"Study: For-profit college students end up with lower earnings" By Kay Steigerat the Raw Story

[applegrove]

Study: For-profit college students end up with lower earnings

By Kay Steiger at the Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/study-for-profit-college-students-end-up-with-lower-earnings/

"SNIP...................................

In a new working paper filed with the National Bureau of Economic research, a statistical analysis of for-profit college students show that earnings are significantly less than students who attend comparable nonprofit schools. The study found that “income in 2009 is approximately $5,500 lower for students starting at for-profit institutions than for students starting at not-for-profit/public institutions.”

Kevin Lang, the lead researcher on the study and a professor at Boston University, told Raw Story: “I’d certainly be very cautious about putting a lot of my eggs in the for-profit basket as a policy tool for improving labor market outcomes for disadvantaged workers. At this point the case has not been made.”

Other research has found that for-profit students make up about half of all student loan defaults, even though they make up about 12 percent of the general student population. The default rate among students at for-profit schools is 15 percent, more than double that of student who attend public universities and more than tripple that of students who attend private, nonprofit schools.

“At this point, the case for the effectiveness even equaling the effectiveness of more traditional postsecondary sector is not there,” Lang said.

.....................................SNIP"

[SoutherDem]

1. But, I thought For Profit was always better?

This is an excellent example of how For Profit is not always better. I would go so far as to say Not For Profit, Non-Profit or Public is almost alway better for areas like education, health care, law enforcement, fire protection, scientific research, basically anything for the public good.
I do feel For Profit is best for things not for the public good, but even then I support real regulations.

[Igel]

2. Not in this case.

For-profit colleges typically pick up the bottom of the barrel and the oportunistic student. The student who can't get in elsewhere or who is already strapped for time or resources.

If you get a 2-year degree, it's vocational. They aren't the top earners in society. If you get a four-year degree, you've likely learned about as much as at a low-tier state school.

If you look at public schools, some do better than others. Ivy League schools are best, not because of faculty but because their students are prepared and motivated and challenged. They're challenged because they're prepared and motivated and *can* be challenged. These students study, get their foot in the door, and do well. More often than not.

Lesser schools have a mix of students, and the results are mixed. But because of the mix, even prepared and motivated students don't learn as much. Their schools get them "in the door" less successfully, and on average the students are less successful.

Then there are bottom-rung schools. They provide people with bachelor degrees for industries. If you look at these schools, you see most of the for-profit schools. You also see a bunch of public schools that are every bit as bad. They just don't get peeled out for comparison by anybody that we're likely to listen to. It's not the faculty that's sucky, it's the students. They occasionally get good students and, in some cases, if the students already have their foot in the door their degrees are golden. Just far, far less often than the Yalie or even the Golden Bear from Berkeley.

Same for the two-year schools. More than a few large urban community colleges "look like" the for profit 2-year schools when you crunch the numbers. High debt rate, high default rate, high incompletion rate. They look the same for all the same reasons: Poorly prepared, poorly motivated students in stressful situations in far over their heads. If you peeled out the bad community colleges you'd have to argue for punishing their students with higher interest rates, defunding them, or closing the schools--except that this would be deemed "unprogressive" and "illiberal." "For profit" versus "public" makes all the difference for some people, and the word "public" can cover the same multitude of sins that the words "for profit" shout to the heavens.

[Gman]

3. It's just what I've observed, but

It appears for profit schools are mainly interested in corporate tuition assistance for employees and selling student loans. They generally are (IMO) less academically challenging and have lower admission standards. They exist to give out easy degrees.

I've several bits of anecdotal evidence including a friend that was due to graduate from such a school with a business degree and didn't know what mean, median and mode are. Or the group from a big local for profit school that dropped our grad level Eco class after the second week, or the blank look I got from a coworker with a business degree from one of these that gave me a blank look when I suggested a couple of types of statistical analysis on data for a project we were working on.

These all came from the same school, but I cam see where they might all be like that.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. Interesting article. Going into read it. thanks for posting