17 ms·
> I do think, as we look at the for-profit sector, there are a lot of best practices there. The support systems they’ve had, the student tracking. The way they
by nmrm 12y ago
> I do think, as we look at the for-profit sector, there are a lot of best practices there. The support systems they’ve had, the student tracking. The way they use capital assets.
This presupposes that these aren't present in the non-for-profit sector, which in my experience isn't the case.
And if we're going to use outcomes as a measure, it's clear for-profits are absurdly dysfunctional. Except:
> The way they take a much tougher cohort of students, on average, than most institutions.
The "we take on more difficult students" line makes no sense. With failure rates so high, it's not at all clear that they're doing anything other than taking on more students, failing those students, and thereby generating unnecessary debt and pocketing the federal grant money.
More-over, favorable analyses of for-profits almost always compares for-profits to flagship state schools or private non-profits, ignoring the class of institutions most similar in terms of prestige and quality -- local and regional state-run colleges and universities. Which are -- in my experience -- similarly prices and vastly superior in terms of learning community and outcomes.
> And, so, while there are certain practices that are not good to adopt there, seeing the challenges they face and seeing the things the way they have done well, bringing that into all of education, will be important.
Yeah, but it's kind of a tautology. "Good practices are good".
Anyways, I'm interested in specific examples. Because I really don't see any innovation per se in private higher ed. It's all stuff everyone else has been doing for decades, but with more marketing and unfounded claims to novelty.
> I don’t believe that a measurement system should simply apply to them and not apply to the broader universe. And, getting those things right is very, very difficult.
Yeah, I'll agree that performance-based funding structures don't make sense in education generally, and make even less sense in higher ed.
That said, it's kind of a misnomer -- if laws end up looking like what's been proposed so far, private institutions will always have the option of not taking federal grant money or subsidized loans.
IF performance measurement takes hold -- which it shouldn't -- I don't understand why the public should be expected to subsidize a for-profit industry and not have carte blanc to regulate. If you don't like the regulations, don't take the subsidy.
- crazy1van 12y ago> I don't understand why the public should be expected to subsidize a for-profit industry and not have carte blanc to regulate. If you don't like the regulations, don't take the subsidy. I think the last thing any part of the higher education industry -- for-profit or not -- needs is more subsidies. If we want them to cost less, we need to take money out of them, not dump more money in. When I refer to cost, I mean total cost, not just the bill the university sends the student. The only thing worse than a bigger bill for a student enrolled at the university is a bigger bill for citizens who choose to not even attend university.
- freehunter 12y agoSounds to me like he was suggesting more regulation in exchange for the current level of funding.
- nmrm2 12y agoThe details of proposals vary. Generally the idea is a "compromise" whereby funding increases in exchange for regulation. I suspect in reality, given the current political climate, it will be "regulation, or we'll blindly slash funding"
- nmrm2 12y ago> I think the last thing any part of the higher education industry -- for-profit or not -- needs is more subsidies. edit: some revision. There are two forms of subsidy: direct funding for state systems, and loans. With respect to subsidies in the form of low-interest loans, the underlying premise of this position is both faulty and arrogant. Talk with any student. Odds are, they are acutely aware of how much debt they are taking on, and what that means for their life in the next 5, 10, 15 years. The trope about cognitively dissonant art majors is an exception, not the norm. More to the point, the position isn't even internally consistent. if the premise is accurate (again, wrt low-interest loans), then rate hikes on loans won't have any effect other than increased student debt and larger profit margins for major banks. With respect to state funding, all we need to do is look at historical data.
- crazy1van 12y agoThe purpose of subsidized loans is to redirect debt towards a specific area. Society determines that people should be given preferential treatment if they are borrowing for certain purposes and they pass laws to reflect that. Typically these are things like higher education and homes. When this happens, it changes the calculus of an individual -- borrowing towards these specific purposes becomes more appealing because you get more for your money. I'm not arguing that this is either good or bad. However, I don't see the logic of both complaining that we spend too much on something while at the same time advocating more subsidies for those who want to borrow to buy more of it.
- cm127 12y agoThe key to success is to patent as much technology at the start of an industry revolution and use as many lawyers as possible to sue all competitors out of the field.