For profit schools, pretty good article
 

Hearings question practices of for-profit colleges

Not all that shocking, just thought it was interesting

I read this earlier today. It is amazing how many people go that route for education. I inquired about getting my Masters from one of those institutions and they seemed only interested in getting me financial aide. Their main selling point was basically we can get the government to pay for you to come here.

all colleges are for profit

Bingo.

I wonder what the net profit is of a top 20 football program

Couldn't disagree more

Remember- we've had this discussion before on this board. Except for a handful- 6, iirc, the majority of athletic programs are their own corporations and exist as separate entities which neither give money to the school nor receive money from the school. Being, say, Alabama or Texas athletic corp makes money for the school only in that it's a lot of free advertising. Profits they make are then churned back into the athletic corp to make better facilities, prop up non-revenue generating sports, escalate coach pay, etc.

SI

Why's that?

Because every school I've been at, public schools, have not been for profit, they've been non-profit. They even act like it.

Absolutely. Though they kind of hide that little fact in the background when their career services office (i.e. advertising department), puts out these ridiculous numbers.

Eventually, somebody's going to succeed in going after one of these places civilly. I'm guessing a law school career services offices scandal isn't too far away.

I definitely agree with the "all schools are for profit." Certainly not all units/arms, there is a definite belief in higher learning where I work, but at the same time our budgets get passed down from on high from those that keep the books.

Public colleges are all about profit too, they just call profit "endowment".

No, they aren't about profit. You guys are very cynical :)

I worked in public colleges my entire adult life. None have operated for profit. Financially, they seek to break even. Mission wise, they are a non-profit with a mission - the education of our students. Companies do not have a mission to help others, but to offer services, food, etc at a enough demand and price to make profit. Let me give you a great examples of how we operate outside of profit.

I've been at a lot of universities in my time, and many run their own dining program. When they do, the program, despite charging and a potential profit center, just aim to break even, and give the residents exactly what they pay for. I currently work at, and have seen a few others, where they outsource the dining to a for-profit company. In all cases, the dining has been adequate, not putting in 100% of the income to salaries and food, in order to make a profit. This is a perfect case of for-profit and non-for-profit in play in higher education. One gives students a much better experience, because that is the mission of the university. They offer different levels of service.


And that's the point. One is driven by a desire to educate students first. Another is driven to make money first, and then educate second. That's a big difference.

ROTFLMAO.

The "mission" is to employ as many people as possible in order to maintain power/control/prestige. And to do so while wringing every possible dollar from the public trough at gunpoint they can whine their way into.

Also see PBS's Frontline: College, Inc.

FRONTLINE: college, inc. | PBS

According to 2008 numbers all most every D1 athletic program takes some level of subsidy from the general fund. A few could manage to break even or turn a small profit without it, but very few get by without the university providing cash.

You should see some of the tards I'm in class with. Granted it seems that the school I go to is reimbursed bases on graduation rates. Still they took a ton of people who are horribly under qualified in for profit.

Why do large public universities hire top-notch professors for undergraduate programs, but they then have TAs teaching huge classrooms?

Because the job of the star professors is to bring in grant money so programs can be fully funded and/or grow. But the star professors are a minority of the faculty. Most of us go to work hoping to do our best to help students succeed.

It's been my experience that there is no correlation between flashiest/most renowned research professors (what I imagine you mean by top-notch) and the best educators.

I'd agree, with a lean towards the star professors are the worst educators. The point, though, is that star professors are a small minority. Most professors try to help students as best they can.

I am currently attending a for profit school. Actually, the only reason I considered it, is because its nearly free for me. I pay about 100 bucks per course, so I'm getting a degree for like 3000 dollars. Even if it doesnt help much, I already work in the same field, so it is just something to help me get in the door at some places.

Any organization has to meet a budget though, that doesn't make it for-profit.