3 ms·

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

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.
- cstejerean 10y ago
  The question is, why should tax payers subsidize liberal art programs with no job prospects? Giving student loans in exchange for getting an education that will increase their earning power makes sense. Not only will the loan be paid back, but the increased earning power will also increase the tax base. But someone graduating with $200k in student loans with a degree that will barely qualify them for a $35k per year job seems a lot more questionable. If you take away the student loan subsidies then the cost of those liberal art programs will inevitably come down, or at least they will be restricted to just the people that can afford a house worth of tuition to study philosophy.
  - tadfisher 10y ago
    Taxpayers do this already: it's called grade school and high school. The public has an interest in an educated populace. I'm not seeing any direct correlation between the cost of an education program and the earning power of graduates from the program, so in the absence of that evidence, I couldn't say with any confidence that tying subsidies to earning power will do much at all to bring program costs down. If I were to guess, what's more likely to happen is these programs would be canceled wholesale at low-margin institutions, leading to an effect opposite that which you describe: liberal arts programs would be available only at the institutions where graduates are more likely to obtain well-paying jobs, meaning Ivy League and other prestigious (and expensive) institutions. Simply limiting access to federal loans across the board, rather than subsidizing STEM/MBA degrees at the expense of liberal arts, would probably do much more to incentivize the reduction of post-secondary education costs without completely ditching the notion of a liberal education.

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.

cstejerean 10y ago
The question is, why should tax payers subsidize liberal art programs with no job prospects? Giving student loans in exchange for getting an education that will increase their earning power makes sense. Not only will the loan be paid back, but the increased earning power will also increase the tax base. But someone graduating with $200k in student loans with a degree that will barely qualify them for a $35k per year job seems a lot more questionable. If you take away the student loan subsidies then the cost of those liberal art programs will inevitably come down, or at least they will be restricted to just the people that can afford a house worth of tuition to study philosophy.
- tadfisher 10y ago
  Taxpayers do this already: it's called grade school and high school. The public has an interest in an educated populace. I'm not seeing any direct correlation between the cost of an education program and the earning power of graduates from the program, so in the absence of that evidence, I couldn't say with any confidence that tying subsidies to earning power will do much at all to bring program costs down. If I were to guess, what's more likely to happen is these programs would be canceled wholesale at low-margin institutions, leading to an effect opposite that which you describe: liberal arts programs would be available only at the institutions where graduates are more likely to obtain well-paying jobs, meaning Ivy League and other prestigious (and expensive) institutions. Simply limiting access to federal loans across the board, rather than subsidizing STEM/MBA degrees at the expense of liberal arts, would probably do much more to incentivize the reduction of post-secondary education costs without completely ditching the notion of a liberal education.