17 ms·

I went to a similar for-profit school in Minnesota who also similarly shut down last year. I still feel like they get a bad rap. Was it overpriced? Probably. D

by donatj 10y ago

I went to a similar for-profit school in Minnesota who also similarly shut down last year. I still feel like they get a bad rap. Was it overpriced? Probably. Did I learn a ton and have small class sizes. Absolutely. The instructors had all previously worked in the industry, and knew their topics very well. On top of all that, after graduation their persistent pestering of "how many places did you apply to this week?" (surely to help their numbers) had a lot to do with me actually getting a job. I didn't want to let the lady that called me weekly down. It took a lot of persistence and interviewing but I finally got my foot firmly in the door about 6 months after graduation. I've been gainfully employed in the industry for ten years, I'm debt free, and I'm happy. I'm thankful for my time there.

arenaninja 10y ago
I don't disagree that for-profit colleges get a bad rap, but I think it's deserved in the case of ITT Tech and Corinthian. I think about the government handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it. Taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for these failed loans, and if they know which institutions are largely at fault then good on them for being proactive
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  "handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it" Right, but ot depends on the facts. Were they just asked to put up reasonable collateral, foreseeable from what they delivered compared with their responsibilities by taking federal money? Or were they blindsided with an arbitrary number from the DOE that was intended to force them to shut down before they had a chance to save their business? Probably a little (or a lot) of both. And we should be as wary of the latter as the former.
  - arenaninja 10y ago
    I don't have a good answer for you, because what you said sounds rational, but their tactics were slimy and their immediate shuttering signals, in my opinion, that they had no legitimate shot without a seat in the government trough.
  - cstejerean 10y ago
    They were not asked to put up collateral because their education is worthless and students won't be able to repay. They were asked to put up collateral because the Department of Education didn't believe they would survive the multiple fraud investigations (securities as well as consumer fraud). I think that risk was reasonably high, so the collateral doesn't seem punitive.
    - jeffdavis 10y ago
      In a nation of laws, the government should not take punative action until after allegations of fraud are settled in court. Sometimes, to prevent further damage, a court may decide to freeze assets or prevent a certain activity while the case is worked out. But that's the job of a court, not an agency like the DOE.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > They were asked to put up collateral because the Department of Education didn't believe they would survive the multiple fraud investigations (securities as well as consumer fraud). That's not entirely true. They were asked to put up collateral and then banned from accepting new federal-aid-dependent students because the DOE received word from ITT's accreditor that ITT's accreditation was at risk due to, among other issues, ITT's financial status. Now, among the sources of the problems for ITT's financial status were the SEC and CFPB fraud lawsuits themselves, and, IIRC, changes in ITT business practices that were taken in response to those lawsuits. But the primary direct trigger for the DOE actions wasn't DOE's evaluation of ITT's financial status, but the risk that ITT's would lose its accreditation, which would make it ineligible to enroll any students accepting federal student aid (not just new students, but continuing students as well.)
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    They've had plenty of time to fix their problems. They have to have known about the issues for some time now, so them not having a bunch of extra time given to them is nothing to be sad about.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  So, if tax payers paying for something they're not getting value out of is of interest to you, what about the 600 billion (well over half) of federal discretionary spending that goes to "defense" which involves contracts that we're aware regularly goes over budget and time with no guarantee of success? Even if you're fine with the amount we spend, the F35 is just one example of exactly what you're talking about, but in terms of defense instead of education. Should we cancel contracts to Lockheed Martin because of how they fail to deliver? Or perhaps consider that even wasted education spending is probably more productive than wasted defense spending? It's clear that they deliver an education. The question is whether they then get the people who have an education a job, similar to how a fighter plane maker may make a plane, but it may not do its intended job well. I guess I just find it interesting how a lot less time is spent talking about taxpayer spending on wasted weapons, while the measly education budget gets scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.
SteveNuts 10y ago
Sanford Brown (or just Brown)? Same here... I loved it and it got me a great job. Is it prestigious? Nope. But it got the job done and I was done in 2 years.
- donatj 10y ago
  Yup. It was just "Brown" at the time. Brooklyn Center campus. I went for Application Development.
- swalsh 10y ago
  I went there for 2 semesters. I cancelled after one of the "professors" showed up hung over. The education was very low quality.
  - Phlarp 10y ago
    FWIW: I went to a "real" university (University of Minnesota) and hung-over professors / TAs in large lecture classes or their related lab sessions wasn't a surprising occurrence-- at least in the general classes that everyone was required to take. I had a math professor freshman year that explicitly canceled a lecture due to him having a hangover. Honestly this seems like a relatively minor nit to pick, as there are far greater issues to be concerned with at all levels of higher education-- for profit or otherwise. None of my professors for technology related classes ever did this, but they also had about 6 months of legitimate industry experience between them so caveat emptor with anybody who wants you to take out a loan to pay for their "education". (Having said all of this, the slip of paper has still been worth more than it's weight in gold, for me.)
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      > (Having said all of this, the slip of paper has still been worth more than it's weight in gold, for me.) A few thousand dollars? Some things just don't weigh that much.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    > I cancelled after one of the "professors" showed up hung over. For the record, professors occasionally showing up hungover is by no means means confined to ITT. I went to a fairly good public university, and I had a few professors who came to an early-morning class obviously hungover once or twice (and 1 of them was a pretty good teacher). I'm quite sure the same thing sometimes happens at Ivy League schools as well.
bradleyjg 10y ago
While there may well be more bad (by whatever metric) for-profit colleges there are also bad non-profit colleges. And non-profit itself is a bit of misnomer. It is true that registered non-profits can't pay dividends to their shareholders, but they can and sometimes do pay exorbitant salaries to those that have control over them. As the gainful employment rule[1] currently stands it exempts degree programs from public and private non-profit institutions. I'd rather see a uniform set of metrics and standards applied to all institutions eligible for student loans. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-25594/program-integrity-gainful-employment#h-7 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-255...
- jayess 10y ago
  No idea why you're getting downvoted. The same rules should apply across the board.
- eli 10y ago
  Salaries at non-profit must be "reasonable" by law. There's probably a lot of wiggle room there, but it's not like you can just pay yourself anything.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago
    if everyone else in the same profession is granting themselves raises and hiring extra staff, the definition of 'reasonable' gets skewed to "this is how everyone is doing it". And... it doesn't happen overnight, but I'd bet staffing levels and pay scales are pretty out of whack compared to 30 years ago for university staff who basically do the same things as 30 years ago.
  - johnward 10y ago
    How do you define a reasonable salary for a C level exec when the for profits pay them insane rates?
- tadfisher 10y ago
  Be careful what you wish for. This would basically kill liberal arts programs and the idea of a well-rounded post-secondary education. The incentive would be to transform universities into job-training programs. I know there is an ongoing debate about the worth of a liberal arts education in the modern economy, but there's something to be said about the traditional notion of education for education's sake, rather than as a mechanism to improve lifetime earnings. Something should be done about the high cost of post-secondary education and the untenable burden it places on many students, but I disagree that the solution should be tied to job prospects.
dntrkv 10y ago
Just because you had a great experience does not negate the fact that for-profit college students, statistically, fare much worse. A common pattern I have seen: Person does terrible in high school, doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades. They go to community college, and surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going. After a while they want to go back to school, so they start looking into these for profit colleges that promise them everything. These colleges make it sound so much more appealing than community college, because, well, community college isn't trying to sell you a bullshit education. Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50k+ in worthless education. The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort. I have seen many people follow this exact path and I am glad to see these companies shutting down. You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.
- empath75 10y ago
  I signed up for computer learning center the month they went bankrupt. After 3 weeks of classes, I showed up and they were wheeling furniture out the front door. Dodged a bullet, there.
- ohyes 10y ago
  The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges). The best advice I ever received was to not pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy. It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.
  - mcjon77 10y ago
    >The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges). The difference is that the percentage of people with that negative end result is MUCH higher. Looking at stats like the default rate for students at for-profits vs non-profits is one indicator. >It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student. There is definitely some truth in this. HOWEVER, a big difference is that in many cases the interests of the department and the student are more aligned at non-profits than for-profits. The most obvious example is completion/graduation rates. At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program. Bringing in woefully underprepared students who have little chance of finishing the degree seems to be strongly discouraged at the undergraduate and masters level. I cannot speak for the PhD level, since I have little experience in that area. Contrast that with stories about MULTIPLE for-profit colleges going so far as to target the homeless for recruitment into their universities. In some cases they went so far as recruiting people who DID NOT OWN A COMPUTER to sign up for online degree programs. Since virtually all Americans (regardless of credit score) qualify for up to $20K in loans per year (with a cap of about $180K total), a students ability (or lack there of) to complete the program is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing in.
dimino 10y ago
You remind me of their commercials; not that such a thing is bad, it just always seemed to me that some percentage of the people attending these schools must be having a positive experience. Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority. I also wonder how much their lack of success could be contributed to the kinds of people who have ITT as their most viable option. You might be able to better speak to this than I, but I've always kind of assumed ITT was a "last resort", where other institutions (community colleges, etc) would be better options if available.
robotcookies 10y ago
I believe that all schools should have partial liability for the defaults of their students. You make a good point that this heavy-handed regulation of schools by shutting them down can hurt a few people who may benefit from alternative schools. If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.
- kajjffkk 10y ago
  I dont want my school hustling me down the likeliest path to become corporate cannon fodder at ABC Corp when I'm trying to build a startup. Not everyone goes to school to "get a job".
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Then don't go to school and just start your startup. This conversation is about government backed education loans. It's not clear why the US government should be issuing education loans at all, let alone issuing them to students who are very unlikely to pay them back. Or at least have their real income greatly curtailed for decades by loan payments. If you just want to get an education for personal reasons, figure out how to pay for it on your own without relying on taxpayers.
    - twoodfin 10y ago
      Well, from some policy makers' point of view, having a substantial fraction of the citizenry owe the government tens of thousands of dollars it alone has the power to forgive might be a very appealing bit of leverage.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by donatj 10y ago

arenaninja 10y ago

I don't disagree that for-profit colleges get a bad rap, but I think it's deserved in the case of ITT Tech and Corinthian. I think about the government handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it. Taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for these failed loans, and if they know which institutions are largely at fault then good on them for being proactive

jeffdavis 10y ago
"handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it" Right, but ot depends on the facts. Were they just asked to put up reasonable collateral, foreseeable from what they delivered compared with their responsibilities by taking federal money? Or were they blindsided with an arbitrary number from the DOE that was intended to force them to shut down before they had a chance to save their business? Probably a little (or a lot) of both. And we should be as wary of the latter as the former.
- arenaninja 10y ago
  I don't have a good answer for you, because what you said sounds rational, but their tactics were slimy and their immediate shuttering signals, in my opinion, that they had no legitimate shot without a seat in the government trough.
- cstejerean 10y ago
  They were not asked to put up collateral because their education is worthless and students won't be able to repay. They were asked to put up collateral because the Department of Education didn't believe they would survive the multiple fraud investigations (securities as well as consumer fraud). I think that risk was reasonably high, so the collateral doesn't seem punitive.
  - jeffdavis 10y ago
    In a nation of laws, the government should not take punative action until after allegations of fraud are settled in court. Sometimes, to prevent further damage, a court may decide to freeze assets or prevent a certain activity while the case is worked out. But that's the job of a court, not an agency like the DOE.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > They were asked to put up collateral because the Department of Education didn't believe they would survive the multiple fraud investigations (securities as well as consumer fraud). That's not entirely true. They were asked to put up collateral and then banned from accepting new federal-aid-dependent students because the DOE received word from ITT's accreditor that ITT's accreditation was at risk due to, among other issues, ITT's financial status. Now, among the sources of the problems for ITT's financial status were the SEC and CFPB fraud lawsuits themselves, and, IIRC, changes in ITT business practices that were taken in response to those lawsuits. But the primary direct trigger for the DOE actions wasn't DOE's evaluation of ITT's financial status, but the risk that ITT's would lose its accreditation, which would make it ineligible to enroll any students accepting federal student aid (not just new students, but continuing students as well.)
- st3v3r 10y ago
  They've had plenty of time to fix their problems. They have to have known about the issues for some time now, so them not having a bunch of extra time given to them is nothing to be sad about.
peterwwillis 10y ago
So, if tax payers paying for something they're not getting value out of is of interest to you, what about the 600 billion (well over half) of federal discretionary spending that goes to "defense" which involves contracts that we're aware regularly goes over budget and time with no guarantee of success? Even if you're fine with the amount we spend, the F35 is just one example of exactly what you're talking about, but in terms of defense instead of education. Should we cancel contracts to Lockheed Martin because of how they fail to deliver? Or perhaps consider that even wasted education spending is probably more productive than wasted defense spending? It's clear that they deliver an education. The question is whether they then get the people who have an education a job, similar to how a fighter plane maker may make a plane, but it may not do its intended job well. I guess I just find it interesting how a lot less time is spent talking about taxpayer spending on wasted weapons, while the measly education budget gets scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.

SteveNuts 10y ago

Sanford Brown (or just Brown)? Same here... I loved it and it got me a great job. Is it prestigious? Nope. But it got the job done and I was done in 2 years.

donatj 10y ago
Yup. It was just "Brown" at the time. Brooklyn Center campus. I went for Application Development.
swalsh 10y ago
I went there for 2 semesters. I cancelled after one of the "professors" showed up hung over. The education was very low quality.
- Phlarp 10y ago
  FWIW: I went to a "real" university (University of Minnesota) and hung-over professors / TAs in large lecture classes or their related lab sessions wasn't a surprising occurrence-- at least in the general classes that everyone was required to take. I had a math professor freshman year that explicitly canceled a lecture due to him having a hangover. Honestly this seems like a relatively minor nit to pick, as there are far greater issues to be concerned with at all levels of higher education-- for profit or otherwise. None of my professors for technology related classes ever did this, but they also had about 6 months of legitimate industry experience between them so caveat emptor with anybody who wants you to take out a loan to pay for their "education". (Having said all of this, the slip of paper has still been worth more than it's weight in gold, for me.)
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > (Having said all of this, the slip of paper has still been worth more than it's weight in gold, for me.) A few thousand dollars? Some things just don't weigh that much.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  > I cancelled after one of the "professors" showed up hung over. For the record, professors occasionally showing up hungover is by no means means confined to ITT. I went to a fairly good public university, and I had a few professors who came to an early-morning class obviously hungover once or twice (and 1 of them was a pretty good teacher). I'm quite sure the same thing sometimes happens at Ivy League schools as well.

bradleyjg 10y ago

While there may well be more bad (by whatever metric) for-profit colleges there are also bad non-profit colleges. And non-profit itself is a bit of misnomer. It is true that registered non-profits can't pay dividends to their shareholders, but they can and sometimes do pay exorbitant salaries to those that have control over them. As the gainful employment rule[1] currently stands it exempts degree programs from public and private non-profit institutions. I'd rather see a uniform set of metrics and standards applied to all institutions eligible for student loans. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-25594/program-integrity-gainful-employment#h-7 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-255...

jayess 10y ago
No idea why you're getting downvoted. The same rules should apply across the board.
eli 10y ago
Salaries at non-profit must be "reasonable" by law. There's probably a lot of wiggle room there, but it's not like you can just pay yourself anything.
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  if everyone else in the same profession is granting themselves raises and hiring extra staff, the definition of 'reasonable' gets skewed to "this is how everyone is doing it". And... it doesn't happen overnight, but I'd bet staffing levels and pay scales are pretty out of whack compared to 30 years ago for university staff who basically do the same things as 30 years ago.
- johnward 10y ago
  How do you define a reasonable salary for a C level exec when the for profits pay them insane rates?
tadfisher 10y ago
Be careful what you wish for. This would basically kill liberal arts programs and the idea of a well-rounded post-secondary education. The incentive would be to transform universities into job-training programs. I know there is an ongoing debate about the worth of a liberal arts education in the modern economy, but there's something to be said about the traditional notion of education for education's sake, rather than as a mechanism to improve lifetime earnings. Something should be done about the high cost of post-secondary education and the untenable burden it places on many students, but I disagree that the solution should be tied to job prospects.

dntrkv 10y ago

Just because you had a great experience does not negate the fact that for-profit college students, statistically, fare much worse. A common pattern I have seen: Person does terrible in high school, doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades. They go to community college, and surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going. After a while they want to go back to school, so they start looking into these for profit colleges that promise them everything. These colleges make it sound so much more appealing than community college, because, well, community college isn't trying to sell you a bullshit education. Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50k+ in worthless education. The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort. I have seen many people follow this exact path and I am glad to see these companies shutting down. You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.

empath75 10y ago
I signed up for computer learning center the month they went bankrupt. After 3 weeks of classes, I showed up and they were wheeling furniture out the front door. Dodged a bullet, there.
ohyes 10y ago
The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges). The best advice I ever received was to not pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy. It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.
- mcjon77 10y ago
  >The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges). The difference is that the percentage of people with that negative end result is MUCH higher. Looking at stats like the default rate for students at for-profits vs non-profits is one indicator. >It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student. There is definitely some truth in this. HOWEVER, a big difference is that in many cases the interests of the department and the student are more aligned at non-profits than for-profits. The most obvious example is completion/graduation rates. At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program. Bringing in woefully underprepared students who have little chance of finishing the degree seems to be strongly discouraged at the undergraduate and masters level. I cannot speak for the PhD level, since I have little experience in that area. Contrast that with stories about MULTIPLE for-profit colleges going so far as to target the homeless for recruitment into their universities. In some cases they went so far as recruiting people who DID NOT OWN A COMPUTER to sign up for online degree programs. Since virtually all Americans (regardless of credit score) qualify for up to $20K in loans per year (with a cap of about $180K total), a students ability (or lack there of) to complete the program is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing in.

dimino 10y ago

You remind me of their commercials; not that such a thing is bad, it just always seemed to me that some percentage of the people attending these schools must be having a positive experience. Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority. I also wonder how much their lack of success could be contributed to the kinds of people who have ITT as their most viable option. You might be able to better speak to this than I, but I've always kind of assumed ITT was a "last resort", where other institutions (community colleges, etc) would be better options if available.

robotcookies 10y ago

I believe that all schools should have partial liability for the defaults of their students. You make a good point that this heavy-handed regulation of schools by shutting them down can hurt a few people who may benefit from alternative schools. If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.

kajjffkk 10y ago
I dont want my school hustling me down the likeliest path to become corporate cannon fodder at ABC Corp when I'm trying to build a startup. Not everyone goes to school to "get a job".
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Then don't go to school and just start your startup. This conversation is about government backed education loans. It's not clear why the US government should be issuing education loans at all, let alone issuing them to students who are very unlikely to pay them back. Or at least have their real income greatly curtailed for decades by loan payments. If you just want to get an education for personal reasons, figure out how to pay for it on your own without relying on taxpayers.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    Well, from some policy makers' point of view, having a substantial fraction of the citizenry owe the government tens of thousands of dollars it alone has the power to forgive might be a very appealing bit of leverage.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]