Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all those anti-forprofit advocates out there, check out this report that suggests non-profit institutions are more profitable than than the for-profit institutions.
The quality comes from the non-profits being required to reinvest essentially 100% of any excess revenue back into the mission, thus generating some of the highest quality R&D programs you'll find in the world.
To me, one huge flaw with the article is that it fails to differentiate between money given for capital outlays and funding given for operational expenses. Which pretty much makes the rest of their numbers useless. They pretty much lost me by their claim that spending per student is up by 31% in recent years even as every state in the country has slashed their operational student funding per student in recent years. (Nope I'm not going to let you try to pass off a new science building where they're doing world class research as something that should inherently 'count' toward how you're describing undergrad funding per capita.)
Also nice use of the boogeyman and try to sound like every student graduating from a non-profit private will have $200K in student loans, but it's Cato so hack journalism is pretty much what I'd expect from them.
The article isn't about the quality of education at for-profits vs. traditional schools, it's about cost at the undergraduate level and public funding.
"Subsidy for other missions is the spending on missions that are unrelated to undergraduate education but are funded partially by revenue generated through undergrads, such as graduate education and research. Unlike economic rents, this spending does increase the colleges’ outputs, and applying the term profits to it is not making a value judgment as to whether it is good for society and/or appropriate for the school. Rather, the point is that it is spending beyond what is necessary to provide an undergraduate student with a high-quality education."
Personally, I have no problem with a college shoveling its "profits" back into research, infrastructure, and further education. I would, however, have an issue with them sending their profits back to shareholders and lowering standards to increase revenue. What was the last major research breakthrough that came from a for-profit school?
The article is also not a defense of the for-profit colleges and doesn’t address the issues that make them crap schools (see previous threads in regards to admission standards, accreditation, grad school acceptance, debt load of students, etc). Also, check your source before you post. CATO is a libertarian think-tank, not exactly an unbiased source or the kind of place that supports government funded programs.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 06-15-2011 at 02:14 PM..
Reason: Removed off topic remark
The article isn't about the quality of education at for-profits vs. traditional schools, it's about cost at the undergraduate level and public funding.
"Subsidy for other missions is the spending on missions that are unrelated to undergraduate education but are funded partially by revenue generated through undergrads, such as graduate education and research. Unlike economic rents, this spending does increase the colleges’ outputs, and applying the term profits to it is not making a value judgment as to whether it is good for society and/or appropriate for the school. Rather, the point is that it is spending beyond what is necessary to provide an undergraduate student with a high-quality education."
Personally, I have no problem with a college shoveling its "profits" back into research, infrastructure, and further education. I would, however, have an issue with them sending their profits back to shareholders and lowering standards to increase revenue. What was the last major research breakthrough that came from a for-profit school?
The article is also not a defense of the for-profit colleges and doesn’t address the issues that make them crap schools (see previous threads in regards to admission standards, accreditation, grad school acceptance, debt load of students, etc). Also, check your source before you post. CATO is a libertarian think-tank, not exactly an unbiased source or the kind of place that supports government funded programs.
I don’t think it’s fair to call a low professor-to-student ratio “featherbedding.” It may be a luxury, but it provides a distinct advantage in the classroom that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. Do people learn more in a seminar-class with 10 students than in a lecture-class with 100? Of course they do.
For all those anti-forprofit advocates out there, check out this report that suggests non-profit institutions are more profitable than than the for-profit institutions.
With reports like this, will the for-profit moniker no longer serve as a red herring for the anti-forprofit advocates related to the issue of quality?
I tried to open the pdf, but it froze my computer, so I'll have to by the few quotes here and common sense. Lets just say that when you or a loved one are using any technology, riddled with a cancer, cholesterol, or whatever, it's the R&D at uni's you should be thanking. It will not be your for-profit diploma mills that offer nothing to society, but debt. As an anecdote, I was participating in research as an undergrad while attending my research oriented uni. Little more brought such value to my current career, outside grad school, as a tax payer and working scientist.
required to reinvest essentially 100% of any excess revenue back into the mission, thus generating some of the highest quality R&D programs you'll find in the world.
The for-profits are also required to reinvest a percentage of their profits back into resources that support student learning and success. There is a high expectation from the Accreditation agencies. If the for-profits are beholden to their shareholders, then I argue that the non-profits are beholden to the R&D programs and tenured faculty. After all, they are a source of revenue for the non-profits as are the shareholders a source of revenue for the for-profits. Also, what perecentage do you think those non-profit profits are returned to student learning and success?
Quote:
They pretty much lost me by their claim that spending per student is up by 31% in recent years even as every state in the country has slashed their operational student funding per student in recent years.
This is a complex article to read and understand. I can see how the numbers may have been a little confusing. Yet, with that said, do you think they are making those numbers up from thin air? Or is it possible that you don't want to believe the numbers because there may be some truth behind them.
Quote:
but it's Cato so hack journalism is pretty much what I'd expect from them.[/
Why is the Cato Institute hack journalism? Not that it would matter to you, but the author of this report works at a state university and has provided ample references for anyone to verify his report.
The article isn't about the quality of education at for-profits vs. traditional schools, it's about cost at the undergraduate level and public funding.
Yes, I agree...I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was implying that if the word "profit" is the antithesis to quality, as some have argued in other threads, then I wondered how you could argue for quality in the non-profits who also make a profit. Put another way, profits should not equate to poor quality.
Quote:
The article is also not a defense of the for-profit colleges and doesn’t address the issues that make them crap schools (see previous threads in regards to admission standards, accreditation, grad school acceptance, debt load of students, etc).
Yes, I agree that this article is not in defense of for-profits. I wasn't suggesting that it was.
Quote:
Also, check your source before you post. CATO is a libertarian think-tank, not exactly an unbiased source or the kind of place that supports government funded programs.
So we can only use unbiased sources in CD threads? Who decides what is unbiased, you? If this is the case, tell me which way the lemmings are marching, because I am going the other way.
This is a complex article to read and understand. I can see how the numbers may have been a little confusing. Yet, with that said, do you think they are making those numbers up from thin air? Or is it possible that you don't want to believe the numbers because there may be some truth behind them.
Why is the Cato Institute hack journalism? Not that it would matter to you, but the author of this report works at a state university and has provided ample references for anyone to verify his report.
Actually I felt the author tried to dumb down an incredibly complex system and did a darn poor job in presenting an unbiased examination of the question. Talk about very broad generalities, then create an impression that spending choices of Tier 1 research institutions somehow reflect every single other non-profit institution in the country.
As for Cato, they're a libertarian think thank, so of course a good chunk of the article devolved into slamming the student loan and Pell grant programs- whole bunch of scare tactics with no hard data on the actual effectiveness of those programs. In their eyes, if it's got the taint of gub'mint it's inherently a bad idea.
Just because someone knows how to mention a statistic or two doesn't mean the article wasn't hack journalism.
it's the R&D at uni's you should be thanking. It will not be your for-profit diploma mills that offer nothing to society, but debt.
I am thankful that we live in a capitalistic society where we are all afforded opportunities to contribute to society. From personal experience, graduates from for-profit institutions are tremendous people and contributors to our country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
