PDA

View Full Version : For-profit colleges receiving a disproportionate share of Pell Grant revenue



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

GarrAarghHrumph
08-07-2010, 05:54 PM
The article says that they found some level of high pressure or questionable sales tactics at every school they visited, but these five were doing things that were blatantly illegal.


The Governmental Accountability Office reported all 15 schools investigated had instances of questionable sales practices, which some say is an indication of widespread problems within the for-profit sector.

rfisher
08-07-2010, 07:18 PM
Oh, if the local proprietary was shut down, I would laugh and laugh and laugh. Well, if one of their programs were shut down. I don't care about the others. I'm going to smile for a while just imaging that they were. :D

Prancer
08-07-2010, 08:20 PM
Oh, if the local proprietary was shut down, I would laugh and laugh and laugh. Well, if one of their programs were shut down. I don't care about the others. I'm going to smile for a while just imaging that they were. :D

I assume that their rad students can take state boards? Do you know what their success rate is?

There's a proposal in Ohio to tighten strictures on for-profits in several ways and in reading about that, I learned that there are more than a dozen for-profit schools in my metro area :eek:. I knew about some of them, but not that many. One of my friends teaches at one that has a nursing program, and their success rate is on state boards was something like 13% last year. I think schools should be required to tell student applicants things like that up front, before the students sign on. But of course, that's not one of the things that is proposed.

agalisgv
08-07-2010, 10:21 PM
But of course, that's not one of the things that is proposed. What is being proposed?

rfisher
08-07-2010, 10:22 PM
I assume that their rad students can take state boards? Do you know what their success rate is?

There's a proposal in Ohio to tighten strictures on for-profits in several ways and in reading about that, I learned that there are more than a dozen for-profit schools in my metro area :eek:. I knew about some of them, but not that many. One of my friends teaches at one that has a nursing program, and their success rate is on state boards was something like 13% last year. I think schools should be required to tell student applicants things like that up front, before the students sign on. But of course, that's not one of the things that is proposed.

Their national board pass rate is around 75%. I think. The first year was 50%. It has to be at least 75 to retain program accreditation. What's going to be an issue for them is an upcoming requirement for students to have a minimum of an associates degree prior to sitting for the Board. My understanding was that all their students were getting that through a local community college (which is actually in a different state as the for-profit is actually in your state), but apparently not all students are. We have one of their grads trying to enter our BS program and none of her rad tech credit will transfer since she didn't get the credit through the CTC as well has the non-profit. My program's students have done that since 1994.

Apart from the pass rate, their biggest lies have to do with job availability. Local employers won't hire their grads anymore because their clinical skills are horrible. Jobs are scarce as it is and our students will get them first. Their tuition is much higher. Students can attend all four years of our program, pass the boards, graduate with a BS degree and have advanced coursework toward advanced boards for less money than they get at the for profit's two years, no degree and a 50-50 chance of passing the board.

Our website gives a link to our program accreditation body so an applicant can see for themselves what our accreditation is. We also tell them our pass rate. We're quite proud of the fact it's been 100% for the past 8 years and the average score exceeds the national mean by 8-10 points. But, hardly any applicants have a clue about accreditation, board scores, or quality of a program. My students are trained to ask if they apply to any advanced program. Some have avoided costly mistakes because we make them aware of the importance. High school and even college advisor's are clueless about letting students know the importance of asking about the simplest of questions before spending thousands and thousands of dollars.

Prancer
08-07-2010, 11:05 PM
Their national board pass rate is around 75%. I think. The first year was 50%. It has to be at least 75 to retain program accreditation.

Yes, my friend's school has accreditation pending. Everyone but her seems to think they will get it. She's been through three accreditation processes at other schools and she is sending out resumes on the sly.


My students are trained to ask if they apply to any advanced program. Some have avoided costly mistakes because we make them aware of the importance. High school and even college advisor's are clueless about letting students know the importance of asking about the simplest of questions before spending thousands and thousands of dollars.

That's great that you do that for them. I'm an adviser for students in an at-risk program (which is going to be the death of me) and I try to talk to them about accreditation and transfer problems, but I mostly get cows-in-the-field stares. It really is difficult to understand such things if you haven't been out in the working world, I think.


What is being proposed?

Several things have been discussed, but the big issue is requiring schools to openly state accreditation status:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/tighter-state-supervision-sought-at-for-profit-colleges--821839.html

That Miami-Jacobs thing is a mess. There's a lot more to it than just that one case.

There are a lot of for-profit schools in Ohio, many of them with a decent track record, and graduating from one won't necessarily or even probably kill your job prospects, but it's a real case of caveat emptor and the emptors need to be better informed: http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/07/05/story3.html

agalisgv
08-07-2010, 11:46 PM
Several things have been discussed, but the big issue is requiring schools to openly state accreditation status I wonder how much good that would do though.

If a school has some sort of accreditation, it's very hard for a student to know the real value of that accreditation, and it wouldn't really tell a student if that is the accreditation needed for their field.

Prancer
08-07-2010, 11:56 PM
I wonder how much good that would do though.

If a school has some sort of accreditation, it's very hard for a student to know the real value of that accreditation, and it wouldn't really tell a student if that is the accreditation needed for their field.

Agreed. And maybe it's just that I can't explain it well, but when I talk about this with students, they don't seem to think that it's important. One of my nieces just enrolled in Kaplan, and nothing I said made an impression. I think she just dismisses it all as my personal bias against Kaplan, and the students I advise all seem to take it the same way. I'm telling them one thing, the for-profit is telling them something else, and they don't know who to believe. Most of them really aren't interested enough to investigate for themselves.

I do think the for-profit schools have a point about requiring all colleges, not just no for-profits, to release their job placement rate. College is being pushed very hard as job training and that's what a lot of people expect. I think it's only fair to let them know the odds of having their investment pay off IF that's why they are enrolling in school.

rfisher
08-07-2010, 11:57 PM
One of the big problems with radiology programs in the for profit programs, is that they take students who wouldn't get in in other programs. Then the program really waters down the content and pads grades to keep them in the program (and collect financial aid). This in turn leads to the low pass rate on the Boards and the poor reputation for clinical skills. Our rejects or students who heard how difficult our program was were the the students who showed up in the for profit's programs.

I was offered a job with a for profit that I turned down. They were accepting two classes a year in a market that couldn't possibly accommodate that amount of graduates. Which meant, most were not passing the board. I knew the philosophical differences wouldn't work. :lol:

As for accreditation, in medical imaging, you cannot sit for the national Board if the program is not accredited by JRCERT or ARDMS (in the case of sonography). Unfortunatly, some students don't find that out until they've spent their money, although the information is very clear on the ARRT web site. However, most of them entering the profession don't have a clue what the ARRT is or what its importance will be. We also put that information on our web page along with their web site.

PrincessLeppard
08-08-2010, 03:40 AM
The hospital where my mom works stopped accepting Kaplan students for precepting and other positions. The students were completely unprepared.

GarrAarghHrumph
08-08-2010, 03:07 PM
This is why a lot of companies who care about such things no longer simply accept MBAs from regionally accredited programs. They now also require AACSB.

GarrAarghHrumph
08-08-2010, 03:24 PM
I do think the for-profit schools have a point about requiring all colleges, not just no for-profits, to release their job placement rate. College is being pushed very hard as job training and that's what a lot of people expect. I think it's only fair to let them know the odds of having their investment pay off IF that's why they are enrolling in school.

They do, and I've said that all along as well. However, the one main difference I see between regular colleges and for-profits is that students seem to be attracted to the for-profits specifically for career reasons, and often only for career reasons. They are there for the promise of a job. While jobs certainly apply to regular colleges, they don't seem to be the *only* reason why a student selects such a college. It's a different demographic, in many cases.

And proprietary colleges tend to be narrow in focus, only offering certain, highly-career-oriented majors. That's not the case at most regular universities. If this requirement were to apply to all unis, I'm thinking it might actually need to be broken out by major or program. Or only focused on programs that are specifically career-oriented.

Prancer
08-09-2010, 06:22 AM
If this requirement were to apply to all unis, I'm thinking it might actually need to be broken out by major or program.

I wouldn't think it would be particularly useful otherwise. My alma mater has always done this. I always knew how many English BAs, for example, had jobs within a year of graduation, what percentage had jobs that were directly relevant to degree, and what percentage were working in other fields. The school follows up on this at five and ten years, too.

They don't advertise this to the undergrads; it has to be requested. But it's there if they know to ask.

GarrAarghHrumph
08-09-2010, 03:21 PM
I wouldn't think it would be particularly useful otherwise. My alma mater has always done this. I always knew how many English BAs, for example, had jobs within a year of graduation, what percentage had jobs that were directly relevant to degree, and what percentage were working in other fields. The school follows up on this at five and ten years, too.

They don't advertise this to the undergrads; it has to be requested. But it's there if they know to ask.

The proposal here is to disallow federal financial aid to programs that don't have a certain percentage of their grads able to pay back those loans. So my original question, when I first heard about the proposed rule, was that if they're doing this for the for-profits, why are they making an exception for the traditional colleges? I understand that the situation re: the for-profits is worse, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at certain not-for-profits. So why treat them separately?

My thought is that it's because those who go to a for-profit go there specifically for career reasons, and that there is a promise, implied or stated, that going there will lead to a job; while at a traditional college, unless you're part of specific majors, there's no real implication of that promise. But I'm not sure that the line is that hard-and-fast.

snoopy
08-09-2010, 11:09 PM
This is why a lot of companies who care about such things no longer simply accept MBAs from regionally accredited programs. They now also require AACSB.

What is AACSB? And what is the best course of action to determine if a chosen field requires a degree from X type college? I would assume a current practioner?