I think that's an excellent and important point. Certainly there is some sample bias going on: if you're qualified for college in the first place you are probab

I think that's an excellent and important point. Certainly there is some sample bias going on: if you're qualified for college in the first place you are probably at a traditional college. However, I think my original point remains relevant for two reasons: First, the author of the article used rising aggregate debt as evidence that the traditional college system is broken beyond repair. But if a significant portion of that debt is being taken on by unqualified students attending for-profit colleges, then the growing debt could have absolutely nothing to do with traditional colleges (likely the reality is somewhere in the middle, but the author's "doom and gloom" outlook on traditional colleges seems a bit extreme to me). Second, the author presented for-profit higher education as a replacement for traditional higher education. But the incentives faced by for-profit colleges seem every bit as broken as those he claimed are faced by traditional colleges. If traditional college presidents have an incentive to grow their endowments and build grand edifices on the backs of their students, then for-profit college CEOs have an incentive to cut large dividend and bonus checks on the backs of their students. This just doesn't seem like an improvement to me.