15 ms·

Two comments: an op-ed piece I saw in the Wall Street Journal the other day[1] made the point that the Department of Education's new regulations on for-profit i

Two comments: an op-ed piece I saw in the Wall Street Journal the other day[1] made the point that the Department of Education's new regulations on for-profit institutions of higher education define levels of risk of student debt that would also give many "nonprofit" higher education institutions bad ratings. "We know this is true because if you applied the regulation to a law degree from George Washington University, a bachelor’s degree in hospitality administration from Stephen F. Austin State University or a bachelor’s in social work from University of Texas, the programs would all fail to meet the standard." Seeing the George Washington University Law School mentioned in that context made me go ouch, as that is not a completely slouchy law school, and I actually stayed there for a summer for one of my law school internships (I attended a state university law school) and later attended a student conference there. Even reasonably decent law schools are not a good financial risk these days for many students. My other comment is that the article kindly submitted here, which I've already submitted to my Facebook friends, makes the interesting point that dental school enrollments have fallen sharply since more and more public water supplies in the United States have fluoridation. People today have much healthier teeth than they had when I was growing up. Dentists, by this view, are true professionals, as they are even willing to advocate public health measures that help work dentists out of a job. I admire that. [1] "Making ‘Profit’ a Dirty Word in Higher Education" By Steve Gunderson Nov. 12, 2014 http://online.wsj.com/articles/steve-gunderson-making-profit-a-dirty-word-in-higher-education-1415837070 http://online.wsj.com/articles/steve-gunderson-making-profit...

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
"Profit" should be a dirty word in higher education. Primary and secondary too.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Why?
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    Because then the goal changes from "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" to "making a quick buck". If the profit motive is present, making a slow buck will always lose to making a quick buck as soon as people who only wear management hats show up.
    - runeks 12y ago
      > Because then the goal changes from "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" to "making a quick buck" 1. Why is it about making a quick buck? Why can't it be a long term investment? 2. Why can't an institution have both these goals at the same time (make money, churn out well-prepared grads)? They aren't mutually exclusive.
      - hackinthebochs 12y ago
        Because thats not how the world operates. The financial system is structured such that it rewards year-over-year profits and punishes anything less. A for-profit institution is going to be beholden to investors. Incentives are a strong predictor of outcome.
    - prostoalex 12y ago
      Most of the state institutions seem to be less concerned with "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" and more with "attracting enough students to pay for administrative and real estate overhead". At least with for-profit schools there's no motivation to over-build and over-hire.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    Because it is (close to) impossible to write an objective measurement system that can tell the difference between a legitimately good school (as defined by the rather abstract things that we as a society want education to be) versus a school that is good at gaming metrics. And when you introduce a direct profit motive tied to metrics, it is highly likely that executives will find a way to maximize profit while minimizing cost, which likely means gaming the metrics and doing little else. Government institutions and private nonprofit institutions have this problem already (at least somewhat) with U.S. News and World, but they are at least theoretically controlled by foundations/trustees/the state, which have in common the property that they profess an interest in education itself, not education as a means of extracting money from people.
- fwn 12y ago
  Try "utility".
mrfusion 12y ago
I've never understood that. Isn't there way more Floride in toothpaste than drinking water? Also Floride doesn't prevent gum disease right?
- rustyconover 12y ago
  Floride doesn't prevent gum disease per se, but it does prevent cavities, which are real money makers for dentists. You may only brush your teeth 3 times a day, but with fluoride in water you're exposing your enamel to it more frequently especially if you're a child who's drinking water often.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    People really underestimate the degree to which public oral health has improved over the recent past. A few decades ago, most children had cavities. In most communities in USA today, that's not the case. Many experts would credit fluoridation for a portion of this improvement, but I think education and access improvements also deserve credit.
    - researcher88 12y ago
      Flouridation became widely used in the US in the 1960s. It's hard to discern facts with all the hyperbole from activists against it but I thought flouridation was unnecessary now because of toothpaste and how people brush their teeth more. From Wikipedia, most countries in Europe substantially reduced cavities without flouridation and tooth decay rates remained stabled or declined in Germany and Finland when it was stopped. Though it does say that in-school dental care and more going to the dentist in Europe than in the US may be the reason. But so many people in the US have home filtration systems, filtered water jugs or drink bottled water that it seems it's more due to flouride toothpaste and better hygiene. While there is some flouride in some bottled water, it's generally less.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Flouridation [sic] became widely used in the US in the 1960s. Yes but many communities only fluoridated in the 1980s (I know because my father was the concerned citizen who eventually got this done in several nearby towns), and the smallest water districts still don't have it.
kemitchell 12y ago
Thanks for your comment on fluoridation.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

"Profit" should be a dirty word in higher education. Primary and secondary too.

protomyth 12y ago
Why?
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  Because then the goal changes from "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" to "making a quick buck". If the profit motive is present, making a slow buck will always lose to making a quick buck as soon as people who only wear management hats show up.
  - runeks 12y ago
    > Because then the goal changes from "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" to "making a quick buck" 1. Why is it about making a quick buck? Why can't it be a long term investment? 2. Why can't an institution have both these goals at the same time (make money, churn out well-prepared grads)? They aren't mutually exclusive.
    - hackinthebochs 12y ago
      Because thats not how the world operates. The financial system is structured such that it rewards year-over-year profits and punishes anything less. A for-profit institution is going to be beholden to investors. Incentives are a strong predictor of outcome.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    Most of the state institutions seem to be less concerned with "raising your ranking by churning out well-prepared grads" and more with "attracting enough students to pay for administrative and real estate overhead". At least with for-profit schools there's no motivation to over-build and over-hire.
- superuser2 12y ago
  Because it is (close to) impossible to write an objective measurement system that can tell the difference between a legitimately good school (as defined by the rather abstract things that we as a society want education to be) versus a school that is good at gaming metrics. And when you introduce a direct profit motive tied to metrics, it is highly likely that executives will find a way to maximize profit while minimizing cost, which likely means gaming the metrics and doing little else. Government institutions and private nonprofit institutions have this problem already (at least somewhat) with U.S. News and World, but they are at least theoretically controlled by foundations/trustees/the state, which have in common the property that they profess an interest in education itself, not education as a means of extracting money from people.
fwn 12y ago
Try "utility".

mrfusion 12y ago

I've never understood that. Isn't there way more Floride in toothpaste than drinking water? Also Floride doesn't prevent gum disease right?

rustyconover 12y ago
Floride doesn't prevent gum disease per se, but it does prevent cavities, which are real money makers for dentists. You may only brush your teeth 3 times a day, but with fluoride in water you're exposing your enamel to it more frequently especially if you're a child who's drinking water often.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  People really underestimate the degree to which public oral health has improved over the recent past. A few decades ago, most children had cavities. In most communities in USA today, that's not the case. Many experts would credit fluoridation for a portion of this improvement, but I think education and access improvements also deserve credit.
  - researcher88 12y ago
    Flouridation became widely used in the US in the 1960s. It's hard to discern facts with all the hyperbole from activists against it but I thought flouridation was unnecessary now because of toothpaste and how people brush their teeth more. From Wikipedia, most countries in Europe substantially reduced cavities without flouridation and tooth decay rates remained stabled or declined in Germany and Finland when it was stopped. Though it does say that in-school dental care and more going to the dentist in Europe than in the US may be the reason. But so many people in the US have home filtration systems, filtered water jugs or drink bottled water that it seems it's more due to flouride toothpaste and better hygiene. While there is some flouride in some bottled water, it's generally less.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Flouridation [sic] became widely used in the US in the 1960s. Yes but many communities only fluoridated in the 1980s (I know because my father was the concerned citizen who eventually got this done in several nearby towns), and the smallest water districts still don't have it.

kemitchell 12y ago

Thanks for your comment on fluoridation.