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.
If anything it gives you an idea of their financial literacy. In many cases it's actually cheaper to work a part-time job and go to a local CC and transition to a local state school for the last 2 years than it is to get a degree from an online school.
A basic bachelor's degree from UofP will run you about 65k after including tuition, materials and fees.
In contrast I could do 2 years at a CC and 2 years at a state university for 29k.
65-29 = 36k difference and it takes 1 more year to get through your standard UofP program.
Good point. And the calculations in your example are conservative because they don't even account for the interest paid over the life of the student loans the person will likely use to finance her education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deposite
If the person can demonstrate that they're perfect for the job, then there's no reason to discredit them just because they went to a for profit school.
I think this relates back to what some other posters have said who place more weight on experience than they do on formal education.
Generally, the answer to the OP's question seems to be mixed. Some industries place high value on pedigree and some do not.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,068,439 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnseca
That article says nothing of the kind. I doubt anyone who can get into a traditional school and complete the work there would spend money on a non-competitive for-profit instead. There is no way those students are on par with students from non-profit, respected schools. It just isn't true by any stretch of imagination or research, and the degrees from the for-profits are worthless. Anyone who pays their money can graduate. I know people who don't speak English who have degrees from Strayer.
I know people that worked for McKinsey that barely spoke English. What's your point?
Respected non-profit schools? Such as: Arizona State University with an 84% acceptance rate? How about UNLV with an 86% acceptance rate? How are those schools any better than Strayer?
Our educational system is a relic of an Industrial Revolution. Students are admitted and then evaluated based on the same system that we used 40,60,70 years ago. Lot has changed since then.
Had I not received my entire education from "top" institutions maybe I'd actually believe that those schools and students s**t don't stink.
To me, it is really dependent on someone's experience. If you went to an online, for-profit college while working in a lower position in a semi-applicable field (ie. you're working full time in accounts payable, complete a degree in accounting from UPhoenix, and apply to be an accountant), then I would consider you. If you have that same degree, but maybe you worked as a teacher's assistant or something, I probably wouldn't. You would need to have the degree in accordance with something semi-applicable.
My sister-in-law is now $111K in debt between her bachelors in criminal justice and getting an MBA with a criminal justice emphasis where she wrote papers about neighborhood watch stuff. I have an undergraduate degree in finance and find this a little strange as to me, criminal justice is criminal justice and business is business. They overlap in terms of fraud, waste, and abuse, but to get an MBA in criminal justice with courses that aren't about crime within business or applying it to business - it just doesn't make sense to me. Add in the fact that she works retail and I am not so sure what that $111K in debt will get her.
I know people that worked for McKinsey that barely spoke English. What's your point?
Respected non-profit schools? Such as: Arizona State University with an 84% acceptance rate? How about UNLV with an 86% acceptance rate? How are those schools any better than Strayer?
Our educational system is a relic of an Industrial Revolution. Students are admitted and then evaluated based on the same system that we used 40,60,70 years ago. Lot has changed since then.
Had I not received my entire education from "top" institutions maybe I'd actually believe that those schools and students s**t don't stink.
I think the point is that the article you linked to does not in any way make the point you said it did.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,068,439 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton
I think the point is that the article you linked to does not in any way make the point you said it did.
A direct quote from the referenced article: Emphasis is mine.
After excluding trade and vocational colleges like these, two vaunted names, MIT and Harvard, rise to the top of the earnings rankings. Yet most students who get into such places end up well-paid no matter what. Two economists, Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale, have found that graduates of selective universitiesdo not out-earn those who were accepted by the same colleges but chose a “lesser”institution. To measure a university’s economic value, you need to compare the salaries of its graduates with the wages they might have earned had they studied elsewhere.
This is what I said:
While on average, better schools have better students, there's no doubt that students who could get into these schools, but chose to go to less traditional route, are on par with students from better schools. Economist did a great piece on this exact point few weeks back.
A direct quote from the referenced article: Emphasis is mine.
After excluding trade and vocational colleges like these, two vaunted names, MIT and Harvard, rise to the top of the earnings rankings. Yet most students who get into such places end up well-paid no matter what. Two economists, Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale, have found that graduates of selective universitiesdo not out-earn those who were accepted by the same colleges but chose a “lesser”institution. To measure a university’s economic value, you need to compare the salaries of its graduates with the wages they might have earned had they studied elsewhere.
This is what I said:
While on average, better schools have better students, there's no doubt that students who could get into these schools, but chose to go to less traditional route, are on par with students from better schools. Economist did a great piece on this exact point few weeks back.
Any other questions?
There is nothing in this article indicating that the students who chose to go to a "lesser" institution were choosing University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT, etc. as their lesser institutions. I took it as meaning something closer to Susie could have gone to Virginia Tech, but instead opted to go to "lesser" Radford University nearby or to small private Roanoke College nearby. This is vastly different than choosing Phoenix/DeVry/diploma mills and in that instance, I can believe that the tenacity of the individual makes up for a lot of it.... but that does not mean that it does not matter if they choose Phoenix/DeVry/diploma mills as their lesser school that they would earn as much. Even if you take the random sample of folks here, it is stating that generally they are not well-respected or highly valued by most people and having that degree with no prior experience is fighting an uphill battle from the outset.
In fact, a lot of people's opinions seem in line with that article in that they would respect a degree from a local community college more so than online, for-profit. It is not that they disrespect non-traditional routes, but that they disrespect online, for-profit.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,068,439 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomlikeme
There is nothing in this article indicating that the students who chose to go to a "lesser" institution were choosing University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT, etc. as their lesser institutions. I took it as meaning something closer to Susie could have gone to Virginia Tech, but instead opted to go to "lesser" Radford University nearby or to small private Roanoke College nearby. This is vastly different than choosing Phoenix/DeVry/diploma mills and in that instance, I can believe that the tenacity of the individual makes up for a lot of it.... but that does not mean that it does not matter if they choose Phoenix/DeVry/diploma mills as their lesser school that they would earn as much. Even if you take the random sample of folks here, it is stating that generally they are not well-respected or highly valued by most people and having that degree with no prior experience is fighting an uphill battle from the outset.
With all due respect, ironies abound in your post.
A direct quote from the referenced article: Emphasis is mine.
After excluding trade and vocational colleges like these, two vaunted names, MIT and Harvard, rise to the top of the earnings rankings. Yet most students who get into such places end up well-paid no matter what. Two economists, Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale, have found that graduates of selective universitiesdo not out-earn those who were accepted by the same colleges but chose a “lesser”institution. To measure a university’s economic value, you need to compare the salaries of its graduates with the wages they might have earned had they studied elsewhere.
This is what I said:
While on average, better schools have better students, there's no doubt that students who could get into these schools, but chose to go to less traditional route, are on par with students from better schools. Economist did a great piece on this exact point few weeks back.
Any other questions?
When they said "lesser institutions" they no doubt meant state flagships. Not for-profits. I'm nearly positive there are no students at Strayer who were accepted to Harvard.
I know people that worked for McKinsey that barely spoke English. What's your point?
Respected non-profit schools? Such as: Arizona State University with an 84% acceptance rate? How about UNLV with an 86% acceptance rate? How are those schools any better than Strayer?
Our educational system is a relic of an Industrial Revolution. Students are admitted and then evaluated based on the same system that we used 40,60,70 years ago. Lot has changed since then.
Had I not received my entire education from "top" institutions maybe I'd actually believe that those schools and students s**t don't stink.
Yes, those schools, while not elite, are still better than Strayer on many, many levels.
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.
