<p>These schools are also accredited by the relevant Association of Schools and Colleges in order to disburse Federal loans to begin with, and with that comes a plethora of standards. Also, it is not necessarily the college’s job to act as a nanny.</p>
<p>In the article you cited, 5% of Drake’s student body was homeless. One would infer 95% was not. Additionally, the analysis cited showed substantial improvements in income among graduates.</p>
<p>If one is so concerned about moral hazard, why not abolish the government loans altogether? Private, for-profit companies will do a better job of determining the creditworthiness of a potential student than the morons at the Dept. of Education. Private student loans have been outlawed by the administration, so it looks like this moral hazard cluster***** will continue. Is it any wonder this country is such a horrid mess when policy-makers do not understand economics?</p>
<p>@CailleBotte
The problem lies in the fact that these universities get accredited. I think it would be not unreasonable to require minimum teaching standards and selectivity for accreditation, and refuse to loan money to students attending unaccredited institutions.</p>
<p>I know little about the student loan process, I admit, but this would seem a far more rational option than shutting down for-profits or indiscriminately regulating them.</p>
<p>1) gay marriage
2) abortion
3) contraceptives</p>
<p>In all three instances, the left complains that the right is injecting morality into politics, yet they claim there is a moral obligation to help others. Double standard.</p>
<p>“As I said, it’s easy to sympathize with this position. However, the exploitation of these people has wider ranging implications. It’s not a purely self-regarding issue and issues that aren’t purely self-regarding do fall under the realm of morality.”</p>
<p>Well then is voting a morality issue since politicians like Obama exploit the masses to get elected? Should we not allow people to vote unless they sign a wavier explaining every candidates policy, it’s implications and possible outcomes, before they can vote? People buy into a bunch of BS when they vote, elect someone based on a bunch of “promises,” and the candidate ends up making their situation worse (causing inflation, higher taxes, higher cost of living, artificial and manipulated interest rates, record borrowing, record debt, recessions, wasterful spending etc etc). Should we allow companies to advertise on info mercials, since they are manipulating people in scams like cash for gold? </p>
<p>The great thing about our country is a somewhat free market, the idea that people can enter into consensual agreements and contracts freely. I am in no way morally obligated to bail someone out because they made a poor choice (aka teaser mortgage rates that allowed people to live beyond their means). It’s all well and good when those risky decisions end up in profit, but the second someone is “exploited” we should redistribute wealth and use tax payer money to “save” them? No thanks. If you can’t learn to make an informed decision, then you are going to deal with the consequences of making stupid decisions. I am in no way obligated to feel bad or give money to people who decided to go to Devry or whatnot. College is an investment, and if people make bad investments, they take their losses and move on. This whole bailout concept is stupid. If you want to use your money to help those people, fine. But don’t sit there and say it’s my moral obligation to do the same.</p>
<p>Tiff, you’ve conveniently forgotten that there are just as many arguments to be made for why abortion, gay marriage, and contraception are perfectly moral and even beneficial for society. I support all three, just not fundies’ view of what is moral. ;)</p>
<p>Public schools ARE here to serve a consumer; the taxpayer, and if these for-profit schools can produce quality teachers, educators, and toher professionals then I see no reason why they should be summarily dismissed. What I do support is stronger private and public oversight and strenous evaluation of their credentials to make sure that they are doing a good job, but I hardly see the distinction between the ripoff prices charged by “nonprofit” colleges – whose cartel of continuing education has driven prices up to nearly triple the inflation rate – and the attempts by for-profit schools to provide access to education to a traditionally undeserved market (older, rural, less-affluent, etc.)</p>
<p>I don’t understand this. Your education will be exactly the same regardless of whether or not for-profit universities exist. Obviously not all college degrees are equal.</p>
<p>“For-profit universities: A fool and his money are soon parted”</p>
<p>What about all those 2yr and 4yr ‘non-profit’ (public and Ivy League) schools rigging the game so students are forced to remain ‘enrolled’ but attending classes unrelated to their chosen degree? </p>
<p>SUNY colleges (and likely most all US colleges) which award medical degrees, requiring clinical classes, deny seats in those classes to students who’ve completed all their non-clinical coursework due to a shortage of room at hospitals where the clinical portion is taught. </p>
<p>I realize hospitals can’t have a hundred Radiology, Lab Tech or Nursing students filling their wards and labs but is it fair (or LEGAL) to force these students to enroll in six credit hours per semester of alternate classes such as Phys-Ed, Arts and Crafts or Media Studies (watching TV) and incur thousands of dollars MORE in debt when they could be sitting out a semester or two until space DOES become available?</p>
<p>I know one such Rad Tech student who was told there are 300 people ahead of him waiting for a spot in the clinical classes - yet SUNY won’t allow him to sit-out even one semester. And HE’S working part-time to pay for the ‘fluff’ classes they forced upon him - at a cost of over $1800/semester!</p>
<p>What about the medical-tracked students in 4yr universities with costs upwards of $30,000/yr? Are they supposed to fork over another $15,000 so they can watch reruns of 70’s TV shows until a spot opens in the clinical classes?</p>
<p>And what of the taxpayers? Every student who’s receiving grants for these ‘studies’ is defrauding the federal government Student Aid program because they have absolutely no ‘intention’ of ever completing a degree in them.</p>
<p>Congress needs to rewrite the statutes in the US Code so schools can’t use threats and intimidation to pressure students into committing felony fraud or quitting school (and beginning repayment early) when school officials deign to deny them the very classes the students are required to complete to graduate.</p>
<p>I agree that the for-profit university business model is evil…</p>
<p>I enrolled at “American military university,” (I completed 6 credits) I was disillusionecd beyond words. The whole thing was online and it cost like $7000, but FA aid covered most. I only paid $300. It was like paying to read a book. </p>
<p>But I disagree that people deserve it. I think most of the people attracted to online schools are so because they work.</p>
<p>BTW, for-profit colleges are indeed scams most of the time. You know what else is a scam? Most of what not-for-profit state colleges do. Sports, building upon building of administrators, expensive facilities that are rarely used to capacity, convincing students that “yes you can” get a lucrative career after majoring in butt lint art studies, etc., all so that a bunch of people pretending to be scholarly academics can keep their phony-baloney jobs.</p>
<p>For-profit schools rely heavily on subsidies from the government in the form of guaranteed aid, don’t forget that. It’s hardly a model free market.</p>