I still feel like they get a bad rap. Was it overpriced? Probably. Did I learn a ton and have small class sizes. Absolutely. The instructors had all previously worked in the industry, and knew their topics very well.
On top of all that, after graduation their persistent pestering of "how many places did you apply to this week?" (surely to help their numbers) had a lot to do with me actually getting a job. I didn't want to let the lady that called me weekly down. It took a lot of persistence and interviewing but I finally got my foot firmly in the door about 6 months after graduation.
I've been gainfully employed in the industry for ten years, I'm debt free, and I'm happy. I'm thankful for my time there.
A common pattern I have seen:
Person does terrible in high school, doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades. They go to community college, and surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going. After a while they want to go back to school, so they start looking into these for profit colleges that promise them everything. These colleges make it sound so much more appealing than community college, because, well, community college isn't trying to sell you a bullshit education. Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50k+ in worthless education.
The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort.
I have seen many people follow this exact path and I am glad to see these companies shutting down. You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.
The best advice I ever received was to not pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy.
It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.
>Person does terrible in high school,doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades.
That was me
>They go to community college
That was me
>surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going
Nope, that was not me. I got a 4.0 in communnity college
>Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50K+ in worthless education.
Essentially, that was also me. I was utterly convinced and sold that going to a high ranking university was the best thing for me
>The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort.
Back to that being me again
>You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.
My community college education was mostly useless except for a few classes: 2 science classes (although one of the profs had a lawsuit with the school which affected our course quality), 1 course in calc, and 1 course in sociology/economics with a particularly good professor. A lot of the courses taught me either stuff I already knew, could learn easily with freely available resources online, or stuff that wasn't true or had no understandable merit.
TL;DR I didn't do my homework in high school. I got a job at a ski resort out of high school, then went to community college, got a 4.0, went to a high ranking university, ended up unemployed with a 50k+ education. Granted, I graduated during the recession, but this exact thing can happen to you if you are going to good universities as well.
I would rather have skipped community college and uni, spent the money on skiing in Switzerland and taught myself maths and programming while continuing to work in ski resorts and something that involved a summer hobby of mine like mountain biking, alpine hiking, long distance running or with video games.
I went to a public engineering school in France, for which the student has virtually nothing to pay, and could secure a job in ~ 2 months after graduation without trying very hard (I did an interview in two companies). I was debt free... all my life. I'm not even talking about a prestigious Grande École, just your random everyday engineering school, which you can find in pretty much every region (with often several different schools in big cities). An Engineering Degree is equivalent to a Master’s Degree, and especially well suited to work in ... engineering. There certainly also are private engineering schools, which some of them maybe are less selective or slightly more recognized, but they are monitored by the state in order for the diploma they deliver to have an official value, and they are still far less expensive than private schools in the USA.
Well, there also are unrecognized for-profit schools with unrecognized (officially) diploma, or even with funny teaching setups (students teach each others...) but I'm not sure they attract a lot of people. Given they tend to concentrate on only technical and practical stuff, its probably even less useful to go there nowadays.
To complete the picture, most people who follow higher education studies in France actually go to the Public University (and not engineering schools) and it is far less selective, so the attrition the first years is quite big - and also it can be less easy to find a job depending on the degree you get and your domain. However, the public university is also obviously virtually free for students (regardless of the prepared degree), and talented students also have usually no pb finding jobs (and at least no insane debt :)
but on a whole, even state and private (non profit - now there is the real crime - the non profit colleges) have nothing to brag about https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_326.10.a...
I think about the government handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it. Taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for these failed loans, and if they know which institutions are largely at fault then good on them for being proactive
Right, but ot depends on the facts.
Were they just asked to put up reasonable collateral, foreseeable from what they delivered compared with their responsibilities by taking federal money? Or were they blindsided with an arbitrary number from the DOE that was intended to force them to shut down before they had a chance to save their business?
Probably a little (or a lot) of both. And we should be as wary of the latter as the former.
Even if you're fine with the amount we spend, the F35 is just one example of exactly what you're talking about, but in terms of defense instead of education. Should we cancel contracts to Lockheed Martin because of how they fail to deliver? Or perhaps consider that even wasted education spending is probably more productive than wasted defense spending?
It's clear that they deliver an education. The question is whether they then get the people who have an education a job, similar to how a fighter plane maker may make a plane, but it may not do its intended job well. I guess I just find it interesting how a lot less time is spent talking about taxpayer spending on wasted weapons, while the measly education budget gets scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.
As the gainful employment rule[1] currently stands it exempts degree programs from public and private non-profit institutions. I'd rather see a uniform set of metrics and standards applied to all institutions eligible for student loans.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-255...
I know there is an ongoing debate about the worth of a liberal arts education in the modern economy, but there's something to be said about the traditional notion of education for education's sake, rather than as a mechanism to improve lifetime earnings.
Something should be done about the high cost of post-secondary education and the untenable burden it places on many students, but I disagree that the solution should be tied to job prospects.
There's probably a lot of wiggle room there, but it's not like you can just pay yourself anything.
If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.
Is it prestigious? Nope. But it got the job done and I was done in 2 years.
Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority.
I also wonder how much their lack of success could be contributed to the kinds of people who have ITT as their most viable option. You might be able to better speak to this than I, but I've always kind of assumed ITT was a "last resort", where other institutions (community colleges, etc) would be better options if available.
The reality: most of these students will not realize a return on the investment of their time and acquisition of a ton of debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy. Many will fail to attend class, fail to take notes, fail to do homework, fail to learn, and will not complete - but because they have already sunk huge costs into the endeavor, will continue incurring more costs in spite of the writing on the wall.
The economics means that these schools are unsustainable. However, some people find success through these schools. How can we continue to serve these people?
Perhaps we could avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by creating more community colleges, allowing more people to enroll in affordable community colleges, complete milestones at their own pace, while providing more direct subsidies of tuition for the truly needy. I agree that we would benefit from more German-style apprenticeship programs as well. For all of their worker protections, they still have incredibly low youth unemployment.
Spending some years at community college before transferring to a larger university's degree program is a great way for poorer students to save tuition money, and for academically unprepared students to catch up to their age cohort in a reasonable way. The disadvantage lies in the social networking, which is a big part of the value of (4 years of) on-campus university education. At a community college, it is somewhat less advantageous to make contacts with other students and professors, because they are less prestigious overall. Someone with an associate's degree is not as likely to help you get a job (at least for several years after graduation).
Most for-profit schools lack several of the elements I consider to be absolutely essential to qualify as a "community college". Many of them appear to be so horribly parasitic and exploitative that I can't figure out how they manage to get so many students.
However, the State of Ohio overhauled how it helps funds state universities, where funds are allocated based on graduation rather than enrollment. As a result, state universities have started shifting more and more students to take low level courses at whatever community college, or colleges, they partner with. In particular, students with higher drop-out risk also get sent over to the community college.
I think that, along with many of the State's public universities slashing tuition on entry-level courses have helped improve the cost burden of higher education, particularly for those high-risk groups where they only take a few classes and fail to complete the program.
nothing, but they don't have slick advertising and promise you a $75k/year job, or aggressively recruit you by calling you non-stop and using manipulative pressure tactics like you're buying a $50,000 cell phone plan at a mall kiosk.
Strangely they don't advertise at all - at least in the media I see. While I saw IIT ads all the time. And they target the same demographic.
That and then there is a general "anti-university" sort of vibe in the world. "They waste a lot of time and money teaching you stuff that you don't need" or "it's just a piece of paper" where as maybe a vocational school might be a more "efficient" option for getting a job. I'm not expert but I believe a lot of community colleges try to offer college prep courses and try to help ease the transition, rather than just focus on vocational skills that can immediately be applied to a job.
They are comparatively affordable though and you aren't likely to go into crushing debt to go to community college, though it's possible, my uncle did it.
There was one of the "best" community colleges in the country in my hometown. Best ranked by, I have no idea, people in town just talked about how it's ranked high nationally. I took a few classes there the summers I spent in my hometown during my college years to speed up my university degree. The quality of classes and education was seriously lacking in the classes I took. They were not college level in my opinion (even though my credits had no problem transferring). Grades were posted online without names attached and it was shocking to me that half the class was struggling to pass such a basic class. These C community college students are not going to make it in a 4 year university if that's what they are aiming for.
My friend did get her LPN there though and seems like a good nurse so maybe it was ok for more "trade" type degrees.
Community college is not the answer to the kids flunking out of ITT tech. They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt. Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer. More subsidies is even more not the answer.
Who's trying to solve the problem of kids flunking out of ITT Tech? One of the problems with ITT Tech is that you can't flunk out of it.
> They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt.
You seem to think that there's a problem with people doing badly at ITT Tech. The problem is that ITT Tech is bad, not that people are doing badly there. That people are saddled with a worthless qualification and are in crushing debt from the process of getting it is the problem.
> Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer.
To the question that nobody asked? No. To people ending up in horrible debt with a worthless credential? Of course it is. It would take you 4-5 years in community college to generate the debt that you can in a semester of one of these fake schools. Community colleges are fine. Some are great. I went from community college to university, and a ton of other people did with me, a few to Northwestern and the University of Chicago (I just went to UIC.) I'm sorry you didn't like yours, but you shouldn't judge all Chinese restaurants because the meal you had at the one in your hometown was too salty.
> More subsidies is even more not the answer.
To what question?
I have to admit that while I'm obviously against exploitative schemes, the shutdown of something that may have been a viable alternative to a traditional university hurts a little. Small trade schools, which ITT presented itself as even if it was in reality just a scam, are much better learning environments than large universities for most of the kind of stuff that hackers do.
I'm worried there will be a small cultural backlash against people without traditional educations on the heels of this shutdown. Since traditional university education is mostly just a massive, deeply-ingrained scam itself, this is disappointing.
The distinction is important. It is likely --- overwhelmingly likely, I think --- that there are programs with "the dream" you site that will work well. They just won't work like government-subsidized for-profit colleges.
High schools here are starting to encourage kids to take a more non-traditional route to a career and letting kids know there are other avenues other than 4 year colleges - including more vocational training, apprenticeships and other options like code camps.
3rd tier colleges with Ivy League prices aren't, and are only done based on misleading financial aid. I've seen a lot of resumes of people from for-profit schools. The graduates fall in 2 camps: Those who regret the decision, and those who don't realize how badly they were scammed.
90% of the time I see a title attached to someone's name ("Jane Smith, Phd" or "John Doe, MBA") it's from one of these overpriced degree factories, and it's a terribly negative signal.
Thankfully I too have been able to take advantage of the Department of Education relief. But I have to go through the process of the “borrower defense to repayment”. It continues to be a tough process but at least it some form of relief for me.
I hope former ITT students are able to find a quick resoluton. This type of school shutdown is not easy on anyone.
On another note, I wonder if this is the start of the 'higher-ed debt bubble' that has been predicted for quite some time now...
The recent issues at Corinthian and ITT (including the fraud lawsuits against both and the DOE pressure on accreditors, as well as the ultimately DOE action after the fraud lawsuits and accreditation issues at ITT) are a direct result of efforts to end "easy student loans for worthless education."
Far cry from the current entrenched and inflexible education system.
The marketing notion that the options are solely UCLA or ITT Tech is part of the problem with for-profit colleges!
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAPOL&fstype=ii&ei=...
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADV&fstype=ii&ei=HvnO...
https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS%3ACOCOQ&fstype=ii&e...
The deflation of it you mean?
https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/fi...
I found this when doing my research for the borrower to defense repayment act when submitting to the Department of Education. I included a copy of this exact PDF with the URL in my application.
http://suburbdad.blogspot.ca/2016/09/friday-fragments.html
Transfer of any sort tends to be tricky. You rarely get anything close to parity, particularly in core courses.
ITT is just the worst example of crappy education. There are plenty of schools where a crappy education is still available. Federally backed (edit: guarenteed) money for student loans intuitively seems problematic.
I'm pretty sure the ones that graduated have no chance of their credits transferring either. Only difference is they saved whatever the last couple tuition payments would have been.
How many state schools and private colleges could survive without government largess? We've seen a massive increase in tuition costs, far beyond inflation in recent years. Such is the result of artificially boosting demand for college on the backs of the taxpayer.
As for forgiving ITT student loans, I say no. Students are responsible for their own loans and (bad) decisions. By that reasoning, shouldn't we just forgive all student debt for anyone who didn't get their dream job straight out of undergrad? What about those who don't finish school but still have loans? For everyone but the far left, these ideas are ludicrous. Let's not make the taxpayer suffer twice for the poor decisions of others.
There's nothing recent about it. Tuition has been rising far beyond on inflation going back to at least the 1920s. Take Stanford. For each decade here is the factor tuition actually rose from that of 10 years earlier divided by the factor it would have risen by if it had only risen by the inflation rate:
1930 3.0
1940 1.4
1950 1.1
1960 1.2
1970 1.8
1980 1.2
1990 1.4
2000 1.3
2010 1.3
The reason we have seen tuition rates go up at public schools is precisely because their share of taxpayer funding has been cut, they have to make up for the missing funds somehow. You'd wish they would rely less on tuition because then we could do without useless taught masters degrees and with less shiny amenities designed to compete for the tuition income.
Nowadays you see community colleges building dormitories! Neither the student body nor the taxpayer needs that kind of expense so the place can attract students from three counties away.
I think it's a bit much to claim this as the sole or even main reason. Tuition has gone up because it can. People are willing to pay it because, who cares, it's just a loan. Not money out of pocket.
Look at the financials from University of Texas for FY 2014-2015: https://utexas.app.box.com/v/annual-financial-reports/1/8167...
Federally sponsored programs UP $20 million from previous year. Local programs up more than $2 million. These more than offset state-level funding being down $6 million, and that $6 million is a drop in the bucket of $1.6 BILLION in operating revenues. Over $200 million increase in net worth in that year alone, and over $1 BILLION in net increase the year before.
Schools are not hurting for money. Tuition students pay is less than half of the money they make. Tuition does not go up because it needs to, it goes up because they want it to and because it can.
UT could make tuition and fees literally $0 for everyone and they'd still be profitable over the past two years.
And if the county their from doesn't have a community college, or the community college in their county doesn't offer the programs they want?
Everyone you talk to everywhere says that "a college education is the path to a good job" and "college educated workers make - on average - n% more than their non-college-educated counterparts". When these people (kids really at 18) graduate from high school, they are making the best decision they can possibly make.
Yes, we know now that ITT was basically a diploma mill, but for a very long time ITT grads got good jobs in the tech industry.
Taking on the loans is the bad decision, in the case that the student is stuck with no career prospects and a mountain of debt.
> they are making the best decision they can possibly make
That is not true. Going to college is not the best decision for everyone. Many graduates are over-qualified for the jobs they end up taking. Many jobs that should not require a degree now can afford to filter applicants based on completing college, since so many more people are going.
Employers are basically using your years at school as a signal that you are a hard worker. Is that signal worth the time and cost?
(I have a single semester at UIC and no other college).
* Why did I go? I was just out of high-school and I wanted to be a software engineer. I looked at the local university (Robert Morris in Pittsburgh, PA), but I didn't like their program. I was one of those kids who started tinkering with programming at 12 by making Pokemon fan sites :)
4 Years at a university studying a generic comp-sci degree didn't appeal to me. ITT offered a degree in Software Applications and Programming. It was what I was looking for.
* What did I study? As mentioned, Software Applications and Programming. Aside from the core classes (English, Calc, Trig, etc...) there were 2 OS classes, 2 VB, 2 C++, 2 Java, 2 webdev and 1 data structures class. at 18, this is what I was looking for. A few classes to teach me the basics in those areas and let me chase down the rest.
* What was it like? I don't have a single word to describe it, and when people ask me in person I find that I can take a good 20 minutes describing it. I'll do my best to sum it up.
disclaimer: they kept 3 students on hand as lab assistants and I was one for most of my two years there. Basically, we helped out the professors as needed and offered to help tutor. It paid something like $8/hr. My opinion may be skewed because of that.
- It was 100% for profit, and you could tell. Professors wouldn't really be allowed to fail students. It always bothered me that someone who only came to class on the first and last days was able to "barely pass"
- "Testing out" was frowned upon. You could do it, but you needed permission from the Dean, and meet with the professor and "career services" before you took the test. I was told you had to pass with a 100% to test out - I can't really vouch for that since I never tried.
- "Career Services" was a bit of a joke. It was 3 ladies who would critic your resume and let you know if they had heard of any job opening. Don't get me wrong, they were really nice people who wanted to help. I just didn't get much value from them. Sometimes local companies would come to ITT to post job openings. CS would at least email those out to you if you wanted.
- The classes were basic - "topic for dummies" basic. I'm no genius, but I didn't have to take notes. I don't know if it was that I had already been learning for 7 years before ITT or what, but I didn't really learn many new things there. It was kind of two years of review. I may be wrong on this one; I just don't have any memories of struggling to learn something.
- The professors and staff were nice. They did want to see you succeed.
- Credit transfers. They were upfront most colleges wouldn't transfer credits, but rumor had it the local university would take a few. Mainly the cores (maths, english, etc..)
* Final thoughts? - Would I go again? No
- Would I tell other people to go? No
- Was it worth it? Yes. I did get a degree. It isn't prestigious and I don't care. I was able to have a job lined up (in my field) before graduation. Fast forward to today and I have moved to the other side of the country. I have a great family, a good consulting job, and the confidence I need to build any software you want.
How much of that was ITT, and how much was my own sweat and blood? I don't know. What I do know is I would not have been hired at the same place right out of college. Which means I wouldn't have made the connections I did which led to me moving across the country.
edit:
I see a few topics regarding loan forgiveness because of fraud. I experienced no such thing. Sure, the recruiters made a few statements that I consider un-true. But i wouldn't call it fraud. They did provide an education. (It may not have been the best) and they did try to place you in a job (they can't place everybody!)
Ultimately, it was on me for borrowing money; not the school
So it looks like you might have a chance.
That's the problem. Maybe I'm in the minority but everyone I know has like less than $10k in federal loans and $40k or more in private loans.
I can't figure out how I end up reading about people with $100k in federal student loan debt that get forgiveness for working for the government. How the hell did you manage to get THAT much in federal subsidized money? The only way I could go to school was by using private loans. My wife has private loans at 13% adjustable...
For years it was always a struggle of bashing ITT with my colleagues/the internet, but talking them up with potential employers. The only thing $40k of debt got me was the perceived prestige an employer likely already had of ITT. Now that they're defunct there's definitely no up-selling them.
It's very easy to take advantage of certain people. I'm glad the government is doing its job protecting people from unfair practices.
If information asymmetry wasn't so exceedingly common maybe we wouldn't have to deal with consumers making poor mistakes because they "should have known better."
{edit} Seems like US Universities are about 1:1 faculty vs staff. Up from 2:1 40 years ago.
If you take the ITT story, make the teachers actually teach to the accredited standard such that credit transfers "work", and cut the price 90%, it's not that bad of a deal. With tuition at $3K or so per semester, its hard to accumulate $50K in ITT style loans at a "public county tech" when a semester of school takes about half a year of part time employment at minimum wage...
I would imagine there are places to live without "public county tech" schools, but without educational institutions and other than importing them from us, where do you get your welders and electrician apprentices and similar?
You must have some feedback control, wherein the amount of public funding is dependent upon some objective criterion that measures the extent to which the public college provides a useful service to the public.
For instance, give the college a percentage (that decays exponentially) of the income taxes collected from their alumni. Schools that focus on teaching the knowledge and skills that actually make students employable would then be able to more freely provide tuition discounts to students, expecting that the recurring revenue stream after graduation would make up for the lesser amount collected up front.
They all hound their alumni for money all the time, anyway.
These are almost all going to be, by definition, disadvantaged people who have been lied to and defrauded. Yes, they 'chose' to do this, but the staggering amount of misleading advertising (and the worst kinds of sleazy-salesman lies & emotional manipulation of the vulnerable) leaves plenty of doubt as to how much of a choice they had.
I see very little difference between helping these people and helping storm victims. Nearly all for-profit education (that made a profit, anyway) is an ugly disaster and should never have been allowed to go on so long. The government actually did something right here for once.
The whole "small government" thing has just been people blowing off their responsibilities.
Here's how that sounds to me: "Well, ITT technically hasn't done anything illegal. But we don't like them. How much cash do they have? Double that amount and tell them we need this much for 'collateral' or we shut them down."
Can anyone fill in the blanks that Bloomberg didn't? What basis does the government have to make such demands (as it appears to me) out of the blue? Why make such demands knowing going into it that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy? (That last question is kind of rhetorical.)
The DOE action is based on a risk of business failure produced by fraud lawsuits by the SEC (for securities fraud) and CFPB (for consumer fraud) against ITT, both directly and because the costs and potential fundamental issues with ITTs then-existing business model revealed by those lawsuits also led to the risk of losing the accreditation from its accreditor.
(Incidentally, that's an accreditor whose notorious laxness in enforcing standards on private universities has led to the recommendation that it be no longer accepted as an accreditor by the Department of Education, a recommendation which may result in action this month removing it as an accreditor.)
Ah, thanks, that clears it up for me.
The utilitarian argument is that the taxpayers should be secured against paying for useless education. I guarantee you schools like that are a net utility loss for the public and the government obviously doesn't like that.
Not out of the blue at all.
That's quite a mitigation strategy the government has going on there.
ITT was accredited by an accreditor recognized by the government (though, among their many other problems, that accreditor has, this year, been formally recommended to be removed from that list of recognized accreditors; and even if they weren't removed, they had notified ITT that ITT's accreditation was in jeopardy -- that jeopardy was, in fact, the main direct basis of the recent DOE actions against ITT [the other direct basis is the risk associated with the fraud lawsuits against ITT, which are also the basis for the accreditation risk].)
> If your credit hours won't transfer then it isn't a real College or University.
Transferrability is a different issue than accreditation, and often differs strongly from receiving school to receiving school.
Yes but basically no regionally accredited school is taking nationally accredited credits. There is no way to transfer to a "legitimate school" in that case.
"Free education" they say. "It will solve problems" they say. "Education will be better" they say.
No, it won't. Free education -- or subsidized loans -- puts a disconnect between education and its cost.
If the person paying is not the person deciding, a poor decision will be made. It's just like how HSAs prompt people to think about what they're spending their money on.
ITT would not exist but for government spending. Sure, some will beat the dead horse of more regulation. But the real answer is STOP SUBSIDIZING. Stop subsidizing education, stop subsidizing mortgages, stop subsidizing GM, stop blowing decisions sideways by removing the universal language of cost from the discussion.
Unsubsidized education either a) means more private loans somehow now exempt from bankruptcy proceedings or b) education is now only for those that can afford it.
I am the complete and total opposite of your position. How it is that we provide 12-14 years of education for free, but then burden the economy with an insane amount of unsecured debt for the last four is insanity. It places our economy at risk, it severely stunts upward mobility, it burdens our youngest minds with mortgage-sized debts, and it sinks people into a lifetime of debt.
If college is, in general, required to actively participate in our society, it should be paid for the same as (Pre)K-12.
Edit: I'd like to say that I agree that subsidizing activity as a direct pass through of money from government to for-profit enterprise is a bad idea. Don't subsidize for-profit colleges. But they were never needed to begin with.
Anyway, option B. Having a restaurant is only for those who can afford it. Owning a house is only for those who can afford it. Starting a start-up is only for those who can afford it.
Fortunately, we have a system that allows people to pay each of those costs over a period of time (in some cases, even over a lifetime, as you pointed out).
Maybe your restaurant goes under, or your house goes underwater, or your skills aren't valuable, or (however unlikely) your start-up fails. I don't know what to tell you. Reality's a bitch. Hopefully your research and efforts are enough for you to make the right decisions.
It's quite possible for a $20k education to produce a $1 million payoff. In that case, anyone can afford it. It's also possible for a $150k education to produce a $90k payoff. In that case, few can afford it
I'm not going to tell you what to do, pay for it, or take your earnings. You alone can make those decisions.
Sadly that's becoming more and more common a trend in this country. It's the same as all the poor chaps who kept trying to pay their underwater mortgages while they're neighbors squatted for free.
Honest Joe seems to never catch a break :(
Its not over, but the writing is on the wall, not just with the Corinthian and ITT actions, but more with the focus on ACICS (the accreditor of both Corinthian and ITT, and a vast number of other for-profit schools) which has formally been recommended to be removed as an accreditor recognized by the DOE (a recommendation which, I believe, must be acted on by the end of this month.)
I get not everyone needs to go to an Ivy League school, but for vocational basics -- what people are going to these for-profit schools hoping to gain -- community college should be "good enough."
I'd look at Bellevue Community College as a great example of a strong vocational tech school. That should be a model others could strive for. When I was younger I learned a great deal in BCC classes -- knowledge that was immediately beneficial to my day job as a software developer.
In contrast, the classes at BCC were far more hands-on training than what I got at the school I eventually graduated from. Educationally, community college I feel was better... but certainly for connections and networking the "name-brand" schools pay off.
This seems very unfair to taxpayers, who are essentially forced creditors. If the college reneges on its contract with students, then the students should seek to reclaim their losses through a class action lawsuit against ITT. The government shouldn't be covering losses on what were, arguably, bad investments.
It was founded by several state governors about 20 years ago, and is accredited by The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
It's pricing is interesting: $2890 per six-month term, regardless of how many classes you take or credits you earn during that term. If you want to take a heavy load to earn the degree faster and save money, you can.
Each degree program has a particular list of skills that you have to demonstrate competency in to earn the degree. They offer, of course, all the necessary classes to learn those skills, but you are not required to take those classes--you are just required to demonstrate the skills. If you have already acquired some of these skills elsewhere, you can take the test or do the project that demonstrates it and that will count toward the degree.
For most of the IT degrees you also earn several widely recognized third-party IT certifications, at no extra cost. For example the IT bachelor's program in network administration includes these certifications: MSCA Windows Server, CompTIA Linux+, CompTIA A+, CompTIA Network+, CompTIA Security+, and CompTIA Project+.
(The offer more than IT, BTW. The also have bachelor and master programs in teaching, business, and health).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Governors_University
http://www.citypages.com/news/itt-tech-sells-an-american-dre...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31I9RvluEA
I asked that once during an interview, and was met with blank stares. Haven't asked it since, but I feel like it could have been hilarious.
Indeed.
Many students come out of the great schools owing thousands and having a very hard time getting a job.
This is not new. The fact is that universities weren't created for job training. Their job was to expand your knowledge. That's why you can get a degree in Greek mythology or Latin or whatever.
It was really a way for rich people to spend their time in something constructive. Somewhere the idea of a university and job training came together but universities aren't very good at job training so that's the big problem. We as a society don't have a great way to train the massed for society's jobs.
Community college focus on getting you to a four year college but they need to do a better job at job training.
For profit schools have tried but they focus on profits and lose sight of the students.
We blame the institutions but students also need to take responsibility. If you can't take the time learn don't expect to get a job where someone needs to have a productive employee to keep the business going.
Also the K-12 schools need to do something to fix the problem. How is it that a student goes through 13 years of school and not learn to be a productive employee? That the real shame.Yet we put the blame elsewhere.
Politicians love to argue the effects of same sex bathrooms but they aren't willing to take on why schools are failing society.
We need to fix that.
they shut down because the u.s. department of education banned them from enrolling new students who use federal financial aid.
what do you think would happen to "not for-profit" colleges if the u.s. department of education did the same to them? i'd argue it's the "not for-profit" schools who are driving tuition prices up because the government won't stop loaning money to anyone with a pulse.
dry up that loan money and watch prices fall from the sky.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons...
EDIT: Not sure what the downvotes are for. ITT gets shutdown, but Laureate does the same thing, but even more so and gets a pass. The only difference appears to be these kinds of payoffs to politicos.
But it's quite another problem if the school loses their accreditation and is unable to deliver a quality education.