Kermz
New member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2013
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 26
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm reading a book by Thomas Sowell called Economic Facts and Fallacies and he has a chapter on academics where he writes a lot about Non-Profit vs. For-profit colleges. Someone posted in another thread about the University of Phoenix (A For Profit college) and it made me curious as to why these kinds of institutions are looked down upon.
For-Profit College Costs Surpass Nonprofit Peers in U.S. Study - Bloomberg
This article states that it is much more expensive to attend a for-profit college, but it also says
Let me say that I don't believe in federal grants at all. But this article is saying that they want to restrict federal grants for students that go to for-profit schools, like the fact that they are for-profit is the problem. Yet at the same time it acknowledges that costs at public universities are rising as well. I would argue that public institutions are not all "for the student" like they claim to be. I would also argue that the reason for for-profit costs are rising is because the students are being subsidized by the taxpayer, not because of the fact they are for-profit. In the public system, Administration and faculty benefit from rising prices (Cal state system is a perfect example), just as a for profit institution would benefit it's shareholders. The only difference is there is little direct consequence for decisions made by administration and faculty in the public system.
Cal State tuition could rise 9% next fall - Los Angeles Times
CSU presidents symbolize waste, inefficiency in public higher education - Times-Standard Online
Many "costs" incurred by a university are unnecessary, but again, they suffer little to no consequence themselves because their behavior is subsidized.
Waste, Bloat and Excess: Report outlines derailment of California higher education |* ACTA
One argument that I kept coming across was that Non-Profit spends more money educating each student then For Profit institutions. But I don't believe that simply spending more money and paying your professors more means that the students will get a better education. Plus, many times, this extra money is really spent paying professors to do research.
From Sowell's book pg. 122 Chapter 4-
Dropout rates are much higher in for-profit bachelor's degree programs then in non-profit ones. But I would defend this in saying that this can be attributed to the demographics of the students. Many students that go to for-profit schools already work, have children and overall have much more responsibility than the average full time student. I used to deliver to dental offices and many of the assistants who worked at these places went to for profit schools. Some for profit schools are strong in a particular field. I believe that simply being "for profit" is not the problem. The problem is government subsidizing it. My case for going to a for-profit school is that it is focused on a particular field and it is much more flexible for somebody with a full time job.
For-Profit College Costs Surpass Nonprofit Peers in U.S. Study - Bloomberg
This article states that it is much more expensive to attend a for-profit college, but it also says
The costs for students at private nonprofit colleges were lower, in part, because they received an average of $10,900 in annual scholarships, while for-profit college students got an average of $2,600 in grants. Public university students received an average of $3,700 in such assistance.
Let me say that I don't believe in federal grants at all. But this article is saying that they want to restrict federal grants for students that go to for-profit schools, like the fact that they are for-profit is the problem. Yet at the same time it acknowledges that costs at public universities are rising as well. I would argue that public institutions are not all "for the student" like they claim to be. I would also argue that the reason for for-profit costs are rising is because the students are being subsidized by the taxpayer, not because of the fact they are for-profit. In the public system, Administration and faculty benefit from rising prices (Cal state system is a perfect example), just as a for profit institution would benefit it's shareholders. The only difference is there is little direct consequence for decisions made by administration and faculty in the public system.
Cal State tuition could rise 9% next fall - Los Angeles Times
CSU presidents symbolize waste, inefficiency in public higher education - Times-Standard Online
Many "costs" incurred by a university are unnecessary, but again, they suffer little to no consequence themselves because their behavior is subsidized.
Waste, Bloat and Excess: Report outlines derailment of California higher education |* ACTA
UC Berkeley faces more than $320 million in stadium renovation costs, with students likely to shoulder the burden through increased student fees.
Last year, the incoming president of San Diego State University was awarded a $400,000 salary. This was a $100,000 jump from the salary of his predecessor. The generous offer was approved alongside a 12% tuition increase for students.
One argument that I kept coming across was that Non-Profit spends more money educating each student then For Profit institutions. But I don't believe that simply spending more money and paying your professors more means that the students will get a better education. Plus, many times, this extra money is really spent paying professors to do research.
From Sowell's book pg. 122 Chapter 4-
There is another sense in which determining the costs of teaching load at many universities was reduced over the years from 12 semester hours to 6 semester hours, that required the hiring of twice as many faculty members to teach a given number of courses. Although the additional costs might be attributed to teaching in the institution's accounting records, in fact a key reason for reduced teaching loads has been to provide more time for professors to do more research
Dropout rates are much higher in for-profit bachelor's degree programs then in non-profit ones. But I would defend this in saying that this can be attributed to the demographics of the students. Many students that go to for-profit schools already work, have children and overall have much more responsibility than the average full time student. I used to deliver to dental offices and many of the assistants who worked at these places went to for profit schools. Some for profit schools are strong in a particular field. I believe that simply being "for profit" is not the problem. The problem is government subsidizing it. My case for going to a for-profit school is that it is focused on a particular field and it is much more flexible for somebody with a full time job.