anyone go to university of phoenix?

Jasiono

That university doesn't deserve to be called one

MeanDrunkR2D2

N2IT wrote: »

Don't have a dog in this fight. However I thought I would tell a short story

My friend went to the Air Force ~ 10 years ago and after his 4 years he used his GI Bill to get a MIS from UofP. He went to the help desk after he got out but advanced pretty quickly into other system roles. It didn't seem to slow his progress. He was unusually good at IT though so.......

Him getting those jobs probably had alot more to do with his AF experience as employers would know that most of those guys are smart and bust their butts to get things done right. He could have gotten a degree from a cracker jack box and would have had the pick of the litter of jobs. There are things to be said about having that military background on your resume.

EngRob

Although you will get credit for A+ and would have it as part of your WGU course, there are other options for entry requirements. I didn't have any credits that would be transferred into WGU (international transfer), or any certifications passed within the last 5 years. I paid and sat the CIW foundations exam and it took me about all of 10 minutes.

Definitely don't go with UoP unless you enjoy spending amounts of low ROI money, or enjoy debt. The education may be ok but it's priced itself out of the market.

successrealm

MeanDrunkR2D2 wrote: »

Him getting those jobs probably had alot more to do with his AF experience as employers would know that most of those guys are smart and bust their butts to get things done right. He could have gotten a degree from a cracker jack box and would have had the pick of the litter of jobs. There are things to be said about having that military background on your resume.

Much agreed on that, MeanDrunk. I did ten years in the US Military, and it has helped me. I have NO Degree, not even an associates, and had NO certs until last December except ITIL, and I've reached right at six figures.

I actually could have moved higher up/faster if I would have not been "loyal" to companies for 5 years here, 6 years there, et cetera, and simply changed jobs like most people upwards after 1-2 years and moved up the corporate ladder. The reason I am finishing my BS degree and perhaps MBA, is because I want that CIO, CISO title, and pay. The CISSP that I take (and hopefully pass) in June will help that goal, as well. Who knows, I might just do consulting and open up a Security business here in VA and DC, instead? Work for myself, govt contracts...hmmmmm.

University of Phoenix has success stories, but I agree, the AF probably helped this guy.

N2IT

@ Success and Mean

You could be right! It's the only person I have known to get a degree from there. Like you mentioned he had 4 years of IT experience in the AF and he was extremely gifted in IT. I believe he recieved a 90 on the ASVAB. Not sure how that rates out but I am sure it's pretty high.

ajs1976

OP,

with a name like JerseyIT92 are you in New Jersey? Have you considered Thomas Edison State College?

jerseyIT92

ajs1976 wrote: »

OP,

with a name like JerseyIT92 are you in New Jersey? Have you considered Thomas Edison State College?

No, I haven't. I'll give them a call today and get some information. I'm waiting to hear back from WGU to see if I got accepted.

MikesThatGuy

Hi Jersey. I currently go to UoP for a bachelors in IT focusing in software development and I am trying to transfer to WGU. While the material you get from Phoenix is good material, from my experience, it is not worth the price. The classes are way too easy at times, and most of the time you don't get any help or feedback from your instructors if you need it. I do not work in the IT field, but have taken some IT classes at UoP, and am currently studying for a cert. I am not sure if I will be able to transfer at this time. I am scheduled to talk to an enrollment advisor within the next week though to see if I am eligible for transfer or not. Like I said, the material you get in regards to the studying material and reading is informative, it is way too overpriced. At first, it seems like gold, but once you get 3-4 classes in, you start to realize it is not what you expected and feel like you are stuck. I am not bashing the school, but I would advise you to not attend there.

Mike-Mike

I have an Associates degree from the University of Phoenix and I have a Bachelors and a Masters from WGU.

In the long run, they are all just pieces of paper. The piece of paper from WGU is much cheaper than the one from U of P. Phoenix was fine, but just really expensive.

christodd719

I went to UOP and received a BS in Information Technology. UOP is an accredited school and your credits will transfer to most colleges and universities. It is however, expensive. When I went they had a program called FlexNet which was part online and part on campus. Also, there were classes that weren't online at all. You had to go to class every week just like in a regular university. There are a lot of people that bash UOP, but I got a quality education out of it and albeit a little expensive. One last thing once you are an alum you have access to the online resources through UOP. The online library has come in real handy since I graduated.

eSenpai

christodd719 wrote: »

...a lot of people that bash UOP, but I got a quality education out of it and albeit a little expensive. One last thing once you are an alum you have access to the online resources through UOP. The online library has come in real handy since I graduated.

I also came to say that.

UoP is indeed expensive but it met both my application to enrollment time requirements as well as my “time not tied to a b&m location” requirements. As stated, the free access that alumni have has more than made up for the initial costs since I do almost all my CPE's and PDU's this way.

Even though I finished at UoP due to life reasons, I also attended GA TECH (one of the best technical schools in the country); so I can say for certain that you get out of a UoP education what you put into it. IMHO, this is the same as with any school. There are people out here RELYING on school reputation for advancement because they skated through with a C at a tier 1 school but didn't retain much of that tier 1 education at all. Not mad at them for getting in and not mad at them for finishing but to say that X education was better when one barely made it to class to begin with is just disingenuous. UoP was re-accredited last year for at least the next 10 years and the course credits transfer to most places. For my MBA/MSIS, I am looking at attending an online program at an in-state school but that is not a knock on UoP so much as my desire to do as few "team" projects as necessary during this second phase. If UoP teaches you anything, it is how to work with lazy people consistently; a considerable skill unto itself.

PS: When people start throwing out numbers, always look at the baseline for those numbers. If School A only has 24,000 students but they are comparing it with UoP, which had something silly like 200,000+ students then of course UoP's numbers are going to be worse across the board. Scale those numbers accordingly and then judge for yourself. At the end of the day, the exclusivity of your college choice does not equal personal ability. After first considering WGU, UMUC, Penn State, Excelsior and others for my masters, I have since taken them all out of the running and going local. I invite you to do your own research as my issues with what I found may not be anything which concerns your personal situations at all. This latter point is really all that matters. Don’t rely on reputation alone at any school…do the work…gain the skills.

eSenpai

Mike-Mike wrote: »

I have an Associates degree from the University of Phoenix and I have a Bachelors and a Masters from WGU.

In the long run, they are all just pieces of paper. The piece of paper from WGU is much cheaper than the one from U of P. Phoenix was fine, but just really expensive.

Agreed. It is an HR checkbox. Sometimes this checkbox gets you noticed but more often than not, the IT people in the room are more concerned with whether you can hit the ground running alone or if they will need to baby-sit. I have never made a hire, or declined to hire, based on the name of the University or even their degree. One of the best minds and programmers that I have hired had an art degree. The guy could program circles around all of his competition with computer science degrees.

Mike-Mike

eSenpai wrote: »

If UoP teaches you anything, it is how to work with lazy people consistently; a considerable skill unto itself.
.

This is an excellent point...

At UofP I had a group project where I did about 97% of the work, and I had a group project where i did about 15% of it. I do love WGU, and I hated working in groups at UofP, but in that regard, UofP was more like the real world.

I've never had a job in the real world where at some point I didn't have to work with some group that i did not want to be paired up with.

aspiringsoul

eSenpai wrote: »

Agreed. It is an HR checkbox. Sometimes this checkbox gets you noticed but more often than not, the IT people in the room are more concerned with whether you can hit the ground running alone or if they will need to baby-sit. I have never made a hire, or declined to hire, based on the name of the University or even their degree. One of the best minds and programmers that I have hired had an art degree. The guy could program circles around all of his competition with computer science degrees.

The most versatile IT professional I know has a BA in Economics. I swear, it seems like he knows the answer to everything...

I agree that a person's degree has very little with that person's skills or abilities. Really just a checkbox for HR...

But why pay for a very expensive piece of paper, when you can get a much cheaper piece of paper with no stigma (or at least less of a stigma) associated with it as a For-Profit college.

For profit colleges aren't doing very well these days....and they need much more oversight from the Government. Billions of dollars go to these insitutions every year, and they provide very poor outcomes for most of their students (such as an 18% graduation rate for UoP students) and the fact that For Profit schools account for roughly 13% of all college students YET HALF of all defaults due to their extremely overpriced tuition and the inability to lead to gainful employment for most of their students.

Look up Corinthian Colleges....Look up the SEC and CFPB lawsuits on ITT Tech....Look up the investigations by State Attorney Generals against many for profit colleges. Look up the Heightened Cash Monitoring list by the Department of Education.

There are many predatory For-Profit schools that will sign up anyone with a pulse and federal financial aid eligibility without any regard to that student's outcome or ability to pay off the student loans in the future.

Sunday's announcement that Corinthian Colleges Inc. would shut down all of its remaining 28 campuses is a positive development in a long struggle to hold for-profit colleges accountable.

Corinthian, which once enrolled more than 70,000 students, is one of the worst of the "predator colleges" -- schools that offer dubious degrees, saddle students with high amounts of debt and gobble up tens of billions of dollars in federal money every year. Many of these schools are for-profit career colleges that operate mostly online. It's no wonder that Corinthian is doing this after the U.S. Department of Education curtailed its access to federal student aid last summer.
There are about 1.3 million students enrolledin for-profit colleges, many of which have questionable track records, and their students need help transitioning into legitimate postsecondary schools. With Uncle Sam'sstudent loan debt sheet topping $1 trillion, we literally can't afford to continue funding for-profit colleges --which reportedly get 86% of their funding from federal student loan money.

For those not familiar with the for-profit college fiasco, here's the whole story in one telling statistic: While for-profit colleges enroll only 13% of the nation's college students, such colleges account for nearly half of all student loan defaults, according to Department of Education statistics.
For comparison's sake, the default rate of for-profit college students is worse than the default rate of the worst subprime borrowers during the financial crisis.
How do these colleges operate? It's deviously simple: Convince low-income students into borrowing tens of thousands of dollars through easy federal student loans, keep costs low through online classes and part-time professors, and watch the money roll in.The aggressive tactics of these colleges boggle the mind. Recruiters are told to make 100 phone calls and leave 100 messages a day, according to a ProPublica investigation.
I can personally attest to the aggressive tactics. My phone number was accidentally placed on a call list for a for-profit college recently, and I received so many calls per day that I had to ask my wireless carrier to block the phone number.
Stopping the exploitation of students isn't easy. The for-profit college business is a multibillion-dollar industry. The CEOs of these companies make millions of dollars a year, employ an army of lobbyists and donate money to both political parties.
But the past two months brought a new twist to the crisis. Hundreds of graduates of the now-defunct Corinthian joined a "debt strike," publicly declaring their refusal to pay back their loans.
In response, Education Department Secretary Arne Duncan signaled a willingness to forgive loans of Corinthian graduates who have crushing debt and no job prospects.
Now that Corinthian is finally shutting down, we must finish the job.
The remaining for-profit colleges should be closed. Any student not gainfully employed or transferred to a reputable college within three years should be considered a victim, and their debts should be forgiven.
Yes, "victim" is the right word. If these degrees actually helped people get jobs, we should be celebrating them. But according to a jaw-dropping report by the Education Department, the average graduate of an online for-profit college makes less than a high school dropout.
Not the equivalent of a high school dropout. Less than a high school dropout.
The real-life misery caused by predatory colleges is painful to hear about. One Corinthian graduate has $37,000 in debt for his computer science degree, but he can't even get a job at Best Buy, according to Slate. Another graduate, $33,000 in debt, has a medical assisting degree, but she gave up on finding employment in her field. She waits tables now, The Chronicle of Higher Education says.
I can already hear your next question. If for-profit colleges are this terrible, are they at least cheaper? No. In fact, their cost is reportedly around 60% higher than a comparable degree from a public college.
What's even more frustrating is that we've known about the shenanigans of these predator colleges for years. A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office found widespread rule breaking by the largest for-profit colleges -- everything from accepting fictitious high-school diplomas to encouraging plagiarism and cheating.
In one example, an undercover federal investigator posing as a student was told by a professor, "It's not hard to get a 100% on the second try; just jot down the correct answers and take the quiz again," according to The New York Times.
In 2013, Career Education Corp. paid $10 million to settle charges by the state of New York regarding phony job-placement claims. All told, no fewer than 36 state attorneys general were investigating for-profit colleges in 2014.
After selling off 95 of its campuses last year, Corinthian said on Sunday that it tried unsuccessfully to sell the remaining 28 campuses, blaming the failure on "federal and state regulators seeking to impose financial penalties and conditions" on potential buyers.
You can't hide your bad behavior forever, and the questionable practices of many for-profit colleges are starting to catch up with them. Enrollment at the University of Phoenix -- the largest for-profit college in the United States -- has fallen by half, to about 213,000.
We laid the smackdown on predatory lenders during the financial crisis, and it's time to do the same thing with for-profit colleges. To keep predator colleges from wrecking our faith in the college degree -- still the best pathway to a middle-class life -- we need to act now.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/opinions/wheeler-for-profit-colleges/

aspiringsoul

For most of Obama’s tenure, the department’s top regulatory priority has been reining in abuses by the for-profit sector, which as of 2012 accounted for only 13 percent of the nation’s college enrollment, but 47 percent of the defaults on loans.
A 2012 Senate report found that taxpayers spent $32 billion in the prior year on companies operating for-profit colleges—which rely almost entirely on federal student aid for revenues—and that most of their students left without a degree, half within four months. The report found that at the 30 companies studied, the average CEO pay was $7.3 million, and that 22.4 percent of revenue went to marketing and recruiting, 19.4 percent to profits, and only 17.7 percent to instruction.



A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that four colleges “encouraged fraudulent practices” in meetings with undercover investigators posing as prospective students and that all 15 colleges investigated, including industry leaders such as the University of Phoenix and Kaplan Inc., “made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements.”
A Bloomberg investigation that year found that for-profit colleges were being particularly aggressive in recruiting military veterans, to capitalize on increased funding available under the GI Bill. Late last year, federal and state authorities in Florida charged that a for-profit chain there was hiring exotic dancers to recruit students.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/education/higher-ed-lobby-quietly-joins-profit-schools-roll-back-tighter-rules

NetworkNewb

aspiringsoul wrote: »

Late last year, federal and state authorities in Florida charged that a for-profit chain there was hiring exotic dancers to recruit students.

LOL! Where was this when I was applying for college?

kurosaki00

If youre going for a Major on WGU then sure, get A+.
But if not, please skip that and move to CCNA/MS Certs.
A+ is very, very basic. I wouldn't recommend A+ to anyone who already has their first IT job.

eSenpai

I don't think anyone disagrees that for-profit schools have acted badly. However, I believe that the media seems to be using exceptionally wide brushstrokes by demonizing the entire category. This is especially true in light of the fact that the only difference between non-profit schools and for-profit schools is the non-distribution constraint that non-profits operate under. This in no way guarantees that they(non-profits) are both accredited AND have the students best interests at heart. The primary reason we even had "Is my school accredited" type of sites and overseers is because non-profit schools were behaving badly. Behaving badly, or irresponsibly, toward education did not start with for-profit institutions. In this day and age, they do get the lion's share of the bad press because non-profits felt threatened and because of their own inability to not act like big businesses inevitably do by squeezing the margins every way possible.

"Nonprofit and public colleges obviously can be quite aggressive in seeking money, sometimes creating surpluses that look an awful lot like profit. Thus the term nonprofit creates the wrong impression about the restrictions that come with the moniker...
....The non-distribution constraint does not ensure that nonprofit and public colleges are great, but it does explain the differences we see in the decisions and behaviors of the sectors." - Robert Shireman

There are tons of non-profit schools which struggle with accreditation and have students leaving because they feel it's a waste of time. This is why my advice is always to understand what one ultimately wants out of the school and then do one's own research. A given state school or local community college could be much worse of an experience for the student based on said student's personal situation and ultimate goals. I just don't think that being cheaper is the sole criteria for picking one type of school over another. Some people have more money than time; others have more time than money; while others may have little to none of either...let's not whitewash the complicated nature of adult decisions by reducing them to binary considerations or the latest media outrage.

That said, is going to a Devry or UoP worse or better option than going to some never before heard of small public institution in the great state of Louisiana that has slashed 100's of millions out of its education budget due to mismanagement??? The articles you presented make it seem as if it is a foregone conclusion that the struggling and woefully underfunded LA institution is a better option than ANY for-profit institution and I submit that is simply not the case.

srabiee

For-profit vs non-profit education. That is something that each individual is going to have to research and work out on their own accord.

I'm not a fan of for-profit education, but to each their own.

aspiringsoul

eSenpai wrote: »

I don't think anyone disagrees that for-profit schools have acted badly. However, I believe that the media seems to be using exceptionally wide brushstrokes by demonizing the entire category. This is especially true in light of the fact that the only difference between non-profit schools and for-profit schools is the non-distribution constraint that non-profits operate under. This in no way guarantees that they(non-profits) are both accredited AND have the students best interests at heart. The primary reason we even had "Is my school accredited" type of sites and overseers is because non-profit schools were behaving badly. Behaving badly, or irresponsibly, toward education did not start with for-profit institutions. In this day and age, they do get the lion's share of the bad press because non-profits felt threatened and because of their own inability to not act like big businesses inevitably do by squeezing the margins every way possible.

"Nonprofit and public colleges obviously can be quite aggressive in seeking money, sometimes creating surpluses that look an awful lot like profit. Thus the term nonprofit creates the wrong impression about the restrictions that come with the moniker...
....The non-distribution constraint does not ensure that nonprofit and public colleges are great, but it does explain the differences we see in the decisions and behaviors of the sectors." - Robert Shireman

There are tons of non-profit schools which struggle with accreditation and have students leaving because they feel it's a waste of time. This is why my advice is always to understand what one ultimately wants out of the school and then do one's own research. A given state school or local community college could be much worse of an experience for the student based on said student's personal situation and ultimate goals. I just don't think that being cheaper is the sole criteria for picking one type of school over another. Some people have more money than time; others have more time than money; while others may have little to none of either...let's not whitewash the complicated nature of adult decisions by reducing them to binary considerations or the latest media outrage.

That said, is going to a Devry or UoP worse or better option than going to some never before heard of small public institution in the great state of Louisiana that has slashed 100's of millions out of its education budget due to mismanagement??? The articles you presented make it seem as if it is a foregone conclusion that the struggling and woefully underfunded LA institution is a better option than ANY for-profit institution and I submit that is simply not the case.

I'm not against the idea of a For-Profit institution, or a student's decision to attend such an institution. However, there is a wealth of information that suggests that most of these institutions do not have the students best interests in mind. Many of these institutions only care about their bottom line, and not the outcomes of their students.

There are some good programs at "For-Profit" schools out there. However, sadly, a majority of them offer programs at excessive tuition rates that don't provide the ROI that the schools promise that they will. The bad actors (and there are many of them) have tarnished the reputation of the good for profits out there.

Imagine for a moment if you can....that a recruiter at one of these for profit schools promises you a career as an accountant, a nurse, or a law enforcement officer, and then convinces you to sign up for tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to attend a program, only to find out at the end of the program that your degree is worthless (due to the lack of accreditation that is required by many state boards), and that you have non-dischargeable student debt that will follow you the rest of your life. This is the scenario that thousands of Americans find themselves in every year. It ruins student's lives financially.

Like I mentioned previously, I have done extensive research on the for-profit industry, and I guarantee you that the more you learn about these institutions, the more that you will despise them. Some of these schools are simply scams, and others are just cost ineffective and a poor investment for many of the students.

This is a good (funny) video that will educate you on the student debt situation and the deplorable actions of many For-Profits (and their lobbying group, the APSCU):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8pjd1QEA0c

I implore you to read this report from the Senate HELP Committee, and I challenge you to make a compelling argument for how a For-Profit institution is a good investment over their non-profit counterparts afterwards:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/Contents.pdf

Many bad actors in the industry:

Abuses at Corinthian Are Mirrored at Other Big For-Profit Colleges*|*David Halperin

This book will truly enlighten your understanding on the situation:
Stealing America's Future: How For-Profit Colleges Scam Taxpayers and Ruin Students' Lives - Kindle edition by David Halperin. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

These schools have very little oversight, they account for 13% of the Nation's students yet nearly HALF of student loan defaults. When a student defaults on his/her loan, then the American taxpayer has to foot the bill! These schools are allowed to get 90% of their revenue from Federal funds. Due to an exclusion of the GI bill in the previously mentioned rule, they heavily target veterans.

These schools spend relatively little on student instruction. They spend more on advertising/recruiting. Executive compensation is very high at these schools. They will recruit anyone eligible for federal funds without any regard to their ability to find gainful employment in their field after they complete the program.

Why do many of these schools offer Associate degree programs that are 90 credit hours instead of 60, or a BA program that is 180 credit hours instead of 120? So they can charge you more money in tuition...

Please, do more research on this industry, and I think that you will be in agreement with me that there needs to be more oversight of these institutions.

Don't take my word for it. Read the report from the Senate HELP Committee. Read David Halperin's book on the situation. Read about the numerous investigations by State Attorney Generals into For Profit schools. Read reviews by the students of these schools and how their lives are financially ruined.

http://www.gradreports.com/colleges/itt-technical-institute (as an example).

asmills85

It seems to be the overwhelming recommendation here, but as an alumni I would also vote WGU.

Jon_Cisco

jerseyIT92 wrote: »

I don't meet the requirements for WGU

This is definitely not a reason to pick University of Phoenix. WGU might not be for you but don't let minimum requirements be the reason. Just do what's right for you.

aspiringsoul

Jon_Cisco wrote: »

This is definitely not a reason to pick University of Phoenix. WGU might not be for you but don't let minimum requirements be the reason. Just do what's right for you.

I second that. For-Profit schools basically have no standards in regard to admissions. Employers are aware of this fact. There are studies that suggest that many For-Profit students are no better off than those with a high school diploma, except for the fact that they are much worse off due to their tremendous debt! For-Profit College Degree: No Better Than A High School Diploma

That being said, the most successful IT professional that I know has a Bachelor degree from Devry, and a CCIE. He did mention that he had wished that he had known about WGU's program before he enrolled at Devry. I also know several other successful IT professionals who have degrees from ITT Tech, Strayer, and University of Phoenix. So while getting your degree from a For-Profit will not prevent you from obtaining gainful employment in your field (at least for IT professionals), it will impede you from transferring your credits and pursuing a degree elsewhere, and it will cost exponentially more. Nearly all of the For-Profit graduates that I know express regret for not attending a non-profit school.

This isn't due to just cost, it's also due to the fact that Non-Profits spend MUCH MORE on student instruction and you will spend MUCH LESS money. The fact that a school is non-profit is not what makes it better. The fact that a school is willing to spend more on its materials and instruction for its students is what makes it a better school. Also, non-profits usually have MUCH better retention than For-Profit schools and MUCH less defaults on student loans. They also have admissions standards as mentioned previously.

SaSkiller

What is the real value of admission standards really? I'd be interested to know.

aspiringsoul

SaSkiller,

I will tell you what the value of admission standards is. It provides a reasonable level of assurance that the college is not enrolling a student that is not capable of handling the work that will be required. This ensures that the college is less likely to enroll a student that will fail or drop out, so this serves to increase the retention rate. This is a contributing factor to the many students who drop out at For-Profit programs.

For example,

I took an admissions test at ITT Tech (it was a joke), and the computer actually crashed half way through the assessment. The person who was facilitating the test told me, no worries, you scored enough questions correct to pass the assessment (this should have been a major red flag to me but I was naive at the time). Everyone ALWAYS passed the test. The only thing you needed was a High School diploma/GED and a pulse to qualify to attend the school. During my time at ITT Tech, I met several people who could not read or write at a high school level, or solve simple algebraic expressions! A few of these people went on to graduate, and then to apply for jobs in their field. Employers know that these schools have no admissions standards, which is one of the reasons why some employers are apprehensive when interviewing For-Profit school students.

With all of that being said, I think that your chances are much better as a For-Profit graduate in the IT field. Now if you're a Business/Health/Criminal Justice (among other fields) graduate at a For-Profit school without experience in your field, then you are at a significant disadvantage when competing against Public/ Private Non-Profit graduates in the market.

In summary, Admissions provides the Institution reasonable assurance that the student will be capable of the work in his/her program, and that the student will be more likely to succeed. The reasons that For-Profit colleges have no admissions standards is that the majority of them do not care about the outcomes of their students, because they are run like businesses. They only care about Profit for their shareholders.

eSenpai

aspiringsoul wrote: »

SaSkiller,

I will tell you what the value of admission standards is. It provides a reasonable level of assurance that the college is not enrolling a student that is not capable of handling the work that will be required. This ensures that the college is less likely to enroll a student that will fail or drop out, so this serves to increase the retention rate.

Hmmm....People leave, fail out, and are forced out of colleges that accepted them all the time. People transfer schools all the time for any number of reasons. More importantly, this totally discounts the legacy admissions and rampant nepotism at elite institutions. I would almost agree with those statements if that was all that was going on but we all know somebody who got into an institution on mommy's or daddy's word/work/lineage alone. Again, you seem to be operating in this bubble where humans...don't act human....instead they are all on this ethical high road from which they never veer. If the "standard" is only a standard when it's convenient, then to SaSkilker's point, is it a standard at all?? Admission standards seem to be a way to once again segregate people into varying degrees of elitism and convenient social labels. How hard is it enact a system where someone with the funding, and desire just goes to their school of choice. They either then fail or succeed based on the merit of the work they perform at that time. Instead we have a system which says "we will judge you based on your knuckle head years, test scores and our ability to discern whether or not those things mean you can succeed here". Granted, this is not just an American issue but a global one where my Indian and Asian friends have a much more difficult time of it. Retention rate is an issue because someone somewhere decided it would be a kpi. It does not have to be. Admission standards are a thing because someone somewhere thinks they can (should) choose the best of the best methodically and groom them to be Z at N institution. They both persist because it enhances the argument that schools, and therefore people, should be ranked, stacked and modeled. I submit that we are not the sum total of our knuckle head years and that we all should have the opportunity to show that change is possible; that being both "smart" and dedicated is not just the product of what we did, or did not do, in the years prior to attending X institution.

PS: Not trolling you. Your dedication to your arguments simply allows me to scratch some philosophical itching.

eSenpai

aspiringsoul wrote: »

However, there is a wealth of information that suggests that most of these institutions do not have the students best interests in mind. Many of these institutions only care about their bottom line, and not the outcomes of their students.

Once upon a time, your statement would have read,
"However, there is a wealth of information that suggests that most of these institutions do not have the students best interests in mind. Many of these institutions only care about the color of the skin of their students, and not the outcomes of their students."
That is not to make this into a race discussion because it isn't but to once again point out that the reason we even have governing institutions at all for non-profit education is because at one point they also behaved badly. Your arguments are broad brushing an industry which is in in flux and one which has brought(forced) much needed change to traditional B&M universities. The rapid of adoption of distance learning would simply not have happened had not a University of Phoenix came along and posted ridiculous student populations exceeding 500,000 at their height. To say, or rather imply, that all non-profits are BETTER while all for-profits are worse belies the fact that at one point everyone behaved badly and needed to be spanked. The for-profits are being spanked but to say they are unregulated is disingenuous.

You are cherry picking statistics good sir but since you like statistics lets but them in perspective:

• Biggest schools in the USA are for-profits. Subsequently they SHOULD have the highest default rates yet somehow community colleges have the highest default rates when you factor out student population.
  • https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/25/default-rate-federal-loans-ticks-down-slightly-21-colleges-face-sanctions-high-rates
  • Schools Ranked by Default Rate - Page 11 | OEDB.org
• The school which started this discussion has their Bachelor's at 120 credits.
• You speak to executive compensation but give a complete pass to college coaches yearly compensation at many non-profits:
  • Mike Krzyzewski - $9.7 million
  • Nick Saban - $7.3 million
  • Uban Meyer, Rick Pitino - $5.8 million
  • Bob Stoops - $5.25 million
  • Jim Harbaugh, Charlie Strong, Kevin Sumlin - $5 million
  • Les Miles - $4.5million (and he is crazy! lol)
  • We could go on ad nauseum with this list between football and basketball
• I submit that these coaches have far less influence on the EDUCATION of the entire student body at their respective institutions than do the highly compensated executives that you speak of. At least the executives represent the entire curriculum vs just a privileged subset.

Again, let's not cherry pick statistics since they always cut both ways.

eSenpai

Scratching both my verbosity needs and need to debate has been fun but I am going to sign off of this discussion because there are miles to go before I sleep:




Thanks for the debate! I enjoyed it.

aspiringsoul

eSenpai wrote: »

Once upon a time, your statement would have read,
"However, there is a wealth of information that suggests that most of these institutions do not have the students best interests in mind. Many of these institutions only care about the color of the skin of their students, and not the outcomes of their students."
That is not to make this into a race discussion because it isn't but to once again point out that the reason we even have governing institutions at all for non-profit education is because at one point they also behaved badly. Your arguments are broad brushing an industry which is in in flux and one which has brought(forced) much needed change to traditional B&M universities. The rapid of adoption of distance learning would simply not have happened had not a University of Phoenix came along and posted ridiculous student populations exceeding 500,000 at their height. To say, or rather imply, that all non-profits are BETTER while all for-profits are worse belies the fact that at one point everyone behaved badly and needed to be spanked. The for-profits are being spanked but to say they are unregulated is disingenuous.

You are cherry picking statistics good sir but since you like statistics lets but them in perspective:

• Biggest schools in the USA are for-profits. Subsequently they SHOULD have the highest default rates yet somehow community colleges have the highest default rates when you factor out student population.
  • https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/25/default-rate-federal-loans-ticks-down-slightly-21-colleges-face-sanctions-high-rates
  • Schools Ranked by Default Rate - Page 11 | OEDB.org
• The school which started this discussion has their Bachelor's at 120 credits.
• You speak to executive compensation but give a complete pass to college coaches yearly compensation at many non-profits:
  • Mike Krzyzewski - $9.7 million
  • Nick Saban - $7.3 million
  • Uban Meyer, Rick Pitino - $5.8 million
  • Bob Stoops - $5.25 million
  • Jim Harbaugh, Charlie Strong, Kevin Sumlin - $5 million
  • Les Miles - $4.5million (and he is crazy! lol)
  • We could go on ad nauseum with this list between football and basketball
• I submit that these coaches have far less influence on the EDUCATION of the entire student body at their respective institutions than do the highly compensated executives that you speak of. At least the executives represent the entire curriculum vs just a privileged subset.

Again, let's not cherry pick statistics since they always cut both ways.

My argument is not that Non-Profit schools do not need reform. I believe that Higher education needs reform in General. But is it a coincidence that 37 state attorney generals are investigating For-Profit colleges? Is it a coincidence that APSCU spends millions each year on lobbying efforts in Washington? Why is the SEC filing fraud charages against ITT Tech? Why did the CFPB file a lawsuit against ITT Tech and Corinthian?

You don't know what the heck you're talking about. I've seen students have their lives ruined financially because they attended For-Profit schools. Many of these students have said that "IT WAS THE WORST DECISION OF THEIR LIFE."

Alright, let's address the performance of these schools which are allowed to derive 90% of their revenue from Federal funds directly...Where are our taxpayer dollars going?

Please read the attached PDFs....and continue to elaborate on how I am "Cherry picking"...

Better yet, read this article, and maybe you will fully comprehend the cycle of corruption and lobbying that allows these schools to continue to operate while providing very poor outcomes for the majority of their students.

The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC | The Nation

Many of America’s for-profit colleges have proven themselves a bad deal for the students lured by their enticing promises—as well as for US taxpayers, who subsidize these institutions with ten of billions annually in federal student aid.
More than half of the students who enroll in for-profit colleges—many of them veterans, single mothers and other low- and middle-income people aiming for jobs like medical technician, diesel mechanic or software coder—drop out within about four months. Many of these colleges have been caught using deceptive advertising and misleading prospective students about program costs and job placement rates. Although the for-profits promise that their programs are affordable, the real cost can be nearly double that of Harvard or Stanford. But the quality of the programs are often weak, so even students who manage to graduate often struggle to find jobs beyond the Office Depot shifts they previously held. The US Department of Education recently reported that 72 percent of the for-profit college programs it analyzed produced graduates who, on average, earned less than high school dropouts.

Today, 13 percent of all college students attend for-profit colleges, on campuses and online—but these institutions account for 47 percent of student loan defaults. For-profit schools are driving a national student debt crisis that has reached $1.2 trillion in borrowing. They absorb a quarter of all federal student aid—more than $30 billion annually—diverting sums from better, more affordable programs at nonprofit and public colleges. Many for-profit college companies, including most of the biggest ones, get almost 90 percent of their revenue from taxpayers.
So why does Washington keep the money flowing?
It’s not that politicians are unaware of the problem. One person who clearly understands the human and financial costs of the for-profit college industry is President Obama. Speaking at Fort Stewart, Georgia, in April 2012, the president told the soldiers that some schools are “trying to swindle and hoodwink” them, because they only “care about the cash.” Speaking off the cuff last year, Obama warned that some for-profit colleges were failing to provide the certification that students thought they would get. In the end, he said, the students “can’t find a job. They default…. Their credit is ruined, and the for-profit institution is making out like a bandit.” And, he noted, when students default on their federally backed loans, “the taxpayer ends up holding the bag.”
On March 14, the administration released its much-anticipated draft “gainful employment” rule, aimed at ending taxpayer support for career college programs that consistently leave students with insurmountable debt.

Avy Stein, an owner of the for-profit Education Corporation of America, went to a charity auction and bought himself lunch with Senator Tom Harkin (D-Ia.), the lead Democrat on education issues and by then a strong critic of the for-profits. Harkin told The New York Times that Stein took the opportunity to threaten to “make life rough for me” if Harkin kept up his attacks. (Stein denied this.)
For-profit colleges also used donations to gain the allegiance of some major nonprofit groups that should have been on the side of students. Marc Morial, head of the National Urban League, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post opposing the gainful employment rule. The group later accepted $1 million gift from Corinthian Colleges, one of the worst-performing schools, andMorial joined Corinthian’s board of directors, whose members generally receive $60,000 per year in cash plus $90,000 in deferred stock.


Of course, the for-profit colleges have also spent heavily buying friendships with the folks who count the most: members of Congress.
The industry invests in campaign contributions to public servants like John Kline (R-Minn.), chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Kline raised $138,350 in the second quarter of 2013 from the for-profit college industry—almost 25 percent of the money he raised in that period. At the same time, he advanced a bill that would block the gainful employment rule and gut federal standards so that for-profit college “boiler room” operations could more easily engage in coercive recruiting.
Another enabler of predatory colleges is Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), chair of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. Speaking to a group of nonprofit colleges in 2013, Foxx invoked the Holocaust in arguing against the administration’s regulation. Two of Foxx’s three top donors in the 2012 election cycle were the political action committee of APSCU and Bridgepoint Education, a for-profit college company that Senator Harkin has called “a scam, an absolute scam.”
The industry’s financial ties to Republicans are rock-solid. Many for-profit college executives backed Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. EDMC chair Todd Nelson and his wife contributed at least $88,000 to Romney and the GOP in the 2012 cycle. Romney strongly endorsed the industry in 2012 and has financial ties to for-profit colleges Vatterott and Full Sail University. In the 2013-14 electoral cycle, the top five recipients of the industry’s campaign cash in the House include Kline, Foxx, Rep. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), the subject of several ethics investigations, and House Speaker John Boehner.
In 2012, I obtained a draft memo from inside APSCU showing that the group’s strategy for passage of key bills in Congress was “directed by” the “House Republican leadership.” The document also suggested that APSCU closely integrated its efforts to get favorable votes in Congress with its political strategy of donating to Senate and House candidates: a troubling illustration of how the industry has used its financial muscle to avoid accountability.
But for-profit college lobbyists have not limited their friendships to Republicans. Also in that top five was Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ), the second-ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee. Andrews and Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) have been the two Democrats most active in opposing Obama on for-profit college issues. They have also been steady recipients of for-profit college money, with Hastings getting at least $54,500 and Andrews at least $78,547 between 2009 and 2013. (Andrews recently announced that he would resign; the House Ethics Committee was investigating whether he used campaign funds for personal travel.) For-profit college barons such as Avy Stein, Jeffrey Leeds, John Sperling, Arthur Benjamin and Ernesto Perez have been major donors to congressional Democrats.
The industry’s power is even stronger at the local level. In Florida, Minnesota, New York and other states, for-profits have a big presence. As a number of congressional staffers have told me, many members of Congress find that for-profit college owners are among their most loyal, active donors and organizers of fundraising efforts.
The money may have contributed to the House of Representatives passing a bill in February 2011, by a vote of 289 to 136, to approve an amendment to block the gainful employment rule. Every single House Republican voted for the amendment to undermine President Obama’s initiative, as did 58 House Democrats, including their leader, Nancy Pelosi, a friend of the University of Phoenix’s John Sperling. (The Senate did not approve a similar measure, and the bill never became law.)

aspiringsoul

There are more PDFs attached for your review and consideration.