipends your paycheck to make you pay your government backed loans, the tax payer isn't really the one who are losing money here. A government backed student loan is like the STAR card on base, they will get your money, even if you aren't in the military. Ask my Ex wife.


You didn't dispute anything I said with this.
Except the notion that for-profit schools are what should be focused on instead of the rest of the colleges.


Uhh... what? "Peer review" is a process in which experts with doctorates review the findings and research methods used to come up with the conclusions, in order to determine accuracy of the information, and suitabilty for use in academia.

It has nothing to do with regional accreditation.Right, I had the wrong terminology. Should have used "evaluated". Point still stands. The accreditation isn't coming from the school, its from a 3rd party that evaluates all the schools the same based on standards.
(Sorry, I remember now that terminology is more important than substance to liberals and reading between the lines is only voluntary when it means they can find some racism in what was being said.)


Because the government is the one GIVING these loans, that's why. If I run a bank, and you come up to me wanting $15,000 to buy a Ford Pinto; what in the FUCK do you think I'm going to tell you? Are you going to question whether or not it's my job to tell you "no?" Get the fuck outta here.Wrong again. Its the banks that gives the loans. The government says they will pay the bank if the person defaults, the the government goes after the borrower and garnishes their pay till pretty much the day they die. Without government backing these loans, the price for homes wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. The price on college tuition wouldn't be going up and much as it does. If the bank is guaranteed to get its money from the endless printing press that is the FED, why wouldn't they give out the loans. IF the government didn't say they would back the loans and the banks say "what the hell", do you think colleges would raise the rates faster than inflation?
http://collegecompletion.chronicle.com

Oh, boy; here we go. A conservative pretending to care about minorities, while using shit that's designed to win arguments... and will not convincing anyone of anything. This shit gets old. Just stop it, dude.Conservatives (not the same as KKK democrat conservatives) have always cared about minorities. And again, I am a libertarian, different than the GOP. And treating everyone equally. I find it funny how torn the dems are over this proposal, since half are question why they are being so obvious in the way they will take a chance for their base of poor and minorities to have an opportunity to go to college. And the other half that fear their base of the poor and minorities will no longer be ignorant lofo voters to which the dems will have to find more dead people to vote for them. You know full well that if this was coming from the GOP, the liberals and NAACP and NOW and La Raza would be screaming racism from the roof tops for the GOP introducing regulations that are mostly going to affect minorities and women.

But I did notice how you ignored this and just brushed it off without a single refute to the claim of there being absolutely no evidence of targeting minorities out of deceptive practices.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2014, 03:39 PM
Your choice. At least you know what you're getting into.So are you saying that poor and minority kids, single parents and women don't? What makes him the expert and not in need of a civil-right activist going to the government to bat for him? Are poor minorities just so incompetent that they need an ever watchful eye over them to "protect" them from danger?


If you knew as much as you claimed to know, you'd know that inflated salaries and perks are NOT considered "profits." Have you ever taken an accounting class at a REAL school? I suggest you do, before speaking on this again.

and there is the elitism that you denied there being. Thank you, and have a good day.

TSat75
03-18-2014, 04:57 PM
I'm not saying that people should not have a choice where you go to school. If you want to go to a school that basically sells degrees, go for it. I just don't think the government should be subsidizing those loans with taxpayer dollars. I said in my earlier posts that I would think (without having hard numbers) that established schools such as DevRy and ITT would probably meet the metric...the cutoff.

The schools that should be sweating are the mom and pop "degrees r us" scools. The ones that nationally accredited, but not regionally accredited. I think there is a lot of middle ground that will be "safe" based on the metric. If your school produces educated alumni that can use the education they paid for to get a job on par with their degree qualifications, then paying the student loans back will not be a problem. The default rate would be about the same as the majority of schools. But, if your school produces graduates that end up in low paying jobs and cannot pay back their government backed student loans...then the taxpayers pick up the tab.

This, to me, is just the government telling schools - profit or not - provide an education that will A) prepare the graduates for the workforce in their degree'd industry AND B) provide what is paid for.

All schools make money. No doubt. But - if you go to a school that provides an industry respected education and degree, and you go out and have opportunities to use that degree as expected...then great. But if you go to a school that does not provide industry respected education and degrees, then you will have a much harder time making it (and by virtue of statistics - this means that more will fail than make it - more will default on their government backed loans than others). And that is your choice - as an American - you should have the freedom to give your hard earned money to whoever you want. If you want to go Ma & Pa's accounting school...go for it. But should the government provide financial aid to the school and the student to do so? Or should that tab be on you?

If your credit sucks, it is hard to get a loan. If your product sucks (graduates who cannot make it in the workforce of their "education"), then you should not get financial aid for it.

Now, if the school wants to finance each student - if they trust their curriculum enough to know that the students will leave their school and flourish in their chosen field - then let the school pick up the tab...and risk. But if you want to use taxpayer dollars...pell grants, subsidized student loans, etc...then your students need to exhibit the ability to get good careers and pay back their student loans. Yes, you can't blame the school if Student A does not pay back their loan because they don't want to (maybe they like liens, no tax returns, etc...) - but if a higher % of your graduates show that tendency over other schools, than there is a problem with the school.

This isn't about what schools are good or bad...it isn't about taking away choice. It is about using government dollars to fund schools that have proven (via a metric) that their degree results in a disproportionate number of loan defaults when compared to other schools.

TSat75
03-18-2014, 05:26 PM
I think the disconnect is here that you are talking about schools like Walden and comparing it to this metric. You are defending the school - but do you even know if that school falls below the metric?

I'm thinking, and I honestly don't have time to look this up, that the majority of schools that fall below the cutoff (and as the legislation says...maintains below the cutoff) deserve to be down there. I imagine a lot of schools will fall into the gray area in the middle - above the metric.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2014, 08:54 PM
I'm not saying that people should not have a choice where you go to school. If you want to go to a school that basically sells degrees, go for it. I just don't think the government should be subsidizing those loans with taxpayer dollars. I said in my earlier posts that I would think (without having hard numbers) that established schools such as DevRy and ITT would probably meet the metric...the cutoff. They aren't. If someone defaults. the government goes after the person to recoup the money and usually the borrower will end up paying well more than the original borrowed amount.


The schools that should be sweating are the mom and pop "degrees r us" scools. The ones that nationally accredited, but not regionally accredited. I think there is a lot of middle ground that will be "safe" based on the metric. If your school produces educated alumni that can use the education they paid for to get a job on par with their degree qualifications, then paying the student loans back will not be a problem. The default rate would be about the same as the majority of schools. But, if your school produces graduates that end up in low paying jobs and cannot pay back their government backed student loans...then the taxpayers pick up the tab. Like these jobs ...
10. Music
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 9.2 percent.

9. Film Video and Photographic Arts
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 12.9 percent.

8. Liberal Arts
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 9.2 percent.

7. Psychology
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 7.6 percent.

6. Philosophy/Religious Studies
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 10.8 percent.

5. Social Work
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 6.6 percent.

4. Fine Arts
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 12.6 percent.

3. Physical Fitness / Parks Recreation
Starting Salary: $30,000.
Unemployment Rate: 8.3 percent.

2. Anthropology / Archaeology
Starting Salary: $28,000.
Unemployment Rate: 10.5 percent.

1. Drama / Theater
Starting Salary: $26,000.
Unemployment Rate: 7.8 percent.

These are the top 10 worst paying and highest unemployment jobs out there. Guess where we can find them. At public schools subsidized by government. Private schools subsidized by government. And those schools get money directly from tax payers. Unlike the defaulting loans which the government will recoup from the borrowers.


This, to me, is just the government telling schools - profit or not - provide an education that will A) prepare the graduates for the workforce in their degree'd industry AND B) provide what is paid for.A school can't guarantee that.


All schools make money. No doubt. But - if you go to a school that provides an industry respected education and degree, and you go out and have opportunities to use that degree as expected...then great. But if you go to a school that does not provide industry respected education and degrees, then you will have a much harder time making it (and by virtue of statistics - this means that more will fail than make it - more will default on their government backed loans than others). And that is your choice - as an American - you should have the freedom to give your hard earned money to whoever you want. If you want to go Ma & Pa's accounting school...go for it. But should the government provide financial aid to the school and the student to do so? Or should that tab be on you?The government never provides the aide, or repays the banks till AFTER you default. The government does pay upfront to all the traditional schools however who provide degrees that don't produce a competent worker.


If your credit sucks, it is hard to get a loan. If your product sucks (graduates who cannot make it in the workforce of their "education"), then you should not get financial aid for it.So really, its the banks job to approve or deny a loan for the education, not the school, like they would do for a house. How about we just get rid of government backed loans for school all together so that was banks won't give out too much, and schools will not charge the maximum they can get from these loans? Then the price of education will come down and getting a degree in liberal arts based off what a bank is willing to finance will be able to be paid off through a $30k a year job, even if its not in liberal arts?


Now, if the school wants to finance each student - if they trust their curriculum enough to know that the students will leave their school and flourish in their chosen field - then let the school pick up the tab...and risk. But if you want to use taxpayer dollars...pell grants, subsidized student loans, etc...then your students need to exhibit the ability to get good careers and pay back their student loans. Yes, you can't blame the school if Student A does not pay back their loan because they don't want to (maybe they like liens, no tax returns, etc...) - but if a higher % of your graduates show that tendency over other schools, than there is a problem with the school.Then what are you going to do about the fail rates that will rise from all school sectors? Pell grants already have a huge fail rate, but you don't see anyone looking to gut that program.


This isn't about what schools are good or bad...it isn't about taking away choice. It is about using government dollars to fund schools that have proven (via a metric) that their degree results in a disproportionate number of loan defaults when compared to other schools.And there is no proof in why their graduates are not being hired or paid a sufficient wage to pay back the loans. As I discussed with RJ, other than networking or fellow alumni, what makes one school accredited by the same people another school was accredited by not producing the same amount of workers? No one, other than the civil rights activist who blame the defaults on dropouts has given any reason why people are not able to pay back the loans.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-18-2014, 09:00 PM
I think the disconnect is here that you are talking about schools like Walden and comparing it to this metric. You are defending the school - but do you even know if that school falls below the metric?

I'm thinking, and I honestly don't have time to look this up, that the majority of schools that fall below the cutoff (and as the legislation says...maintains below the cutoff) deserve to be down there. I imagine a lot of schools will fall into the gray area in the middle - above the metric.

I agree. Not all colleges, public - private - or for-profit are quality schools. We harp on DeVry and ITT for being the bad schools, but what about the other 125? There are bad public and private schools as well, does anyone lump in all colleges in with them? Kind of hard to when a hiring manager will always hire those that are alumni brothers/sisters with no matter what their grade were in school. Hell, we think Obama is a genius just because he went to Harvard, yet no one has seen his grades, they just say he went to Harvard.

sandsjames
03-18-2014, 10:05 PM
All these stats and shit are too much. The point is the government shouldn't be funding any of this shit. College is an option. Grants are proven to be a waste of money. And if anyone believes that any of the major schools give a shit about your education then you've lost your mind.

To add to that, if schools weren't in it for the money, you wouldn't be required to take the electives. Nothing but a money grab.

Even for the students, it's not about an education. It's about a degree. The education portion of college was gone many years ago.

Then, you graduate, get your degree, and still can't find a job, even if you went to a "good" school. 50% of graduates under the age of 30 are jobless, or can't find a job related to their major.

AJBIGJ
03-19-2014, 11:30 AM
I think we need to refine the way we view education, especially of the post-secondary variety. Right now, the common worldview (in this country) is that pursuing higher education is near-mandatory, this brings about a sense of entitlement to it that draws in government like moths to a flame. It's also developing a major economic bubble (in student loan debt) where when it bursts, the housing bubble will feel like a gentle breeze by comparison. The fact is, there are a lot of degree fields that are by their own nature quite impractical and frivolous. I don't have a problem with colleges and universities offering such, put to create the illusion that it is a "necessity for success" is shamefully misleading. Our societal awareness of the fact is lackluster at best. If you have not looked into Mike Rowe videos on Youtube I highly recommend it. I think our cop out paradigm of "Work Smarter, Not Harder" will become very detrimental to us economically very soon, because someone out there has to "Work Hard" to have a productive economy, it's the nature of the beast.

Rusty Jones
03-19-2014, 12:09 PM
And what is the criteria to make those schools the rank they are? Other than networking and longevity?

Some criteria I know, some I don't. But the "how" and "why" isn't important. Only the "what" is. And the "what" is this: employers view degrees from for-profit schools unfavorably. And it would be in your best interest to choose your school accordingly, instead of wondering "how" and "why" they don't like for-profit schools.


What does one school provide over the other?

A greater likelihood of finding a job having to do with your major; especially one that isn't normally filled by those with only a high school diploma.


Yes, they probably have more people in the fortune 500 businesses, but how many of them are a top failing companies like GM or airline businesses?

Which supports employer's concerns even more. If certain management positions can be too much for even those who went to a decent business school to handle, why in the HELL would I hire someone from Keller?


Why does DeVry not get you into the door of a local corporate building?

See my first paragraph of this post.


Then the proof would be in your link. Most people don't want confirmation. Some will fight. Even public schools (k-12) cave to parents disagreeing with their kids teachers, so I don't think that is a problem set solely for-profit colleges. But hey, I guess if you are right, the only people disputing their grades are the ones that graduate. That is one of the big arguments against for-profit is the low graduation rate, especially among minorities which was about 15% I think.

In the case of public schools, they're not "caving." It normally involves review from school officials, to determine whether or not the parents were correct. Sort of like reviewing a play in football. That's not the same as "caving," when they feel that they're about to lose a customer.


And this ads something to the argument how? Other than showing my first point is pretty accurate that its a stigma against for-profit schools from those that went to traditional schools.

I'm bringing out the credentials. Let's see yours.


Yes, I know the difference. And I see its semantics really. The professors pocket money. The dean pockets money. Administration pockets money. There is money, LOTS of money being made in "non-profit" schools. A lot of the highest paid public workers for states are part of the coaching world in the NCAA.

No, it's NOT semantics. If you know your accounting, what is and is not profit is cut and dry. Paying faculty is part of the cost of running the school. Not everyone will agree on how much the faculty should be paid, but no matter how much it is... it's still not "profit."


LOVE the analogy. Except the punisher can pull out kryptonite and destroy Superman. But hey, if you don't believe me, here is a website which doesn't include state funds, grants, and taxes subsidizing public schools.

Except if "pulling out some Kryptonite" was really that simple, Superman would be getting his ass kicked all over the place by every non-Kryptonian. Not everyone you hand a pair of nunchucks to knows how to use them effectively, and I doubt the Punisher could use Krytonite effectively like Lex Luthor or Joker could.

The point still stands... you're attempting to discredit my cost argument by comparing for-profit schools to Ivy League schools.


Unless they can't afford Harvard or FSU. FSU costs $34,000 for tuition and you usually have to move away to go there. Harvard is $62,000. Walden is $32,000. Can you guess which one has no tax rebates, federal government grants for studies, or revenue from the athletics departments?

And if cost is a factor, then they need to attend the local (Your city here) State University; or the University of (Your state here) at (Your city here).

For the record, FSU is not a chump school by any means. I bet most of us here couldn't get in. But, let's go with FSU anyway. Do you know how you could easily chip off a good quarter of that $34,000 tuition?

By going to a community college first, and then transferring over after getting the associate's. And you're still much better off, both financially and in terms of job prospects.


I am not fluent on the for-profit school names, which one in the list was it? Cherry picking is fine i guess, I couldn't find the prestigious for-profit school listings, so I just went with one that gets people jobs. You know there are over 126 for-profit schools right. And they only have 8% of the college market.

Never NEVER use "prestigious" and "for profit" in the same sentence. It's an oxymoron.


No, I am against the government picking winners and losers and then trying to claim the free-market has failed.

And the government enforces this by choosing where to put its money. In other words, it's really a "yes" from you and not a "no."


The traditional schools already have leg up on for-profit schools, but are losing share of the business and with 99% of law-makers coming from traditional schools and the dems leading the charge, I can't help but to see the motive behind why they are trying to squeeze these schools that offer more chance to minorities to become educated.

Okay, and who are the Republican and Libertarian lawmakers with degrees from for-profit schools? Please, do tell.


Then get rid of the subsidies for the public schools that pay their football coaches millions of dollars. Get rid of pell grants which waste millions of dollars because of drop outs. Get rid of all state funds for Public schools such as Kent State University at East Liverpool in Ohio, Texas Southern University in Houston and Rogers State University in Claremore, Okla., all have six-year graduation rates of 12 percent or less among full-time students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Private schools have their share as well with schools such as Martin University in Indianapolis and Allen University in Columbia, S.C., boasting graduation rates of 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively. There are tons more ways to save tax payer money before this. And since the government stipends your paycheck to make you pay your government backed loans, the tax payer isn't really the one who are losing money here. A government backed student loan is like the STAR card on base, they will get your money, even if you aren't in the military. Ask my Ex wife.

But at least those who graduate from those schools will have a much easier time finding a job than those with degrees from for-profit schools.

And the government will NOT always get its money back. There are people who've been in default on their loans since before we were born.


Except the notion that for-profit schools are what should be focused on instead of the rest of the colleges.

Why not? They're the ones who charge exorbitant tuition, while providing a degree that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.


Right, I had the wrong terminology. Should have used "evaluated". Point still stands. The accreditation isn't coming from the school, its from a 3rd party that evaluates all the schools the same based on standards.
(Sorry, I remember now that terminology is more important than substance to liberals and reading between the lines is only voluntary when it means they can find some racism in what was being said.)

If I knew what you meant, I would have responded accordingly. But I guess conservatives might want to look up these cool new terms and phrases before adding it to their vocabulary. It will save them from looking like idiots.


Wrong again. Its the banks that gives the loans. The government says they will pay the bank if the person defaults, the the government goes after the borrower and garnishes their pay till pretty much the day they die. Without government backing these loans, the price for homes wouldn't have gone up as much as they did. The price on college tuition wouldn't be going up and much as it does. If the bank is guaranteed to get its money from the endless printing press that is the FED, why wouldn't they give out the loans. IF the government didn't say they would back the loans and the banks say "what the hell", do you think colleges would raise the rates faster than inflation?

Either way, the tax payer's dime is still at stake here. That's the point.


Conservatives (not the same as KKK democrat conservatives) have always cared about minorities. And again, I am a libertarian, different than the GOP. And treating everyone equally. I find it funny how torn the dems are over this proposal, since half are question why they are being so obvious in the way they will take a chance for their base of poor and minorities to have an opportunity to go to college. And the other half that fear their base of the poor and minorities will no longer be ignorant lofo voters to which the dems will have to find more dead people to vote for them. You know full well that if this was coming from the GOP, the liberals and NAACP and NOW and La Raza would be screaming racism from the roof tops for the GOP introducing regulations that are mostly going to affect minorities and women.

This is load of crap. The only reason that there's even any outrage from the GOP on this in the first place, is because it's coming from Obama. Obama can tell you that eating yellow snow is bad for you, the GOP will argue how GOOD it is for you.

This was a general concern among people LONG before Obama took office; before it was even a political thing... where people of all races and political beliefs who've experienced for-profits schools were voicing their concern. Well, the current state of the economy is forcing whoever is in office - which, in this case, happens to be a Democrat - to take action.


But I did notice how you ignored this and just brushed it off without a single refute to the claim of there being absolutely no evidence of targeting minorities out of deceptive practices.


So are you saying that poor and minority kids, single parents and women don't? What makes him the expert and not in need of a civil-right activist going to the government to bat for him? Are poor minorities just so incompetent that they need an ever watchful eye over them to "protect" them from danger?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And it's not BECAUSE of their race, either. It's because of their lack of access to enough information to make informed decisions when choosing a school to go to. Many of them don't have parents who went to college, let alone graduated.

Think about this: when do the commercials for these schools come on TV? During the middle of the day. Commercial breaks for day time talk shows and soap operas. Single stay at home moms and the unemployed are the ones who end up seeing these commercials, and are being sold on the jobs that schools like Everest, ITT, and South University say that they will get if they go to their schools. And that's about all the access to information that they have.


and there is the elitism that you denied there being. Thank you, and have a good day.

What did I deny? My degrees are not from for profit schools, and I've got a decent paying job to show for it. Granted, my particular employer does hire those with for-profit degrees as well... but I have greater ability to leave and find something else if I decide that this place is no longer for me. My co-workers with degrees from for-profit schools? They're not so fortunate.

Greg
03-19-2014, 12:33 PM
I think we need to refine the way we view education, especially of the post-secondary variety. Right now, the common worldview (in this country) is that pursuing higher education is near-mandatory, this brings about a sense of entitlement to it that draws in government like moths to a flame. It's also developing a major economic bubble (in student loan debt) where when it bursts, the housing bubble will feel like a gentle breeze by comparison. The fact is, there are a lot of degree fields that are by their own nature quite impractical and frivolous. I don't have a problem with colleges and universities offering such, put to create the illusion that it is a "necessity for success" is shamefully misleading. Our societal awareness of the fact is lackluster at best. If you have not looked into Mike Rowe videos on Youtube I highly recommend it. I think our cop out paradigm of "Work Smarter, Not Harder" will become very detrimental to us economically very soon, because someone out there has to "Work Hard" to have a productive economy, it's the nature of the beast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiRGRvE_Wqg

Rusty Jones
03-19-2014, 04:12 PM
I think we need to refine the way we view education, especially of the post-secondary variety. Right now, the common worldview (in this country) is that pursuing higher education is near-mandatory, this brings about a sense of entitlement to it that draws in government like moths to a flame. It's also developing a major economic bubble (in student loan debt) where when it bursts, the housing bubble will feel like a gentle breeze by comparison. The fact is, there are a lot of degree fields that are by their own nature quite impractical and frivolous. I don't have a problem with colleges and universities offering such, put to create the illusion that it is a "necessity for success" is shamefully misleading. Our societal awareness of the fact is lackluster at best. If you have not looked into Mike Rowe videos on Youtube I highly recommend it. I think our cop out paradigm of "Work Smarter, Not Harder" will become very detrimental to us economically very soon, because someone out there has to "Work Hard" to have a productive economy, it's the nature of the beast.

I will freely admit that, in most cases, the requirement for a degree is nothing more than a means of attrition when selecting among applicants. With very few exceptions (such as the field of medicine, law, or education), you could put anyone in just about any job, and they can become proficient at it through OJT. Even jobs that "require" degrees.

Once upon a time, very few people actually went to college. Employers seeking college graduates probably cared less about the degree itself, and more about the pedigree of those who went to college. They wanted someone who wears khakis with a polo, and a sweater tied around their shoulders. The type of guy who hangs out at the country club, with guys named Biff, Chad, and Ted.

Is it really any different today? Because, let's face it... if you've got a degree from DeVry or University of Phoenix, employers KNOW that you're not "that guy."

However, I do feel that there could be another measure taken... just like tobacco and alcohol are required to carry the Surgeon General's warning; every college website and brochure could be required to have a section that shows stats on how many of its grads are employed in fields related to their major, and the median salaries of those who are. And, to be fair, this would be required of ALL colleges and universities; not just for-profit ones.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-19-2014, 04:14 PM
Some criteria I know, some I don't. But the "how" and "why" isn't important. Only the "what" is. And the "what" is this: employers view degrees from for-profit schools unfavorably. And it would be in your best interest to choose your school accordingly, instead of wondering "how" and "why" they don't like for-profit schools.
This right here shows your hypocracy. You would be screaming and making a big fuss if this is the way people hired others based on race. Saying exactly the same thing about why its better to hire a white guy over a black guy. Or even a man over a waman. You are just blindly going off opinion based ratings on who the better educated person is without a shred of facts to back up the claim that one is better than the other. I can see your point if one school wasnt accredited and another was, but to just say "it is what it is" is just chosing to be ignorant.

Rusty Jones
03-19-2014, 04:18 PM
This right here shows your hypocracy. You would be screaming and making a big fuss if this is the way people hired others based on race. Saying exactly the same thing about why its better to hire a white guy over a black guy. Or even a man over a waman. You are just blindly going off opinion based ratings on who the better educated person is without a shred of facts to back up the claim that one is better than the other. I can see your point if one school wasnt accredited and another was, but to just say "it is what it is" is just chosing to be ignorant.

Dude... do I really need to explain the difference to you between race and what school someone CHOOSES to go to? If I do, you're going to cost me way more time than I've got on my hands. And not just in this subject.

Mjölnir
03-19-2014, 04:23 PM
Let's stay close to the topic at hand please.

sandsjames
03-19-2014, 04:36 PM
Let's stay close to the topic at hand please.Holy crap...the mods are still alive.

Sorry...back to topic.

AJBIGJ
03-19-2014, 05:37 PM
I will freely admit that, in most cases, the requirement for a degree is nothing more than a means of attrition when selecting among applicants. With very few exceptions (such as the field of medicine, law, or education), you could put anyone in just about any job, and they can become proficient at it through OJT. Even jobs that "require" degrees.

Once upon a time, very few people actually went to college. Employers seeking college graduates probably cared less about the degree itself, and more about the pedigree of those who went to college. They wanted someone who wears khakis with a polo, and a sweater tied around their shoulders. The type of guy who hangs out at the country club, with guys named Biff, Chad, and Ted.

Is it really any different today? Because, let's face it... if you've got a degree from DeVry or University of Phoenix, employers KNOW that you're not "that guy."

However, I do feel that there could be another measure taken... just like tobacco and alcohol are required to carry the Surgeon General's warning; every college website and brochure could be required to have a section that shows stats on how many of its grads are employed in fields related to their major, and the median salaries of those who are. And, to be fair, this would be required of ALL colleges and universities; not just for-profit ones.

I think it would be a good idea even before it was made into a requirement. Honestly I think the wave of the future in the age of information overabundance are ratings systems presented honestly. I think people in general need to be better informed not only about the colleges/universities they're signing up for but whether it even makes sense to pursue a degree for the ROI on the short term gains of getting that education. If a person is moving into a field where the time spent working towards a degree appears more as time lost to their peers who work in the field, getting OJT, and gaining the experience, all the while accumulating more debt from loans.

Capt Alfredo
03-19-2014, 09:58 PM
I will freely admit that, in most cases, the requirement for a degree is nothing more than a means of attrition when selecting among applicants. With very few exceptions (such as the field of medicine, law, or education), you could put anyone in just about any job, and they can become proficient at it through OJT. Even jobs that "require" degrees.

Once upon a time, very few people actually went to college. Employers seeking college graduates probably cared less about the degree itself, and more about the pedigree of those who went to college. They wanted someone who wears khakis with a polo, and a sweater tied around their shoulders. The type of guy who hangs out at the country club, with guys named Biff, Chad, and Ted.

Is it really any different today? Because, let's face it... if you've got a degree from DeVry or University of Phoenix, employers KNOW that you're not "that guy."

However, I do feel that there could be another measure taken... just like tobacco and alcohol are required to carry the Surgeon General's warning; every college website and brochure could be required to have a section that shows stats on how many of its grads are employed in fields related to their major, and the median salaries of those who are. And, to be fair, this would be required of ALL colleges and universities; not just for-profit ones.

What do you think of AMU? Most of the officers in my career field have MA degrees in some variant of Intelligence/National Security studies from AMU. I think we all agree it's kind of worthless, but as far as our promotion boards are concerned, it's an MA from a regionally-accredited university, so it's the same (on paper) as someone going in residence to a "real" school.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 12:06 AM
What do you think of AMU? Most of the officers in my career field have MA degrees in some variant of Intelligence/National Security studies from AMU. I think we all agree it's kind of worthless, but as far as our promotion boards are concerned, it's an MA from a regionally-accredited university, so it's the same (on paper) as someone going in residence to a "real" school.

I tried my damnedest to talk someone out of going there, unsuccessfully.

I suppose that one could go there to get a check in the box while they're in... but eventually, you're going to be out of the military. Then what?

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 12:20 AM
I tried my damnedest to talk someone out of going there, unsuccessfully.

I suppose that one could go there to get a check in the box while they're in... but eventually, you're going to be out of the military. Then what?

Then you get a GS9 job with a simple CCAF "worthless" degree and have a job with great benefits, retirement, and the easy government schedule. Of course, since his is only an MA, he'll probably get stuck with a GS13 or something.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-20-2014, 01:49 AM
I think it would be a good idea even before it was made into a requirement. Honestly I think the wave of the future in the age of information overabundance are ratings systems presented honestly. I think people in general need to be better informed not only about the colleges/universities they're signing up for but whether it even makes sense to pursue a degree for the ROI on the short term gains of getting that education. If a person is moving into a field where the time spent working towards a degree appears more as time lost to their peers who work in the field, getting OJT, and gaining the experience, all the while accumulating more debt from loans.

Sorry, but you can only inform someone so much. Unless you tell them they can't go to school at one place our another because of x, y, or z, people are going to make that choice for themselves. There were people telling others not to drink dirty water, or not to buy a house they can't afford, or not to over spend on credit cards. Do people listen? No. The only reason people don't get jobs after the for-profit schools is because of elitist like RJ who are prejudice on someone just because of where they went to school when there is no basis for the judgment what so ever when the ratings of schools is only based off opinion and how many people get hired from that school. Do you see the circular logic in that reasoning? I can't get a job because you don't like my school's rating, my school has bad rating because not many people get hired. Uh, DUH!!! Even though accredited schools are teaching the exact same as their other accredited schools. The biggest difference is, the for-profit college kids aren't babied through the classes because they have to figure out the answers on their own without a professor standing over their shoulders. And they have to be self motivators to even do the work when ever they have free time, since its usually not a set schedule except for deadlines for the homework.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-20-2014, 02:09 AM
Dude... do I really need to explain the difference to you between race and what school someone CHOOSES to go to? If I do, you're going to cost me way more time than I've got on my hands. And not just in this subject.


Let's stay close to the topic at hand please.

I am trying to show the similarities between judging people based on their skin vs judging them on where they go to school.

Yes rusty, there is a difference between one and the other. But there are also similarities. When you just blindly follow what someone tells you about graduates from a particular school and you don't even know their reasoning, it is the same as judging them on their skin color when you don't even know why you think that way about them. Being as most of the for-profit schools are accredited, which means they teach the same thing as the "traditional" schools, what can you really say is the difference. I have already shown you the price tag is cheaper for a 4 year degree between private and for-profit. Just because a school claims "non-profit", it doesn't mean their tuition is any cheaper. Thats like saying the NFL is a non-profit, so the tickets for the games should be "cheap". I have told you that state public schools get government funding so thats where a lot of their income comes from, which doesn't make it cheaper on the tax payer when the student fails. Some traditional schools have fail rates worse than most for-profit. For-profit schools' students have to be self motivators to get through the course since there is no class schedule. The student can't just raise their hand and ask the professor a question like in a class room. The for-profit schools usually accept full time workers into their programs, so these people are usually doing at least double duty, maybe triple if they have kids. I see the for-profit graduate as being the better candidate when you look at the hurdles they usually have to go through vs a traditional student. I guess choosing to do school work over partying with the frat is an accomplishment, but thats pretty weak.

You have yet to say with any proof why the for-profit schools are not worth the effort other than stigma and opinions without basis. Like I said before, if this regulation was coming from the GOP, the left would be up in arms about how they were trying to deny education to poor black kids who can't go anywhere else. Just like the voter ID laws or the stop and frisk laws or the valid US ID AFTER a stop in AZ have all been claimed to be racially biased. For-profit schools have about half their enrollees as minorities, which begs the question of why a civil-rights activist is saying this is hurting the poor and minority community? And yes, this has everything to do with the story and topic because the dems are the ones making these claims and they are the ones putting forth the regulations to stifle for-profit schools.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 09:32 AM
Then you get a GS9 job with a simple CCAF "worthless" degree and have a job with great benefits, retirement, and the easy government schedule. Of course, since his is only an MA, he'll probably get stuck with a GS13 or something.

Believe it or not the highest that a master's will get you to start at, without experience in the particular field, is GS9. It's a doctorate to start at GS11 (if you have no experience).

But, of course, we're talking about the federal goverment. Capt Alfredo might have the "hook up" to make that transition as easily as you said. If he's a spook, I don't doubt that he does have that "hook up."

But in case he doesn't, he's gonna be in a world of hurt if he has to look both inside and outside the federal government for jobs.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 10:04 AM
The only reason people don't get jobs after the for-profit schools is because of elitist like RJ who are prejudice on someone just because of where they went to school when there is no basis for the judgment what so ever when the ratings of schools is only based off opinion and how many people get hired from that school. Do you see the circular logic in that reasoning? I can't get a job because you don't like my school's rating, my school has bad rating because not many people get hired. Uh, DUH!!!

MY prejudice? I have never once made a hiring decision in my life, so don't pin this on me. I'm just the messenger.


Even though accredited schools are teaching the exact same as their other accredited schools.

And that's where you're wrong. Regional accreditation merely means that a particular school meets the minimum requirements.

By your logic, everyone from the same state with a driver's licence is a good driver, and they all drive the same way.

You know it doesn't work that way. Regional accredition is nothing but a driver's licence for schools.

You wanna talk endorsements and CDLs? We need to look at specialty accreditation, or accrediation for departments and majors. If you want a degree in business, there are three specialty accreditation bodies: AACSB, ACBSP, and IACBE. AACSB is the one you want.

My wife went to an IACBE school for two semesters, and I saw the finance class that she took. It was a joke. At an AACSB school, finance is THE most difficult course for non finance and economics majors. You've gotta really know your shit from statistics and macroecon, and be able to apply them... as finance (at least at an AACSB school) is VERY intense in quantitative analysis.

At this IACBE school my wife was going to (Concordia University Austin)? Hardly. Not a SINGLE math problem in that class, and it merely spoke in qualitative terms in how financial managers work based on the economy.

You know what the messed up part about the whole ordeal is? Concordia University Austin is not even a for profit school.

But, in keeping with what I'm telling you, there isn't a single for profit school out there whose business school has the AACSB specialty accreditation.


The biggest difference is, the for-profit college kids aren't babied through the classes because they have to figure out the answers on their own without a professor standing over their shoulders. And they have to be self motivators to even do the work when ever they have free time, since its usually not a set schedule except for deadlines for the homework.

And... this is exactly why for-profit schools are shit.

Non profit schools actually give two shits that you're actually LEARNING. For-profit schools? They've already got your money, so the only response to a request for help that you're gonna get from them is the finger.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 11:02 AM
What many "for-profit" schools offer than many others don't are the technical training certificates. Stuff like HVAC, automotive, etc, where you don't have to sit through 4 years of useless information. And I promise you that if this is the career path you are looking at, this is the way to go. Careers like that are very marketable. They won't get you the 6 digit salaries, in most cases, but they are going to get you into the trade with the knowledge you need.

I do agree with you, however, that they probably aren't the best way to go if you're looking for one of the "prestigious" office jobs.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 11:24 AM
Sorry, but you can only inform someone so much. Unless you tell them they can't go to school at one place our another because of x, y, or z, people are going to make that choice for themselves. There were people telling others not to drink dirty water, or not to buy a house they can't afford, or not to over spend on credit cards. Do people listen? No. The only reason people don't get jobs after the for-profit schools is because of elitist like RJ who are prejudice on someone just because of where they went to school when there is no basis for the judgment what so ever when the ratings of schools is only based off opinion and how many people get hired from that school. Do you see the circular logic in that reasoning? I can't get a job because you don't like my school's rating, my school has bad rating because not many people get hired. Uh, DUH!!! Even though accredited schools are teaching the exact same as their other accredited schools. The biggest difference is, the for-profit college kids aren't babied through the classes because they have to figure out the answers on their own without a professor standing over their shoulders. And they have to be self motivators to even do the work when ever they have free time, since its usually not a set schedule except for deadlines for the homework.

While this is true absolutely, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to put the information out there, if for no other reason than as a disclaimer. If I were a discerning hiring manager and I was reviewing candidates' resumes, I think knowing the success/fail rate of the associated academic institutions would be far more informative with the sheer number of educational sources available. To be clear I am not an advocate of forcing this requirement by a law. But if I were in the position of hiring someone and had to discriminate between a candidate that attended an academic institution who was that transparent over one that wasn't I would place a great deal of more faith in the one that advertised above board.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 12:56 PM
Where the hell did my last post go?

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2014, 01:37 PM
This silly belief that what school you get a degree from is WAY overblown. While it is true for certain companies and certain positions, the vast majority of companies look for the degree; that it is from a recognized (Dept of Ed) and accredited institution and most importantly (and again I will not use any absolutes, merely the majority) companies are looking for your experience and let's face it most of us with a military career will migrate to areas we have experience in (directly or indirectly).

For those minority of positions where the source of the education is more important than the experience more than likely the new and young graduate will be selected. They tend to be cheaper.

To the overwhelming majority of corporate American, an MBA is an MBA. Additionally you can't swing a cat in most companies without hitting several with the degree.

I do agree that many of the on-line, for-profit schools have a stigma attached to them but I wouldn't lump them all in one pot. For example, the University of Phoenix actually has several brick and mortar campuses and provide a decent education. There are many like that. As more and more established not-for-profit (and non-profit) schools provide expanded on-line offerings this stigma will probably decrease. In fact, I believe that to already be the case.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 04:43 PM
While this is true absolutely, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to put the information out there, if for no other reason than as a disclaimer. If I were a discerning hiring manager and I was reviewing candidates' resumes, I think knowing the success/fail rate of the associated academic institutions would be far more informative with the sheer number of educational sources available. To be clear I am not an advocate of forcing this requirement by a law. But if I were in the position of hiring someone and had to discriminate between a candidate that attended an academic institution who was that transparent over one that wasn't I would place a great deal of more faith in the one that advertised above board.

It seems to me that someone interested enough to be looking into a job that requires a certain degree from a certain place would be smart enough to do the research on what is required of that employer. For instance, if I know I want to be a lawyer, I'm probably going to get on some websites and find out what law firms require before choosing a school.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 04:44 PM
This silly belief that what school you get a degree from is WAY overblown. While it is true for certain companies and certain positions, the vast majority of companies look for the degree; that it is from a recognized (Dept of Ed) and accredited institution and most importantly (and again I will not use any absolutes, merely the majority) companies are looking for your experience and let's face it most of us with a military career will migrate to areas we have experience in (directly or indirectly).

In situations where experience is important, someone with a degree from a for profit school likely would have gotten the job they've got, whether they had that degree or not. Thanks for nothing, for profit school!


For those minority of positions where the source of the education is more important than the experience more than likely the new and young graduate will be selected. They tend to be cheaper.

And there are more graduates from non-profit schools than there are positions. Where does that leave graduates of for-profit schools?


To the overwhelming majority of corporate American, an MBA is an MBA. Additionally you can't swing a cat in most companies without hitting several with the degree.

This is almost self-contradictory. The large numbers of MBAs out there mean that employers have to be more selective. This, in turn, means that those pursuing an MBA need to be more selective.


I do agree that many of the on-line, for-profit schools have a stigma attached to them but I wouldn't lump them all in one pot. For example, the University of Phoenix actually has several brick and mortar campuses and provide a decent education. There are many like that. As more and more established not-for-profit (and non-profit) schools provide expanded on-line offerings this stigma will probably decrease. In fact, I believe that to already be the case.

ITT and DeVry have campuses too. That isn't going to save them.

By the way, take a look this:

http://www.geteducated.com/online-mbas/94-do-i-need-an-aacsb-accredited-online-mba


Question:

I’m looking for an online MBA (Master of Business Administration). I’ve found several that fit my budget but none of these are accredited by the AACSB. What is the AACSB? Do I really need a distance MBA degree that is accredited by them?

—Roberta
Gary, IN

Answer:

The AACSB is the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. It is a voluntary, non-governmental accrediting agency that oversees the standardization of collegiate schools of business and accounting nationwide.
Editor's Choice Ad
Graduate ERP Certificate Program ONLINE

Georgia Southern University’s program will help you become SAP Certified in less than a year.
Find out more about our ERP graduate program now!


The AACSB has served as the academic watchdog of university business programs since 1916. Because of its longevity, many venerable Ivy League business schools are accredited by the AACSB. Stanford University, Yale University and Duke University, for example, all operate AACSB accredited business schools. (Of these, Duke University offers a distance-learning, low-residency MBA.)

Among academics and corporate headhunters, the AACSB is considered the gold standard of business school accreditation.

Only about 30 percent of business schools in the USA carry AACSB accreditation.

Who Needs the AACSB?


If your career goal is to become faculty at a business school, definitely consider an AACSB-accredited MBA or business degree.

Outside of academia, this specialized accreditation is less crucial—unless you intend to compete at the executive level, especially in the Fortune 500 arena.


SponsorRecently, Intel Corporation made news by announcing that its corporate tuition program will only reimburse for business degrees earned at AACSB-accredited degree programs, regardless of whether the degree is delivered face-to-face or online.

A business degree or MBA emblazoned with the AACSB brand will be extremely valuable in opening doors in any competitive corporate environment.

AACSB Business School Accreditation Optional?

Universities do not need AACSB business school accreditation to offer the MBA or any other advanced business program, whether online or on-campus.

According to GetEducated.com’s National Ranking Survey of Online MBAs, the majority of regionally-accredited universities that offer distance MBAs—more than 70 percent—do not follow the standards of the AACSB.

AACSB approval is not an absolute guarantee of quality. In fact, if an online business school has not pledged to follow AACSB standards it may gain the ability to offer a more innovative program of study.

Some online business schools shun AACSB accreditation because they seek the flexibility to develop more real-life curriculum, as well as the flexibility to admit an older, more career-savvy body of adult learners.

Of the 217 online business schools tracked by GetEducated.com’s National Survey of Online MBAs, 93 of these (42 percent) hold AACSB accreditation. The other 58 percent (124) do not.

Forgo AACSB – Save a Bundle

GetEducated’s National Survey of Online MBAs reveals that AACSB-accredited distance MBAs cost significantly more than their regionally-accredited counterparts.

Average cost of an AACSB Online MBA: $37,011.

Average cost of a regionally accredited distance MBA, on the other hand, is only $24,663.

That’s a whopping savings of $12,348.

If your budget is tight, skipping AACSB accreditation on your online MBA can save you a bundle.

Forgo AACSB – Gain Easier Admission

If you’re looking for easy admission to business school, don’t look to AACSB-accredited options. AACSB-accredited business schools almost always maintain higher admission standards than their counterparts.

Most require the GMAT (Graduate Management Admissions Test) for admission. They typically also require a higher undergraduate GPA. Many require applicants to hold formal bachelor's degrees in business administration.

Sponsor
When to Consider an AACSB-Accredited Online Business Degree

Five most likely reasons you’d be willing to pay more for the AACSB mark on your online business degree:

•You’re competing in an aggressive career field in an urban environment—for example, becoming a Wall Street broker in Manhattan
•Academic prestige is very important to you
•You intend to join the faculty of a business college
•Your corporate tuition plan will only pay for an AACSB-accredited business degree
•You don’t mind taking the GRE or GMAT—and are confident you can score above average on both
Five most likely reasons you’d be willing to forgo AACSB accreditation on your online business degree:

•Money is tight
•You’re not competing in an aggressive career field in an urban environment
•Academic prestige is not all that important to you
•You don’t intend to join the faculty of a business school
•You want to avoid taking the GRE or GMAT

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 04:48 PM
It seems to me that someone interested enough to be looking into a job that requires a certain degree from a certain place would be smart enough to do the research on what is required of that employer. For instance, if I know I want to be a lawyer, I'm probably going to get on some websites and find out what law firms require before choosing a school.

I can tell you this: don't get a JD online. Most states require law schools to have specialty accrediation from the Bar Association to even practice law. Even if the state that you live in doesn't have that requirement, good luck finding a law firm that will take take you.

And, by the way... the ABA does not accredit any online law schools.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 04:54 PM
In situations where experience is important, someone with a degree from a for profit school likely would have gotten the job they've got, whether they had that degree or not. Thanks for nothing, for profit school!



And there are more graduates from non-profit schools than there are positions. Where does that leave graduates of for-profit schools?



This is almost self-contradictory. The large numbers of MBAs out there mean that employers have to be more selective. This, in turn, means that those pursuing an MBA need to be more selective.



ITT and DeVry have campuses too. That isn't going to save them.

By the way, take a look this:

http://www.geteducated.com/online-mbas/94-do-i-need-an-aacsb-accredited-online-mba

So what I'm getting from that is that (unless I'm missing something), unless you want to become a professor, it doesn't really matter if it's AACSB, except in extremely competitive urban businesses.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 04:56 PM
I can tell you this: don't get a JD online. Most states require law schools to have specialty accrediation from the Bar Association to even practice law. Even if the state that you live in doesn't have that requirement, good luck finding a law firm that will take take you.

And, by the way... the ABA does not accredit any online law schools.

That's what I'm saying. And if someone decides to try to "shortcut" the system by taking the easy route, I don't have much pity for them. Let's be honest, if someone is serious about becoming a lawyer, they aren't going to pick one of the non-accredited schools. If they do try the online route (or other non-accredited) schools than they probably aren't "lawyer material" anyway.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 05:09 PM
So what I'm getting from that is that (unless I'm missing something), unless you want to become a professor, it doesn't really matter if it's AACSB, except in extremely competitive urban businesses.

Or if you're trying to get into higher level management in Fortune 500 companies. There was another website, I can't find the link, that also mentioned the average salaries of those with AACSB MBA versus non-MBA, and the difference was pretty significant.

There was one company - either Microsoft, Intel, or IMB (one of the three, I can't remember which) - that started the trend of not authorizing TA for its employees who go to business schools, unless it's AACSB accredited.

I have an AACSB accredited MBA. It's highly likely that I may not enjoy the benefits of the doors that AACSB accredited business degrees open for you. But I look at it like the lottery: you can't win if you don't get a ticket.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 05:24 PM
It seems to me that someone interested enough to be looking into a job that requires a certain degree from a certain place would be smart enough to do the research on what is required of that employer. For instance, if I know I want to be a lawyer, I'm probably going to get on some websites and find out what law firms require before choosing a school.

One would hope but I don't think most people are this pragmatic before they get into school, especially at a younger age. It is not as well-advertised right now that just the act alone of getting a "degree" will not necessarily find a person the employment they've always desired.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 05:30 PM
Or if you're trying to get into higher level management in Fortune 500 companies. There was another website, I can't find the link, that also mentioned the average salaries of those with AACSB MBA versus non-MBA, and the difference was pretty significant.

There was one company - either Microsoft, Intel, or IMB (one of the three, I can't remember which) - that started the trend of not authorizing TA for its employees who go to business schools, unless it's AACSB accredited.

I have an AACSB accredited MBA. It's highly likely that I may not enjoy the benefits of the doors that AACSB accredited business degrees open for you. But I look at it like the lottery: you can't win if you don't get a ticket.

I think you're right. But I also think that the majority of people who recieve the MBAs aren't looking for the Fortune 500 jobs, or they are already in jobs with their BA and are getting the MBA in order to move up in the company they are already in.

It's almost like what happens with instructors down here at Sheppard. Many of them go to Wayland Baptist University because they take a much higher amount of CCAF credits than a "real" college. They have a BSOE program (Bachelor's of Science and Occupational Education). Now, this degree won't do much for you in itself and you can earn it in about a year or so if you've got your CCAF, but what it does do is gain you entry into a large majority Masters programs at most schools. So, it in itself isn't going to get you a whole lot of teaching jobs, but it probably takes about 12-18 months off the total time to get the Masters. It also saves a lot of money in the long run.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 05:33 PM
One would hope but I don't think most people are this pragmatic before they get into school, especially at a younger age. It is not as well-advertised right now that just the act alone of getting a "degree" will not necessarily find a person the employment they've always desired.

Speaking of "well advertised," that's why for-profit schools have such high enrollment. It's difficult as hell to go anywhere on the web without seeing pop-ups, banners, and spam advertising University of Phoenix, Trident, Kaplan, North Central, etc, etc.

I always tell people that if they want a good MBA that can be completed online - and are AACSB accredited - I know quite a few of them; some of which will even waive the GMAT if their undergrad GPA is high enough.

The best schools you can go to, will NEVER be the ones that you see advertised.

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 05:34 PM
One would hope but I don't think most people are this pragmatic before they get into school, especially at a younger age. It is not as well-advertised right now that just the act alone of getting a "degree" will not necessarily find a person the employment they've always desired.

You don't think it's well advertised? I can't count the number of times I've heard that 50% of graduates under the age of 30 can't find a job.

Though, to defend your point, it is still pushed that the degree is the be all/end all for employment. Maybe the emphasis should be put on high school counselors to be a little more forthcoming with the stats and to explain that there are other options.

Hell, even now, all I here around work is that the only way to get a job is to get that degree. It's simply not true. It's actually less true now than it was 10 years ago as the majority of jobs available are in careers that don't require a 4 year degree.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 05:40 PM
Speaking of "well advertised," that's why for-profit schools have such high enrollment. It's difficult as hell to go anywhere on the web without seeing pop-ups, banners, and spam advertising University of Phoenix, Trident, Kaplan, North Central, etc, etc.

I always tell people that if they want a good MBA that can be completed online - and are AACSB accredited - I know quite a few of them; some of which will even waive the GMAT if their undergrad GPA is high enough.

The best schools you can go to, will NEVER be the ones that you see advertised.

I think that's a bit dependent where you spend the most time web-browsing, cookies and such. That being said I think these are the lessons young adults need to be learning before they've made a final decision. The problem is partially the base maturity of the average recent HS graduate rarely results in a mindset that considers such things, they typically just do what they think society expects of them (at least the good ones tend to). It's one of the reasons I become highly critical of the current worldview that seems to believe that post-secondary education is a requirement for everyone to do anything. It's not only inaccurate but sets many people back thousands of dollars and a handful of years in finding personal satisfaction in a career choice.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 05:43 PM
You don't think it's well advertised? I can't count the number of times I've heard that 50% of graduates under the age of 30 can't find a job.

Though, to defend your point, it is still pushed that the degree is the be all/end all for employment. Maybe the emphasis should be put on high school counselors to be a little more forthcoming with the stats and to explain that there are other options.

Hell, even now, all I here around work is that the only way to get a job is to get that degree. It's simply not true. It's actually less true now than it was 10 years ago as the majority of jobs available are in careers that don't require a 4 year degree.

The problem though, how much of this are you seeing in hindsight? (kind of rhetorical). The rest of your point reflects how zombified this society has become about higher education. This is the information our Millenials are processing when they make their own life decisions. Even those of us who should know better often wind up repeating the mantra, well-meaning but misleading our younger generations.

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 05:53 PM
It's one of the reasons I become highly critical of the current worldview that seems to believe that post-secondary education is a requirement for everyone to do anything. It's not only inaccurate but sets many people back thousands of dollars and a handful of years in finding personal satisfaction in a career choice.

But isn't true, though? Jobs that took high school dropouts back in the 70's are requiring degrees now. It's a concept called "degree inflation." Many people joke that in a decade or two, you'll need a PhD in order to be a janitor.

While this is something that generally said in jest, I really do believe that "there is truth in jest" definitely applies here.

The only way for degree inflation to stop is if so many people stop going to college. We all know that.

However, the question becomes... do we have any volunteers? People who will volunteer to NOT to go to college?

It's that sacrifice for the greater good that no one wants to make, because deep down they know... whether having a degree is the norm or exception, the fact will always remain that someone who has a degree will always have an edge over someone without a degree.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 05:59 PM
But isn't true, though? Jobs that took high school dropouts back in the 70's are requiring degrees now. It's a concept called "degree inflation." Many people joke that in a decade or two, you'll need a PhD in order to be a janitor.

While this is something that generally said in jest, I really do believe that "there is truth in jest" definitely applies here.

The only way for degree inflation to stop is if so many people stop going to college. We all know that.

However, the question becomes... do we have any volunteers? People who will volunteer to NOT to go to college?

It's that sacrifice for the greater good that no one wants to make, because deep down they know... whether having a degree is the norm or exceptiona, that will always remain that someone who has a degree will always have an edge that someone without a degree won't.
Not really no, a lot of people work for many years prior to pursuing a higher education, and pursue it when they're finally ready for it. Actually as far as who has the "edge" quite frequently the opposite is true. As an HR guy you should be extremely well-aware that there are quite a lot of vocations out there that favor experience in the field to higher education. Supposedly about half or more of the 3 million plus jobs that go completely unfilled because they can't fill them, often ones that are well-paid employment.

What is true, is the going in expectation of youth is to pursue employment that minimizes on the physical labor elements and pays them well besides, which a college degree certainly helps to get but there's just not enough of them around for everyone to be doing it.

http://www.salary.com/high-growth-jobs-no-degree/

Rusty Jones
03-20-2014, 06:16 PM
Not really no, a lot of people work for many years prior to pursuing a higher education, and pursue it when they're finally ready for it. Actually as far as who has the "edge" quite frequently the opposite is true. As an HR guy you should be extremely well-aware that there are quite a lot of vocations out there that favor experience in the field to higher education. Supposedly about half or more of the 3 million plus jobs that go completely unfilled because they can't fill them, often ones that are well-paid employment.

What is true, is the going in expectation of youth is to pursue employment that minimizes on the physical labor elements and pays them well besides, which a college degree certainly helps to get but there's just not enough of them around for everyone to be doing it.

http://www.salary.com/high-growth-jobs-no-degree/

Merely being in HR doesn't give me that credibility - for two reasons: 1. Although I'd love to eventually become a generalist, I'm not. I'm a specialist. To my knowledge, we have no HR generalists in the federal government. In particular, I specialize in benefits. I'd actually like to go into a new specialty, but I'm taking my time right now. Either way, I'm not a generalist; and nor do I specialize in recruitment or classification. 2. Even if I specialized in recruitment or classification (or was a generalist), it also depends on your employer's industry. A recruitment or classification specialist at, say, Waste Mangement could actually speak on this better than one at Bank of America could.

I think that much of the reason why the younger generation being directed away from physical labor jobs, is because most of them are being sent overseas.

You see it all the time in the media that women have more degrees than men, and are beginning to outearn men.

Why? For jobs traditionally held by women (i.e., white collar), a degree is typically required to get something with decent pay. Not the case for blue collar jobs traditionally held by men... which are becoming less and less available.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2014, 06:26 PM
Merely being in HR doesn't give me that credibility - for two reasons: 1. Although I'd love to eventually become a generalist, I'm not. I'm a specialist. To my knowledge, we have no HR generalists in the federal government. In particular, I specialize in benefits. I'd actually like to go into a new specialty, but I'm taking my time right now. Either way, I'm not a generalist; and nor do I specialize in recruitment or classification. 2. Even if I specialized in recruitment or classification (or was a generalist), it also depends on your employer's industry. A recruitment or classification specialist at, say, Waste Mangement could actually speak on this better than one at Bank of America could.

I think that much of the reason why the younger generation being directed away from physical labor jobs, is because most of them are being sent overseas.

You see it all the time in the media that women have more degrees than men, and are beginning to outearn men.

Why? For jobs traditionally held by women (i.e., white collar), a degree is typically required to get something with decent pay. Not the case for blue collar jobs traditionally held by men... which are becoming less and less available.

Fair enough about the HR, not intended as an insult. My point was, yes they are a BIT less available than maybe they have been, a lot of this on the account of shooting ourselves in the foot (considering it costs us less to ship a product overseas, then back to us, with all associated tariffs, than it does to pay people to do it right here). Another problem is that a lot of them are still around, and nobody even considering entry into them. Maybe they feel it's "beneath them" or whatever but there is a major problem in the fact that our society has gotten away from the mentality that views a first job as a "step" and instead as a "career choice". That's an economics discussion that runs so very deep and intricately complex that it would drive us well-beyond the scope of this discussion. One thing we collectively can chip away at, however, is the myth that "if you don't go to college, you're out of options" as that is a very self-destructive falsehood.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2014, 08:51 PM
In situations where experience is important, someone with a degree from a for profit school likely would have gotten the job they've got, whether they had that degree or not. Thanks for nothing, for profit school!



And there are more graduates from non-profit schools than there are positions. Where does that leave graduates of for-profit schools?



This is almost self-contradictory. The large numbers of MBAs out there mean that employers have to be more selective. This, in turn, means that those pursuing an MBA need to be more selective.



ITT and DeVry have campuses too. That isn't going to save them.

By the way, take a look this:

http://www.geteducated.com/online-mbas/94-do-i-need-an-aacsb-accredited-online-mba


My point was two-fold, perhaps you missed it.

It is way too illogical to dismiss absolutely 'for profit' schools and say without exception that earning a degree from one of them is a waste of time. That has been your message correct?

Secondly, MBA's now are very ubiquitous, particularly those with no concentration. I can only speak to my own experience. Of the top 5 Defense Contractors, only one has a CEO with an MBA (Boeing). The others have degrees in other areas.

While I realize that your position is understandably one of self fulfilling prophecy, the fact is that you can get ahead with many kinds of degrees in corporate American from a myriad of institutions. Again, not saying that your point about schools like Devry and ITT are not valid but your brush is a little too big and absolute.

EDIT: Am I reading correctly that you work in HR as a GS? I assume for the Navy?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2014, 11:02 AM
This silly belief that what school you get a degree from is WAY overblown. While it is true for certain companies and certain positions, the vast majority of companies look for the degree; that it is from a recognized (Dept of Ed) and accredited institution and most importantly (and again I will not use any absolutes, merely the majority) companies are looking for your experience and let's face it most of us with a military career will migrate to areas we have experience in (directly or indirectly).

For those minority of positions where the source of the education is more important than the experience more than likely the new and young graduate will be selected. They tend to be cheaper.

To the overwhelming majority of corporate American, an MBA is an MBA. Additionally you can't swing a cat in most companies without hitting several with the degree.

I do agree that many of the on-line, for-profit schools have a stigma attached to them but I wouldn't lump them all in one pot. For example, the University of Phoenix actually has several brick and mortar campuses and provide a decent education. There are many like that. As more and more established not-for-profit (and non-profit) schools provide expanded on-line offerings this stigma will probably decrease. In fact, I believe that to already be the case.

I know a lot of "traditional" schools that offer online classes. Would an employer want to know if you got most of your education from FSU or USF from online vs in the class? Or will they simply see that you have a degree from those institutes and believe you are better educated than someone who went to Walden or U of Phoenix?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-21-2014, 11:08 AM
In situations where experience is important, someone with a degree from a for profit school likely would have gotten the job they've got, whether they had that degree or not. Thanks for nothing, for profit school!And when they try to move up the ladder and hit the glass ceiling for not having a degree, then what? Do you think a great worker with a degree from Walden in their profession is going to be denied a promotion over a good worker that went to a traditional school?


And there are more graduates from non-profit schools than there are positions. Where does that leave graduates of for-profit schools?In the same place as the "non-profit" grads. But the for-profit grads will typically owe LESS than private or out of state students to public schools.

Rusty Jones
03-21-2014, 12:14 PM
I know a lot of "traditional" schools that offer online classes. Would an employer want to know if you got most of your education from FSU or USF from online vs in the class? Or will they simply see that you have a degree from those institutes and believe you are better educated than someone who went to Walden or U of Phoenix?

The brick-and-mortar schools with online offering grant the SAME degrees, whether you do it online or on campus. When you apply to go to these schools, the admissions process is equally as rigorous. I got my MBA at Texas A&M University-Commerce. I had to submit my resume, write long letters, get letters of recommendation from my chain of command and everything... and wait months for my acceptance letter.

Different employers use different screening methods and choose different keywords for how their systems scan resumes. For many, as soon it as it picks up "DeVry" or "ITT," you're resumse is automatically shit-canned.


And when they try to move up the ladder and hit the glass ceiling for not having a degree, then what?

Well, among those who DO have a degree... the employer will have to choose among THEM who they feel can do the job better and/or who has the better education.


Do you think a great worker with a degree from Walden in their profession is going to be denied a promotion over a good worker that went to a traditional school?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some employers won't even COUNT for-profit schools, or majors without certain specialty accreditations, as even meeting their requirement.


In the same place as the "non-profit" grads. But the for-profit grads will typically owe LESS than private or out of state students to public schools.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Again, there are less positions then there are graduates of non profit schools. Where does that leave graduates of for profit schools?

The CORRECT answer is... they're not even competitive. If there are two open positions, and eight applicants - four with degrees from non-profit schools and four with degrees from for-profit schools, guess what? The four with degrees from for-profit schools may as well not even apply. Because TWO applicants are going to be selected. And they're going to be from among the for with degrees from non-profit schools.

THAT'S where the grads of for profit schools are left.

Glad to have helped you out. You're welcome.

sandsjames
03-21-2014, 12:35 PM
The brick-and-mortar schools with online offering grant the SAME degrees, whether you do it online or on campus. When you apply to go to these schools, the admissions process is equally as rigorous. I got my MBA at Texas A&M University-Commerce. I had to submit my resume, write long letters, get letters of recommendation from my chain of command and everything... and wait months for my acceptance letter.

Different employers use different screening methods and choose different keywords for how their systems scan resumes. For many, as soon it as it picks up "DeVry" or "ITT," you're resumse is automatically shit-canned.



Well, among those who DO have a degree... the employer will have to choose among THEM who they feel can do the job better and/or who has the better education.



Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some employers won't even COUNT for-profit schools, or majors without certain specialty accreditations, as even meeting their requirement.



You missed the point of what I was saying. Again, there are less positions then there are graduates of non profit schools. Where does that leave graduates of for profit schools?

The CORRECT answer is... they're not even competitive. If there are two open positions, and eight applicants - four with degrees from non-profit schools and four with degrees from for-profit schools, guess what? The four with degrees from for-profit schools may as well not even apply. Because TWO applicants are going to be selected. And they're going to be from among the for with degrees from non-profit schools.

THAT'S where the grads of for profit schools are left.

Glad to have helped you out. You're welcome.

So how many companies have you done hiring for? Sounds like most of them, probably.

Sure, there are "elitist" companies who may "shit can" the resumes you mention but there are plenty who won't. I'm sure you know that there's a lot more to a resume than just the degree. There are many HR people, and companies, who value the actual interview process. Now if you've got two people, one with a for-profit degree and one with a "real" degree", who seem equally competent and both nail their interviews, I'd imagine the for-profit guy is screwed. However, if the for-profit guy nails his interview and the other guy doesn't, the for-profit guy isn't going to be immediately dismissed because of where his degree is from. Not in general, anyway. Of course there are the companies who care only about image and don't want other companies knowing they hired someone from a non prestigious school, but I'd say that's the exception, not the norm.

Rusty Jones
03-21-2014, 12:37 PM
But the for-profit grads will typically owe LESS than private or out of state students to public schools.

I forgot to address this.

EVERY state has public colleges and universities. So that's always an option for everyone. Undergrad tuition for four years where I got my MBA is only $26,334, assuming you take eight 15-credit semesters. And there are schools in Texas that are cheaper than THAT, and schools in other states that are cheaper than THOSE. If you really want to get dirt cheap, there's always community college for the first two years.

You cited Florida State as an example, showing that it costs $2,000 more per year than Walden.

You know what the funny thing is about that example? We're talking about Florida State; home of the Seminoles. One of the most prestigious public universities in the nation. Yet, it only costs $2,000 more than Walden.

I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather spend the extra $2,000 (over a four year period mind you) and have a degree from Florida State over one from Walden.

Rusty Jones
03-21-2014, 01:03 PM
So how many companies have you done hiring for? Sounds like most of them, probably.

Remember that article I posted yesterday, about AACSB vs non AACSB business degrees? There hundreds of articles and blogs out there that are just like it and go in-dept on different aspects, as well as discussion boards where hiring managers have participated.

It was actually because of me doing the research in the first places (by finding the articles that I'm telling you about) that actually led me to choose the school that I got my MBA from. My undergrad is from Southern New Hampshire University - it's a non-profit school, but really one that's on the same level as Park, Wayland Baptist, St Leo (also non-profits), etc. I decided that I was going to choose my grad school a bit more wisely.


Sure, there are "elitist" companies who may "shit can" the resumes you mention but there are plenty who won't.

I'm aware. I work for one who won't.

BUT... at least if you have a non-profit degree or one with the more desired specialty accreditation, "elitist" companies are still an OPTION. You cut all that off by getting a degree from a for-profit school.


I'm sure you know that there's a lot more to a resume than just the degree. There are many HR people, and companies, who value the actual interview process. Now if you've got two people, one with a for-profit degree and one with a "real" degree", who seem equally competent and both nail their interviews, I'd imagine the for-profit guy is screwed. However, if the for-profit guy nails his interview and the other guy doesn't, the for-profit guy isn't going to be immediately dismissed because of where his degree is from. Not in general, anyway. Of course there are the companies who care only about image and don't want other companies knowing they hired someone from a non prestigious school, but I'd say that's the exception, not the norm.

Of course... but, as you can see, there is NO benefit to getting a degree from a for-profit school over one from a non-profit school. If you KNOW what will happen in the "tie-breaker" scenario that you described, then why not just get a degree from a non-profit school? Not only will you win the "tie breaker" scenario, but you'll spend less money.

WJ5 doesn't like it when I say this, but it's the truth: people who go to for-profit schools do so because they don't know any better.

sandsjames
03-21-2014, 01:30 PM
WJ5 doesn't like it when I say this, but it's the truth: people who go to for-profit schools do so because they don't know any better. I agree with this, to a point. There are many who go and DO realize there may be a disadvantage, but are willing to make the necessary trade-off. Then there are those who don't now any better. And, for those people I say "too damn bad". If you don't realize that going to a school advertised by Sally Struthers at midnight on the WE channel probably isn't the best way to go then you deserve what you get.