In a report due out on Friday, the Obama administration will offer its first public glimpse of a planned system for rating how well colleges perform, saying it plans to group schools into just three broad categories — good, bad and somewhere between. (nytimes.com)
submitted 6 hours
54555: Another HUGE issue working against us is that we cannot be selective. If you look at the community colleges and public universities with open door policies (and there are quite a few), you'll find that our grad and default rates are actually better. Those colleges don't even offer placement, much less track it, so nobody knows how well they do. I think that society makes an assumption that the more traditional school is always more "solid" and "respectable." Granted, CCi has never been either, but I've worked for proprietary systems that have better outcomes than publics.I think it's just a mistake to try to make policy or have opinions based on such a simplistic division as for-profit or not-for-profit.
302: as a capitalist, surely you realize why public universities appear to offer more "value" to students. It's because students qualify for the same federal and state financial aid, but for public college students, that comes into play AFTER the state taxpayers have already paid at least 1/3 of the operating costs directly. In addition, public school students often get significantly more state grant and have other taxpayer-derived aid (such as license plate aid that gets distributed exclusively through the state system). We are paying a LOT more to education kids through the state system, and they do not necessarily even have better graduation, placement, or default rates as proprietary schools. It's apples and oranges to a degree, but mainly because applying the same criteria would be inappropriate with such an uneven playing field.
273 is right. In my opinion, vocational training, which CCI provides, is not comparable to a college education. In my opinion, the use of the word "college" by CCI's marketing was intentionally deceptive, duping many victims into believing they were getting a college education, when in fact they were not. That is my opinion.
@302. Why would students from traditional schools complain? They haven't been lied to. They weren't scammed into enrolling. I don't understand your point. Sure, education has become an industry and the idea of the sacred "ivory tower" is dying as schools try and market themselves, but I don't know that specific institutions can be implicated in deliberately deceiving students. If a proper university promises me an education, that's a promise they can generally keep. CCI promises jobs they do not and cannot deliver. It is absolutely apples and oranges. And @281: Don't mention it. Your ass-whipped sarcasm is all the thanks I need.
273, you are technically correct in that career schools serve different student populations. Your words imply that career schools should not be judged by the same standards. To a certain extent I agree. Apples and oranges. However, all education institutions should be held accountable to ethical and legal standards, stand accountable to their students. I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an outcry of dissatisfaction about any group of traditional colleges similar to what we see aimed at CCI and many other career schools. As a life-long capitalist and free enterprise guy, I am sad to observe that it doesn't appear that the current for-profit education model is a solid, value-generating scenario.
273: thank you for sharing your opinion and infinite wisdom with us?
Real colleges don't market themselves based on placement numbers and promises of jobs. Vocational training is not the same as a college education, for any idiot who doesn't know the difference.
Update: In response to significant input from various state DAs, multiple regulatory agencies, the Veterans Administation, a wide variety of journalists, North Korean Supreme Chairman Kim Jong-Un and current and former students, the proposed rating scale for colleges has been slightly modified. Here is the newly proposed scale: 1. Good. 2. Fair 3. Bad 4. So criminally corrupt and useless that you should run screaming from the room after an admissions conference. Use your best judgement to determine where you think Everest, etc. will be ranked......
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/public-feedback-college-ratings-framework Yes, completion rates, transfer rates, and graduate school attendance will all be included. It will also include things like income quintiles and percent of first generation college attendees, which should help fake colleges, but feel free to continue with your persecution complex.
I wonder what the graduation and placement rates of "real" colleges are. I am sure those numbers will not come up.
Does that include pretend shopping-center "colleges" like Everest, or is that just for real colleges?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/education/rating-plan-for-colleges-is-unveiled-by-the-us.html?referrer=