Hire Education

May 4, 2010 7:33 PM

College, Inc. PBS's FrontLine investigates the rise of for-profit colleges. Dangling the promise of a degree that will attract a job, for-profit colleges have been consistent performers for Wall Street and have exploded in enrollment alongside their community college counterparts as a result of the down economy. Positioning themselves as an alternative to traditional schools for the working and adult student set, who benefits the most from this departure from the traditional college model?
posted by dr_dank (64 comments total)

Fantastic. This has been a huge racket for too long now.

Not that "facts" and "data" mean much anymore ...
posted by intermod at 7:40 PM on May 4, 2010

I recently learned that most US colleges spend less than half, and usually closer to one-third, of tuition dollars on instruction and research faculty. The rest goes to "administration." If it went to Wall Street instead of the Dean or the athletics department, I'm not sure if we'd be worse off....
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:40 PM on May 4, 2010

I worked for one of these "online universities" (not Phoenix but otherwise not telling!) and I can tell you one thing; when the students for one particular large client were flunking tests, we didn't say "they need tutoring" we said "oh, let's make the tests easier."

They laid me off in the last reorganization. They're still plugging along as far as I know.
posted by emjaybee at 7:49 PM on May 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm so glad FRONTLINE is tackling this and will definitely watch - "college graduates" earn more than others for various, complicated reasons (which are to do with socioeconomic status prior to entry, contacts made, other and various ineffable benefits of a college education, etc.) and the idea that any random American will see returns in her enormous investment of time and money for an at-home, part-time computer degree is just tragic.
posted by moxiedoll at 7:55 PM on May 4, 2010

The jaw-dropper for me was the trio of nursing students who never actually set foot inside a hospital for their entire program.
posted by dr_dank at 7:57 PM on May 4, 2010 [4 favorites]

G&M just did some reporting on "career colleges" in Canada which all but promise employment after graduation. Apparently students attending these colleges are twice as likely to pay their student loans off late.

"It’s like you have just wasted time for four years.”
— Hope Goodine, former private-college student
posted by mek at 8:06 PM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Because everyone knows that there is signinficant overlap of the populations of potential-for-profit-college-attendees and PBS-documentary-viewers.

Triple cheese with pedagogy hamburger
posted by lalochezia at 8:19 PM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

The jaw-dropper for me was the trio of nursing students who never actually set foot inside a hospital for their entire program.

Yes, this.

"We went to a museum of Scientology for our psychiatric rotation". Christ. Just.. wow.
posted by threetoed at 8:27 PM on May 4, 2010

The blog e-Learning Pundit has a lot about for-profit schools, such as In Hard Times, Lured Into Trade School and Debt, Marine Can’t Recall His Lessons at For-Profit College and, The Subprime Student Loan Racket.
posted by zinfandel at 8:46 PM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Because everyone knows that there is signinficant overlap of the populations of potential-for-profit-college-attendees and PBS-documentary-viewers.

Eh, there are several people at the company I work for who finished up with Phoenix University and are by no means dolts. Various life circumstances arose for them which prevented them from finishing regular university/college when they were younger, and they needed to get something so they could have a check mark by college graduate on job applications. Some of them make salaries in the high 90k range.

Granted, you won't get a well rounded education there, nor explore very interesting things beyond the basic curricula, but it was an option for them and they are in a better position now because of it.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:49 PM on May 4, 2010

anotherpanacea: that 'administration' umbrella probably includes construction costs for buildings, mortgages on those same buildings, heating and lighting those buildings, and a host of other expenses that aren't obvious, but are nonetheless real. Big public universities are like their own cities, and those 'administration' dollars keep the lights on in a bunch of little, but essential ways. No one goes into university administration for the money.

Oh, and those big athletic teams? They're net contributors to the bottom line, helping to fund all sorts of other programs at the schools of which they are a part.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:51 PM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

I am fortunate enough to have cable in my office, so I end up watching a lot of television during the day and I get to see a lot of ads for trade schools and online study programs. My favorite/least favorite is the one that brags about how you can go to their school in your pajamas, which is pretty much an idea tailor made to appeal to lazy people. I can only imagine how quickly an HR person will want to schedule an interview with you when they find out you've graduated summa cum laude from gotoschoolinyourjammies.com.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:58 PM on May 4, 2010

I've known several people in the IT field where these types of colleges were actually quite useful in learning a programming course after they had already graduated from school with a Masters in Computer Science. Sometimes, that degree from 1998 just doesn't cut it with something like learning a programming language that didn't exist when you were in school. Aside from that, I haven't seen anything these schools offer that would stand up to real world experience in a field. Internships and heck, even a apprenticeships are more valuable in learning many things that even public universities can't/don't/won't teach.
posted by daq at 10:04 PM on May 4, 2010

Oh, and those big athletic teams? They're net contributors to the bottom line, helping to fund all sorts of other programs at the schools of which they are a part.

Is that always true, or is that the ideal?
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:07 PM on May 4, 2010

For profit colleges? And the others are...?

College is a racket, and I mean that in the strictest sense of the word racket. Colleges create a need for their own services. It's protection racket. Pay us and we won't blow up your future. Refuse to pay, and you'll never get a job in this town.

Alternatively, college can be thought of as a Ponzi scheme.

The high fees are partially the result of the perception of need- as long as the govt is willing to subsidize the cost with grants or low interest loans, and push the idea that college is a key part of the American dream- tuition will never go down.

Online universities are even more unhelpful, because by pretending to offer a lower cost alternative, they are merely propagating the lie that some kind of college is integral to success.

The point isn't that some have succeeded without college (Bill Gates) but that those who have succeeded with college would most probably have succeeded without it.

The hurdle is the collective delusion that college is necessary- "I agree, but the application says a BA is needed" . You think, if only I could convince the employer a degree isn't needed. The problem is structural: the reason no one cares to examine whether a degree really is necessary for a certain job is because the job itself isn't necessary. To protect the existence of that job, you create artificial requirements for it.


It is an awesome country indeed, that has some of the lowest test scores in the world yet sees higher education as a fundamental right.
posted by TheLastPsychiatrist at 10:07 PM on May 4, 2010 [16 favorites]

anotherpanacea: "The rest goes to "administration." If it went to Wall Street instead of the Dean or the athletics department, I'm not sure if we'd be worse off...."

As an employee of a public college under the "administration" umbrella, I have to point out that this includes money to pay for sysadmins to set up and maintain your email infrastructure, your college website, all the people who process applications and enrollment, tuition, promotion, recruiting, computer lab maintenance, campus security, sign language interpreters, bookstore accountants, the phone infrastructure, museum managers, printing and advertising, a failing non-credit arm, gym crew, procurement agents, AV services crew, child caretakers, legal compliance auditors, a small army of administrative assistants, programmers, and of course HR specialists to handle all this. And don't get me started on the substantial payments to vendors.
posted by pwnguin at 10:24 PM on May 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

TheLastPsychiatrist: The point isn't that some have succeeded without college (Bill Gates) but that those who have succeeded with college would most probably have succeeded without it.

There are some jobs for which they just want a degree, any degree, but that certainly doesn't apply to all of them. Many jobs that require an education do so for excellent reasons. Who's going to accept a doctor without some sort of specialized education? An engineer? A scientist? There are loads of careers that require years and years of specialized training to do properly.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:24 PM on May 4, 2010 [15 favorites]

Thanks for posting this - I'm a laid off IT sector worker going to a local job fair tomorrow, I'm glad to know in advance about the Glengarry Glen Ross tactics of some of these private trade schools, it shouldn't be all that surprising but somehow it is.

The thing that really burns me is that these guys have managed to tap into FAFSA and are making a large percentage of their income from tax dollars . . yet they are held to none of the same standards as state-owned educational institutions, even though they're drinking from the same well, i.e. our pockets.

I'm all for privatization in the education sector where it makes sense, but you can't sell people worthless diplomas and expect to get away with it indefinitely.

Not that they're all worthless - I think in some cases, in some fields, the education you can get from a for-profit can be quite valuable, but it's all happening at an unknown, unstandardized quality, with Department of Education tax dollars, which is worrisome.

This "back to the trades" movement or meme might be a really cool thing for American manufacturing, but it's also another way for various smart and unethical companies to screw the perpetually fucked lower-middle/upper-working class.
posted by chaff at 10:31 PM on May 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

none of the same standards as state-owned educational institutions,

What are those? Accreditaton? Becuase for-profits have to be accredited to get FAFSA-related aid. In fact, eligibility for federal aid is pretty much the only way that the federal government enforces regulations on IHEs.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 10:34 PM on May 4, 2010 [2 favorites]

Alternatively, college can be thought of as a Ponzi scheme.

How so?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:40 PM on May 4, 2010

I'll explain after this bong hit.
posted by fleacircus at 10:48 PM on May 4, 2010 [3 favorites]

l33tpolicywonk: "What are those? Accreditaton?"

I guess I'm responding to the profile of Michael Clifford as someone who finds schools that have already achieved accreditation but are financially on the rocks and then rejuvinates those schools with money so that they can attract more students with an accreditation that no longer reflects how the school does business.

That seems to be the point of the program, though I recognize Frontline has its own story to tell and the situation is more complex.
posted by chaff at 11:33 PM on May 4, 2010

Many jobs that require an education do so for excellent reasons. Who's going to accept a doctor without some sort of specialized education? An engineer? A scientist?

Sure, but there is a huge swath of jobs, probably the majority, that just require a BA for no reason other than to reduce the applicant pool. And then there are the entire Commerce and Business departments, which are basically identical to these career colleges in that they are frequently devoid of content.

The issue in the FPP is proof of that: that a career college is even more of a waste of four years than an arts education (in terms of finding employment) is stunning. A philosophy degree is more marketable than graduating from some of these "job training" schools.
posted by mek at 11:38 PM on May 4, 2010

Eh, there are several people at the company I work for who finished up with Phoenix University and are by no means dolts. Various life circumstances arose for them which prevented them from finishing regular university/college when they were younger, and they needed to get something so they could have a check mark by college graduate on job applications. Some of them make salaries in the high 90k range.

Granted, you won't get a well rounded education there, nor explore very interesting things beyond the basic curricula, but it was an option for them and they are in a better position now because of it.

Yes...but is that the norm, or just extreme anecdotes.

Not everyone who eats at Subway has massive weight loss like Jared.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:00 AM on May 5, 2010

There are definitely many basically necessary administrative units that engage in considerable pointless activity leotrotsky, along with a few ridiculous ones, like the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs. All this wasteful activity comes from government requirements and academic idealism, as well as simply trying to maintain their own budgets, i.e. most universities wold benefit from budget reductions across most administrative units.

There are very very few universities that actually profit from their intercollegiate athletics program, especially if you consider state and alumni contributions that would have gone for academic purposes. You see, the university president has relatively little control over academic departments, but athletics program revenue could be used however he likes. Alumni and legislatures are easily duped into fund the athletics program, but might not fund his own pet projects, or might impose restrictions like open bidding for contractors. So they'll spend $10 million per year while only generating $3 million because the president controls that $3 million.

Intercollegiate athletics does however help with university name recognition, both attracting more students, especially out-of-state, and ensuring name recognition among employers, but this benefit seems very hard to quantify.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:06 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

mek: Sure, but there is a huge swath of jobs, probably the majority, that just require a BA for no reason other than to reduce the applicant pool. And then there are the entire Commerce and Business departments, which are basically identical to these career colleges in that they are frequently devoid of content.

The issue in the FPP is proof of that: that a career college is even more of a waste of four years than an arts education (in terms of finding employment) is stunning. A philosophy degree is more marketable than graduating from some of these "job training" schools.

Well, I tend to believe a miscellaneous education is still valuable. Reducing general ignorance is always good, and you tend to come out of any degree program with improved literacy and at least basic computer skills, which significantly benefit those generalist untrained white-collar jobs you mention.

As far as the philosophy degree being more valuable than 'career college' degree, I think it's pretty clear from the article that stems not from an over-reliance on higher education but from many 'career colleges' not actually educating people, and thus the entire field earning a highly negative reputation.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:28 AM on May 5, 2010

I'm not surprised that a philosophy degree from a reputable institution is more marketable than a degree from the University of Phoenix, the philosophy degree suggests that you've got a brain and applied out of interest.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:28 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

The hurdle is the collective delusion that college is necessary- "I agree, but the application says a BA is needed" . You think, if only I could convince the employer a degree isn't needed. The problem is structural: the reason no one cares to examine whether a degree really is necessary for a certain job is because the job itself isn't necessary. To protect the existence of that job, you create artificial requirements for it.


It is an awesome country indeed, that has some of the lowest test scores in the world yet sees higher education as a fundamental right.

Possibly as a result of attitudes toward unions? It's certianly possible to make a good living with great benefits in skilled labor (guys at my power company making 6 figures is not uncommon), and I'm pretty sure nobody's making less than $60K, even apprentices. Same for steamfitters, UPS drivers, etc.

but oh no, everyone wants to make $60K to send emails and look at powerpoints?
posted by hamida2242 at 12:50 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

"college graduates" earn more than others for various, complicated reasons (which are to do with socioeconomic status prior to entry, contacts made, other and various ineffable benefits of a college education, etc.)

IOW "helps if you're white & dad's got money"

?
posted by hamida2242 at 12:52 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

In the UK there is an interesting balance that seems to be evolving along the profit and non profit axis. By education and profession, I'm a banker with a particular focus in Capital Markets (mostly Equities and Fixed Income, but smattering of experience in Risk Management and Credit Derivatives).

In Q2 2008 I left banking to take an MBA which I completed at the start of this year, but since 2003 had been lecturing part time in econometrics at a traditional University (this only came about since I already had an MSc in Quantitative Finance and as English is my mother tongue, I could probably present more the material clearer than folks who perhaps knew it better than I).

Used to working eighty hour weeks, I got a little bored with the pace of University while taking my MBA so I applied to a professional business school and landed a position lecturing in 'Financial Markets Trading & Analysis', which is pretty cool gig as they're paying me to talk about finance!

Anyhow, there are several of these schools in London that offer degrees that are fully validated by the traditional Universities, and in fact carry the name of the University. But offered at the professional business school. So you attend the business school, take all classes at their premises, pay your tuition to the business school, but the degree only mentions the university, not the business school.

You might wonder where the value add is - it comes in the form of increased accessibility, for starters. This school offers the same University classes but, for example, Saturdays and Sundays only. Or five days a week from 6AM to 9AM. And so on. Lots of flexibility, which appeals to folks who are already in employment. That's one key differentiator, the other being an increased reliance on professionals rather than "pure" academics.

Most of my peers who teach in the finance track have a background similar to mine (about twenty five years on and off trading desks, lots of hands on across assets classes, can recite key market events and trends like a football fan can significant World Cup games) so folks attending such an institution won't be benefiting from being taught by a heavily published doctorate, but will get a fair idea of what its like to work on a trading desk.

Demand is very, very high, so much so that I'm now getting involved in course development, retuning some of the Masters degrees to incorporate more relevant classes (e.g., I just started teaching a trading class that relies heavily on Bloomberg terminals which the Universities can't offer as they won't spend the money to acquire Bloomberg terminals). That seems be another key differentiator of these professional business schools - we can deploy and offer new, validated option modules that reside in a tradition degree framework much faster than a Univerisity.

And the students, almost across the board, are hyper motivated and interested. At least in the finance track most are either already working directly in banking (perhaps looking for a lateral move) and seeking to enter the field. Sure, a few seem to be there more to network and develop contacts, but they are rare and at the end of the term do have to pass the same, rigourous exams students at the traditional university would have to sit (and no marking curves guys, so pass or fail on your own, not relative merits).

For profit? Absolutely.

But this seems to be a very British approach to the same niche these American institutions are targeting.

The emphasis isn't as ruthlessly profit oriented as the US institutions. But the students do leave with very marketable degrees, ones from traditional Universities that were delivered in a non traditional manner.

Interesting post - thanks!
posted by Mutant at 12:56 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

the philosophy degree suggests that you've got a brain and applied out of interest.

Exactly. The content of the education is irrelevant: the degree is used by an employer as an indicator of desirable qualities. The college education is just a four-year-long, $50 000 job interview.
posted by mek at 1:06 AM on May 5, 2010

Just finished watching the whole thing. At a certain level, the appeal of for-profits is understandable. Enrollment is up like gangbusters, as public community colleges face dwindling tax revenues to support that growth. Administrators would love to grow now when interest rates are low and enrollment is increasing, but for better or worse they're tied to the sinking boat of property tax.

The video highlights an interesting point about the sale and purchase of accreditation. Personally, I don't think much of regional accreditation. I'm sure it has some relevance, but degree program accreditation matters more to me than some overall measure. I find it very odd that accreditation is allowed to persist across major institutional events such as purchase, privatization or change in management. My employer is part of at least one association that requires reapplication for membership whenever a new president is appointed, effectively preventing this kind of arbitrage.

If these entrepreneurs truly believe they work magic, I wish they'd take some risk and build their own school from the ground up. Presumably they'd counter that ten years is far too long for accreditation (Jack Welsh, for example, would be 84 ten years from now). I don't have a great counter to that, other than perhaps it takes that long for long-term student outcomes to be measurable. Part of me hopes some for-profit accreditation system finds a way to charge employers or lenders for ratings and turn the screws on paper mills, but given the recent court and market outcomes in the field of rating agencies I just can't see a way to overcome conflict of interest.
posted by pwnguin at 1:07 AM on May 5, 2010

The Phoenix's are very popular among the US military. I'd be interested to know what percentage of their business comes from enlisted guys and NCO's who need this or that number of credit hours on their resume in order to go up a rank/pay-grade or move into the specialty they want.

I'm kind of knee-jerkily opposed to on-line degree mills, but for some of the military guys I've met it's been about the only way they could advance their own careers.
posted by bardic at 1:11 AM on May 5, 2010

I'm doubtful that people who are already employed in finance in London constitute the same niche.

I'm also not terribly surprised the British would make a public-private partnership work in education, while Americans would basically just sell degrees. In particular, you've said the traditional university has apparently vastly more regulatory control over the courses and exams, well even the whole British tradition around refereeing exams would require more control.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:33 AM on May 5, 2010

I have to point out that this includes money to pay for....

Current fund expenditures for instruction and departmental research decreased from 44% of total expenditures in 1929-1930 to 30% in 1995-1996. In the same period administration and general costs increased from 8% to 15%. The university's core mission of teaching and research is getting squeezed out by all these auxiliary tasks.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:46 AM on May 5, 2010 [3 favorites]

My continuing hope is that pressure from these new schools will help reform the existing university system. We simply need to do a better job of helping people get educated.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 4:56 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

Current fund expenditures for instruction and departmental research decreased from 44% of total expenditures in 1929-1930 to 30% in 1995-1996.

I bet the numbers were even higher in the 1863-1864 academic year than they were in 1929-1930. I wonder whether anything changed in that two-thirds of a century.
posted by Etrigan at 5:01 AM on May 5, 2010

I'm kind of knee-jerkily opposed to on-line degree mills, but for some of the military guys I've met it's been about the only way they could advance their own careers.

I work with a lot of former military in my current engineering job. A large number of them are currently working toward some form of degree. Some are going the traditional route of college (mostly 2-year associates at the local community college, then transferring to a 4-year institute to finish off a bachelors). Others are taking online classes at Phoenix-level for-profit colleges. In general I can tell a large difference between the groups, in motivation and general knowledge level.

I'm split on how I feel about University of Phoenix's Military programs that recognize prior military service for actual class credit. Military training can produce some incredibly capable people, and in general does an excellent job of shaping leaders and workers. It doesn't have quite the same focus as most college educations, for better or worse, and I'm worried that they'll be skipping out on some of the important basics.

I know for me, if I'm looking at hiring a new engineer, a degree from a traditional university weighs much more highly than one from an online degree mill, and I know that many people in hiring positions feel the same way. That's an awful lot of time and money to be throwing at what can turn out to be false hope based on false promises.
posted by This Guy at 5:27 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

the first thing wrong is in the first sentence of this post: 'Dangling the promise of a degree that will attract a job, for-profit colleges have been consistent performers for Wall Street ... .' this also happens to be the first thing *right*, since that sentence effectively ignores education and replaces that silly old-fashioned idea with money.

see also: FRAUDONOMICS (aka Our Entire Economy Is Built on Fraud) to round out the phenomenon.
posted by msconduct at 6:21 AM on May 5, 2010

This Guy: "Military training can produce some incredibly capable people, and in general does an excellent job of shaping leaders and workers. It doesn't have quite the same focus as most college educations, for better or worse, and I'm worried that they'll be skipping out on some of the important basics"

On a related tangent, I knew a guy once who served 20 years in the US Navy as what amounted to a nuclear engineer. He had all these amazing stories about what he learned and experienced in those years. And he would always end those stories by looking around him in the break room and saying, "...and now here I am, working at Wal-Mart because I'm not qualified for anything better."
posted by charred husk at 6:24 AM on May 5, 2010

"...and now here I am, working at Wal-Mart because I'm not qualified for anything better."

He just wasn't trying hard enough then. Most military contractors (and increasing numbers in the private sector) are willing to take military experience, especially technically-oriented experience like nukes, and place them into a similar position. It's not every day you meet a guy with 20 years active experience working around nuclear reactors. It's a valuable skill you just have to know how to market correctly.
posted by This Guy at 6:31 AM on May 5, 2010

This Guy: "It's a valuable skill you just have to know how to market correctly."

I had suspected this, but never wanted to say anything since I wasn't sure.
posted by charred husk at 7:11 AM on May 5, 2010

I bet the numbers were even higher in the 1863-1864 academic year than they were in 1929-1930.

The more immediate reason for the current enormous increases in student fees, and for the sudden need for employee furloughs, is the startling recent growth of UC’s senior management. Data available from the UC Office of the President shows that there were 2.5 faculty members for each senior manager in the UC system in 1993. Now there are as many senior managers as faculty. Just think: Each professor could have his or her personal senior manager.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:12 AM on May 5, 2010 [2 favorites]

Is that always true, or is that the ideal?

It's rarely true. Most often, athletic departments are net money losers, especially once you factor in a host of explicit or implicit subsidies from the university proper; there was a study in IIRC the 90s that found that 90% of athletic programs net cost the university money. And they tend not to contribute much to the academic mission of the university; I had an earlier comment I abandoned where I worked out that the UTexas athletic program, one of the most successful and generous, contributes $86/student/year to the academic university... and I think that included its own athletic scholarships. Which is really the main benefit; the athletic department in combination with legal requirements has to fund a few students who would have been admitted anyway in sports that don't take up all their time. (And of course there are a relative few athletes in men's football or basketball that can hold their own academically in spite of having their schedules ruined by the coach)

The best you can hope for apart from random scholarships is some sort of indirect benefit, where having a successful athletic program means that alumni and maybe the surrounding community are more willing to donate, and donate to the university instead of the athletic department. In much the same way as building a runway in the hopes that it will make John Frum appear, laden with goods.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:31 AM on May 5, 2010

bardic: The Phoenix's are very popular among the US military. I'd be interested to know what percentage of their business comes from enlisted guys and NCO's who need this or that number of credit hours on their resume in order to go up a rank/pay-grade or move into the specialty they want.

I didn't work for Phoenix, but I worked for a similar school, and I'd ballpark our military population at 20%. Probably about 30% more were veterans. Active military are eligible to bring in transfer credit for 75% of their total credits needed, whereas non-military students can only bring in 50%. Just about any military experience counts towards electives. Everyone went to boot camp, so there's 3 semester hours right there. Learned how to drive a tank? Great, another 3 semester hours. Etc. It doesn't matter if it has anything to do with traditional education or if it transfers over into civilian life.
posted by desjardins at 7:36 AM on May 5, 2010

Holy shit, I knew education (and student loans) was going to be a future financial bubble but this is going to put everything in fast-forward. Once the graduates of these schools (and others--including public schools) figure out that their degrees are useless without jobs... They will feel robbed, as many with college degrees do already, and as many with high school degrees have felt for a long long time now. And then they aren't going to want to pay, let alone be able to pay. TADA! Crisis in the making. The only question is whether this will come before or after the medical bubble (although the passing of the recent bill might just have answered that question).
posted by symbollocks at 7:41 AM on May 5, 2010

> College is a racket, and I mean that in the strictest sense of the word racket. Colleges create a need for their own services. It's protection racket. Pay us and we won't blow up your future. Refuse to pay, and you'll never get a job in this town.

I can't find the reference, but I recall reading somewhere that the original reason for requiring college degrees for jobs that barely rate requiring a high school diploma was to discriminate against women and minorities. Perhaps it was something written by John Taylor Gatto? Either way, I believe his Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher's Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling provides an interesting insight into the forces behind requiring college degrees for mundane office jobs.

I liken the constant barrage of "find your best college match online" advertisements to the barrage of "refinance your mortgage" advertisements viewers of news and sports programs were subjected to around the turn of the century. Eventually people get the feeling that everybody else is doing it, so they'd better do it too. This is been going on for years now. 60 Minutes covered some of this same territory in 2005.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:59 AM on May 5, 2010

So sure, there are issues of quality. And it's not unimportant. Just like with the housing industry. How durable are these houses being built in subdivisions in mass amounts using the cheapest building materials and methods in order to secure the biggest profit? Not very. But they'll work for now. Just like degrees from these for-profit universities.

The bigger issue at hand, just like with the housing boom, is not that these people are necessarily hucksters, but that they are doing something that is very financially unsustainable in the long run... something very over valued by investors (and the students) that could result in a financial calamity.
posted by symbollocks at 8:01 AM on May 5, 2010

One might install some lending-institution-wide cap on the per-credit federal backing for student loans, say at community collage levels. In other words, we don't care your community collage turns out students who default on their loans right-and-left, but you best deliver result if your backing students paying $30k per year. Otherwise, you'll end up paying their tuition while the federal government repays you only community collage tuition.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:24 AM on May 5, 2010

Issues of quality exist as much in the non-profit college sector as the for-profit sector, among the vast swath of colleges we don't usually think about because those in the social and political establishment really attend the same roughly 250 well-established state universities and private institutions. If there are any new regulations, they should apply across the board.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:29 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

ob1quixote: I can't find the reference, but I recall reading somewhere that the original reason for requiring college degrees for jobs that barely rate requiring a high school diploma was to discriminate against women and minorities. Perhaps it was something written by John Taylor Gatto? Either way, I believe his Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher's Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling provides an interesting insight into the forces behind requiring college degrees for mundane office jobs.

Oh yes, it must be some racist or sexist conspiracy. It can't possibly be that a college education is better than nothing and there's so many people with them now that a lot of jobs can afford to be picky.

I can't think of many jobs that 'barely rate requiring a high school diploma' and still require degrees. Honestly, if you can't get a diploma or GED in the current schooling environment, I'm amazed you can remember to open doors before trying to walk through them. A job that didn't require a diploma or GED couldn't even count on the applicants being literate.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:52 AM on May 5, 2010

don't forget the government officials who have bought their degrees!
posted by msconduct at 9:08 AM on May 5, 2010

and here's a link to a previous discussion.
posted by msconduct at 9:27 AM on May 5, 2010

I recall there being a moment in the early or mid 1990s where the gov't woke up and realized it was getting scammed by for- profit vo-tech (e.g. cosmetology) schools etc milking the Guaranteed student loan system in precisely this manner.
Everyting old is new again.
United.Scams.of.America lives on
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:24 AM on May 5, 2010

Honestly, if you can't get a diploma or GED in the current schooling environment, I'm amazed you can remember to open doors before trying to walk through them.

Fewer than 25% of students who begin 9th grade in a Detroit public school complete their high school degrees. Are you saying that 75% of children unlucky enough to be born in inner-city Detroit are idiots? Or is it possible that there are other factors that may lead to some children having a better shot at a high school diploma and subsequent higher education than others?
posted by decathecting at 12:08 PM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

Being able to attend college online has been a lifesaver for me. Having universities reach out to me, treat me as if I matter, and provide substantial support every step of the way has made such a difference in my life. It remains to be seen if I would ever have what it takes to go to a brick-and-mortar school since I am disabled. I love being able to go to school online, and yes, in my pajamas.
posted by Danila at 3:33 PM on May 5, 2010

Also, why are people conflating "online degrees", "for-profit schools", and "degree mills"? You can get an online degree from many state schools and non-profits. You can go to a for-profit school without taking any online courses at all (like many a Phoenix grad). And you can get a "degree" from a degree mill without taking a single class.

I just think there is a lot of prejudiced, sloppy thinking going on here.
posted by Danila at 3:38 PM on May 5, 2010 [5 favorites]

When I went to university, many kids were wearing less than pajamas to class.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:40 PM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

I just think there is a lot of prejudiced, sloppy thinking going on here.

Good thinking; you're right.
posted by Vibrissae at 10:00 PM on May 5, 2010

Agreed. "Online", "for-profit", and "degree mills" are three different things and it does no one any good to conflate them.
posted by litlnemo at 4:48 AM on May 6, 2010

There was a recent AskMeFi thread about the distractions of student open-lap-top web-surfing/face-booking during college lectures.

There were a few comments along the lines of: "...if the course material in the lecture is not presented as interesting to us, we will ignore the lecture, and study the course material later on our own time..."



,

(Just started re-reading 'Mockingbird' by Walter Tevis)
posted by ovvl at 6:55 PM on May 6, 2010

Vibrissae, that article had some interesting ideas. Obviously I have my own bias because I have a degree I got online and am pursuing another one right now. Typically discussions about this topic are heavily against that course, but I still think it was one of the best decisions of my life. When I talk to my other classmates I discover that most of them are just not served by the approach of the brick-and-mortar universities. What I like about the article is the fact that, unlike the (disappointing) Frontline report, the author actually talked about why the for-profits are so successful, and what more traditional colleges can do to emulate them without sacrificing everything to profits.

Drop the agrarian calendar as an absurd holdover from a bygone era.

I go to school year-round, with a two-week break in the winter time. I wouldn't want the summers off (shoot, if I had a choice I'd go for taking the dreary winters off). I never stop learning and building on what I have learned.

Help students navigate the financial aid process.

And this is why I decided to go to college online. They walked me through every step of the process, and supported me beyond graduation. The financial aid process was especially daunting to me because I had no idea how to navigate it, I depended on getting aid to help pay for every dime since I can't work, and I was terrified of making a mistake. A lot of my classmates are very busy working or in the military and I think we all appreciated the streamlined process.
posted by Danila at 10:43 PM on May 7, 2010

i think part of the rise of requiring degrees for jobs that previously didn't require degrees was to provide a low bar for job applicants to meet without having to have a "skills test" to make sure your applicant could do basic math or whatever.
posted by rmd1023 at 10:43 AM on May 10, 2010

Grant Lets ‘Frontline’ Expand PBS Programming
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on May 19, 2010 [1 favorite]