5 ms·
From the article: For-profit schools now enroll 8 percent of students—but as Eisman’s report shows, they take in a full 24 percent of federal student aid. Thi
by philk 16y ago
From the article:
For-profit schools now enroll 8 percent of students—but as Eisman’s report shows, they take in a full 24 percent of federal student aid.
This suggests that they are exploiting the system more than the non-profit colleges[1].
Also from the article:
Last year, BPE’s two schools took in $454 million in tuition and fees from their students. If Ashford’s academic reputation has not grown as fast as its enrollment, it is no surprise, considering where all that money went: $145 million was spent on marketing and recruitment, which is $25 million more than the colleges spent on instruction.
Hence they've only been spending ($145m - $20m)/$454m = 27% [2] of their fees on education.
[1] Not that they're blameless either. I'm just saying they're less bad on this particular axis.
[2] Or 32% of the federal aid money they receive.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoNo, it suggests they are exploiting the federal student aid system more than non-profit colleges. And even so, all it does is suggest that. It may also just suggest that non-profits have more lower income students than for-profits (what middle class child goes to DeVry?). Note that federal student aid is means tested by income of the student's family, as opposed to things like state aid which go directly to the school.
- joe_the_user 16y agoUh yes, it's possible that for profits are providing better services at a lower cost and this justifies them tempting more customers to take out large loans to pay for their services. It's possible but I'd rule it highly unlikely given the motives of the schools, the dynamics of the markets and recent history.