For-Profit Schools

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares189 Views

    Report Helps Answer the Question: Is a College Degree Worth the Cost?

    by

    The analysis found that former students at most colleges had an annual income higher than high school graduates a decade after enrollment.Most people go to college to improve their financial prospects, though there are other benefits to attending a postsecondary institution. But as the average cost of a four-year degree has risen to six figures, even at public universities, it can be hard to know if the money is well spent.A new analysis by HEA Group, a research and consulting firm focused on college access and success, may help answer the question for students and their families. The study compares the median earnings of former college students, 10 years after they enrolled, with basic income benchmarks.The analysis found that a majority of colleges exceed minimum economic measures for their graduates, like having a typical annual income that is more than that of a high school graduate with no higher education ($32,000, per federal Scorecard data).Still, more than 1,000 schools fell short of that threshold, though many of them were for-profit colleges concentrating in short-term credentials rather than traditional four-year degrees.Seeing whether a college’s former students are earning “reasonable” incomes, said Michael Itzkowitz, HEA Group’s founder and president, can help people weigh whether they want to cross some institutions off their list. Someone deciding between similar colleges, for example, can see the institution that has produced students with significantly higher incomes.While income isn’t necessarily the only criteria to consider when comparing schools, Mr. Itzkowitz said, “it’s a very good starting point.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Political Winds Are Blowing. And Blowing. And Blowing.

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, I think we’ve got good fighting topics this week, but let me start with a rather mellow question.Presidential primaries already in the news! How do you feel about Joe Biden’s push to make South Carolina the first state to vote on the Democratic side? Certainly driving Iowa crazy ….Bret Stephens: It was Biden’s big win in South Carolina in the 2020 primaries that rescued his flailing campaign. I’ll take this as further evidence that the president means to run for re-election. Remember the ’90s dance tune, “Things That Make You Go Hmmmm…”? This is a “Thing That Makes You Go Oy.”Gail: Hehehe. I’ve spent a goodly amount of time in Iowa over the years and always liked talking with the folks who were so proud of their standing as first-choosers.But the last time, really, was a disaster. The Democratic Party workers just couldn’t get stuff straight. I remember one leader saying: “I don’t even know if they know what they don’t know.”So I could go for … taking turns. This time South Carolina. Next time, maybe Michigan. For the Democrats, anyhow. Do the Republicans have a consensus, or do they even care?Bret: I like your suggestion, provided there’s enough demographic and geographic variety. The point isn’t just to choose the person who appeals to the base. It’s also to test the candidates’ abilities to connect to a wide variety of voters, particularly those who are more center-leaning.Gail: Hey, the fringe has feelings, too.Bret: As for Republicans, I just hope someone other than Mr. Revoke-the-Constitution announces his or her intent to run. I also hope Republicans take their own lesson from the midterms, which is that they can win when they run with normal candidates but will lose when they nominate crazies.Gail: Ah Bret, your faith in the ability of the Republican Party to avoid crazies is touching. Notice I did not say … crazy.Bret: Question for you, Gail. Of the potential G.O.P. field besides Donald Trump — Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Glenn Youngkin, Ted Cruz — who do you think would be the most formidable in a general election?Gail: Well, the idea of a Cruz campaign gives me the giggles. If the weather gets unpleasant, maybe he’d move the convention from Milwaukee to Cancún.Bret: Another Cruz campaign would be like a remake of “Ishtar,” only without the original’s wit, originality and box-office success.Gail: DeSantis is the non-Trumpian favorite, I guess, but I have my doubts about his talent as a presidential level campaigner. Nikki Haley always seems promising, then never really delivers ….Really, you’re the one who should be judging. Give me your opinion.Bret: Haley would be a better candidate in a general election than DeSantis, both because she has a better personal story and more human warmth. But the party’s heart right now seems to be with the Florida governor. If the two run as a ticket, they’ll be formidable contenders.Gail: Sigh.Bret: What I long for, Gail, is the return of the Republican Party I used to vote for — the one that believed in lower taxes and less regulation, free trade and the defense of free nations, law-and-order and fidelity to normal democratic principles. There were aspects of that party I never liked, especially when it came to its moralistic obsessions, but I could live with them so long as it didn’t seem to threaten the basic social compact in the country. Now, especially after the Dobbs decision and the rise of so-called national conservatism, I wonder whether that party will ever exist again. I suspect I know what you think ….Gail: Yeah, sorry Bret. I think your party has been gobbled up by the crazies.Bret: To adapt Billy Joel: You may be right. They may be crazy. And it still might be a lunatic they’re looking for.Gail: Meanwhile, alas, I don’t think mine is really going to suit you. Which reminds me: I’ve really been rooting for Biden to get around the court challenges to his student loan forgiveness program. Doesn’t look promising, and I presume that makes you happy?Bret: Yep. Federal courts have been rightly skeptical of any presidential decision, made with no input from Congress, that will cost taxpayers $400 billion or more. It’s an abuse of the separation of powers, an insult to everyone who paid off their debts and a giant moral hazard when it comes to other types of debt. I gather you see it, er, differently?Gail: Well yeah. We’ve got a generation of Americans who were encouraged to take out big federal student loans — often by scummy for-profit schools that never really delivered anything. Even those who went to good colleges were never given the proper information about their likely future earnings compared with debt.Bret: I don’t see people who get student loans as victims. I see them as beneficiaries who won’t make good on their end of a bargain.Gail: You’re talking about a multitude of earnest young people whose lives are going to be hamstrung — and a lot of them will simply never get out of the hole. I say, let’s put this behind us, and make sure borrowers of the future have a really clear idea of what they’re getting into.Bret: From what I’ve read, undergraduates who finish their degrees borrow an average of about $30,000 for a degree that will raise their lifetime incomes by at least half a million, which sounds like a good deal, and the students with the biggest loans are often those who are going to law school or getting other professional degrees, meaning they can usually expect higher lifetime earnings. This just seems like a giant giveaway to young progressives who don’t like the idea that loans are things you have to repay.Switching topics, Gail, I guess we’ll soon know the results of Georgia’s Senate runoff. Final thoughts on the contest?Gail: I’m betting on Raphael Warnock, the incumbent Democrat. As opposed to a guy who barely seems to know what the Senate does, who also appears to be a legal resident of Texas.Bret: Walker is a bottomless gift. To Democrats.Gail: Whoever wins, the Democrats will at minimum have control of the Senate with that vice-presidential vote thrown in. But if it was really, truly a matter of which party would be in charge, would you be tempted to grit your teeth and support the dreadful Republican in this case?Bret: No. Never. Ever. Just the fact that he managed to make it to a runoff is a sign of how much is wrong with the United States today. A near-majority of voters in Georgia would rather vote for a moral delinquent with no grasp of the issues at hand than someone with whom they merely disagree.Can we talk about something a little less … depressing? How about the World Cup?Gail: Sure, um … briefly. Back in the day, I remember being amazed when friends from overseas started getting worked up over this game my domestic pals and I had never heard of.Bret: Fútbol.Gail: Still never actually sat through a game, to be honest. You’re an international traveler, so tell me what you think.Bret: For all the problems, both with the host country, Qatar, and the organization that oversees the World Cup, FIFA, the whole event is a great global uniter and equalizer. Little Tunisia beats France. Cameroon beats mighty Brazil. America beats Iran — but Iranians cheer because the loss embarrasses their oppressive rulers. People become madly patriotic, but respect the patriotism of the opposing players. It’s wonderful, even if (or maybe because) it’s so ethereal.Gail: I hear you.Bret: Also, it has produced some of the very best writing I’ve seen in The Times recently. Take this gem of a sentence from Andrew Das about Brazil’s 1-0 win over Switzerland: “So with an entire nation methodically reducing its supply of fingernails, it was a sturdy veteran midfielder, Casemiro, who strolled up from his position deep in midfield and did the job himself.”Gail: That’s great.Bret: Or this beauty, from Rory Smith, about the Dutch goalkeeper Andries Noppert: “His own interpretation of his unusual career arc — the long, slow burn, followed by the sudden and unexpected ignition — is that his progress was slowed not only by a succession of injuries but by his own failure to grasp his talent.”Gail: I always love the way you quote our terrific writers.Bret: If you don’t want to watch the games, Gail, just read our coverage. It will provide relief from, well, everything.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Did Biden Just School the Republicans or His Own Party?

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. Depending on whom you ask, Joe Biden’s decision to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans is either the Democrats’ political masterstroke or a major political gift to Republicans. What’s your take?Gail Collins: Well, Bret, allow me to take the middle road. Gee, I really do enjoy saying that. Makes me feel so … judicious.Politically, I think it’s more a winner than not. Tens of millions of people who have college debt in their family are going to be grateful; almost everybody else has other things to focus on. I doubt anybody who started last week liking Joe Biden’s agenda is suddenly going to turn on the Democrats.Bret: I wonder. This just seems to me like yet another case of Democrats getting on the wrong side of working-class America. Most Americans don’t have a bachelor’s degree, sometimes because they couldn’t afford it. Most Americans who did go to college either have paid their loans off or are paying them off. Now they have been turned into chumps for living within their means — while paying, through their taxes, for those who didn’t.Expect Republicans to run on this in the fall the way Democrats are running on abortion rights. What do you think of the decision on the merits?Gail: Policywise, I just wish it had been tied to some serious reforms of the current system that helped create all that debt in the first place.Bret: Agree. One-time student loan forgiveness isn’t going to get educational costs under control. If anything, it will create a moral hazard in which people take out student loans they may not be able to afford in the expectation of future loan forgiveness. What’s your reform proposal?Gail: First and foremost, a deep dive into for-profit schools. Many of them are total scams, and even the ones that aren’t often charge more for programs people can get elsewhere.Bret: I’d add that there are plenty of nonprofit schools also charging way too much for dubious degrees.Gail: After that, a serious look at overall price tags. The fact that loans are so easy to get has encouraged even very fine schools to charge too-high tuition in order to get money for programs that feed the ego of the administration more than the quality of the education.And then … well, hey. Your turn.Bret: It wouldn’t hurt, either, if colleges and universities started cutting down sharply on the army of administrators they’ve hired in recent years, who contribute a lot to fiscal and bureaucratic bloat and therefore to overall costs.Gail: Watch out, administrators — if Bret and I are in accord, you’ve probably got a problem.Bret: Longer term, we should help steer teenagers away from the idea that four-year college is their one and only ticket to prosperity, status and success. We should shift our funding toward community colleges, vocational schools and a wide range of adult-education programs. I’m also sympathetic to the idea of expanding opportunities for shorter enlistment times for young people who want to join any branch of the armed forces. It could help fund their future education, and it would make them more disciplined students when they do.Gail: While we’re being hard-nosed about what we want students to get out of college, I feel obliged to point out that some of the less practical aspects of higher education can be terrific experiences. I went to graduate school and got a master’s degree in government, which I don’t think has ever once convinced a potential employer I was a superior candidate. But I had a great time, met some fascinating people, including my future husband, and learned a lot.I paid for it through on-campus jobs, some of which you could argue amounted to a kind of public financing. Not saying this should be a universal goal. But when I’m cheerleading for the most practical possible approach to higher education, I feel obliged to toss it in.Bret: True and fair. Liberal-arts education is great when students are engaged and teaching quality is high. Wish that were more often the case.On another subject, Gail, any takeaways from the release of the redacted affidavit on the Mar-a-Lago search?Gail: Have to admit I was disappointed by all those redactions — I was hoping for something that looked a little larger. More dramatic. More specific. More … something. How about you?Bret: Here’s my hunch: Donald Trump has only a vague idea of what’s in all of these documents. The notion that he read through boxes and boxes containing hundreds of documents with classification markings and chose to take these particular items strikes me as … unlikely.Gail: Yeah, I hear he’s currently way too engrossed in rereading the collected works of Tolstoy.Bret: Right. He’s so upset by Anna Karenina’s suicide that he hasn’t been able to focus on anything.What is very much like Trump is that, as soon as the administration sought to recover the boxes, he saw an opportunity to set up a test of strength against Biden — one that would stoke the paranoia of his supporters, rally wavering Republicans to his side and set up the Justice Department to fall on its face barring some spectacular disclosure.So my bottom line is that the Justice Department had better come up with something very damning, not just a charge relating to mishandling classified documents. If it doesn’t, it will be the fourth or fifth time in six years that the F.B.I. has meddled in politics, only to cause irreparable damage to its own reputation.Gail: Congratulations, you’ve flung me into depression. I do agree with you that the story on Trump’s end is less likely a sinister plot than messy grabbiness, perhaps along with a reasonable paranoia that, given the number of things he’s done wrong, there’d be evidence of something bad somewhere.Bret: I’ve always maintained that with Trump, there are no deep, dark secrets: His absolute awfulness always stares you squarely in the face, like a baboon’s backside.Gail: Short term, this saga is just giving ammunition to the right. But I can’t envision a whole lot of people switching their allegiance to Trump because of it.Bret: Not among people who never voted for him. What worries me for now is that he’ll recapture wavering Republicans who were nearly done with him.Gail: Republicans who race to the polls because they’re outraged by the F.B.I.’s Mar-a-Lago adventure are going to be a fraction of the number of folks who’ll want to register their very strong feelings on behalf of abortion rights.Bret: We’ll see.Gail: But let me poke you on another federal agency that conservatives tend to find … problematic. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act includes about $80 billion to update the I.R.S. I think it’s a great idea, given its current pathetic state. Overworked agents sitting around stapling papers together aren’t going to be able to win a lot of battles with high-end accountants and lawyers protecting their rich clients from an audit.But as I’m sure you know, a lot of Republicans are howling about what the dreaded Ted Cruz calls a “shadow army” of I.R.S. agents. What’s your take?Bret: I recently read that the I.R.S. answers just 10 percent of calls. So if the money goes to making the agency more responsive to distressed taxpayers, I’m fine with it. My worry is that the agency will initiate lots of audits against people who don’t have the benefit of fancy accountants and lawyers and who are at the mercy of an agency that has almost limitless power and not much accountability.Gail, we’re getting to the end of summer, and some of our readers may be looking for a final book recommendation before Labor Day. I know you’re working on a memoir, but are there any books you’d suggest?Gail: The last time we talked books I said I was enjoying the novel “A Gentleman in Moscow.”Now you’re giving me a chance to share a letter I got from a reader, John Burgess, saying he’d put in a request for it at his local library, He continued: “The day I picked it up, my son tested positive for Covid. Now I am sequestered in my house (my son lives with me), reading about a Russian noble who was imprisoned in the Metropol hotel in Moscow in 1922. The setting could hardly be more perfect.”See, you never can tell when a novel you read is going to parachute into your real life.On the nonfiction front, I just happily finished “Thank You for Your Servitude” by our former colleague Mark Leibovich, one of the latest in what looks like a banner year for retrospectives on the Trump presidency.How about you?Bret: I spent part of the summer reading books by friends. I devoured Jamie Kirchick’s riveting “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington,” a landmark that deserves companion histories for London, Paris and other capitals. I was deeply moved by “When Magic Failed,” the posthumous memoir of Fouad Ajami, with its heartbreaking depictions of village and city life in his native Lebanon.I read an advance copy of Lionel Shriver’s forthcoming nonfiction collection, “Abominations,” appropriately subtitled “Selected Essays From a Career of Courting Self-Destruction,” which should be mandatory reading for college freshmen. And I finally got around, albeit 20 years late, to my old friend Mindy Lewis’s stunning memoir, “Life Inside,” centered on her institutionalization as a teenager in the late 1960s in a psychiatric hospital in New York. It deserves to be reissued in this new era of mental health crisis among younger people.Gail: I knew your summer list would be high quality and longer than mine. I like the idea that my excuse is that I’m writing a book, so there’s not much time for reading. But maybe if I stopped watching “Sopranos” reruns before bed …Bret: Can’t wait for your book. We’ve been revisiting some favorite French farces. Highly recommend “Le Dîner de Cons” and “Le Placard.”Gail: Next week we’ll be off, celebrating Labor Day with our readers, Bret. Then it’s on to September and the midterm election homestretch. Lord knows what’s going to happen, but it’s nice to know that whatever it is, I’ll get to talk about it with you.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Scams and Slippery Slopes

      by

      I’ve always believed that part of education — especially higher education — is learning to ask better questions about complex topics, knowing you might not have the right answers. In my graduate seminars, one of my favorite ways of prompting students to pursue deeper lines of inquiry is by asking this question: If we take off the table that something is racist, sexist or classist, what else can we say about it?Society is embedded with power imbalances and inequalities. Of course there are gender disparities and discrimination, of course there is a racial hierarchy and a racial order. But if we set that aside, what more can we say about a text, about a person, about a moment?I was thinking about this when reading a “rare interview” with Politico this week, in which Kyrsten Sinema weighed in on writing about her clothes, including our three-part discussion of her sartorial presentation as a form of political speech:“It’s very inappropriate. I wear what I want because I like it. It’s not a news story, and it’s no one’s business,” Sinema said. “It’s not helpful to have [coverage] be positive or negative. It also implies that somehow women are dressing for someone else.”The idea that women dress only for themselves is a truism in modern feminism, one that we could dispute or qualify. But let’s set that aside, for now, and stipulate that she’s right, generally speaking.It still remains that she is a politician. And part of the job of politicians is to court attention and manage their image. As I have argued, since presentation and style are part of the politician’s tool kit, the question for us is whether we are willing to allow this kind of political communication to go unexamined and without critique.Here, it’s important to consider the context when setting the bounds of appropriate discourse. The details of the Democrats’ social spending bill, Build Back Better, are in flux. But it has funds for Pell Grant increases, affordable child care, paid family leave and expanded health care coverage. It contains policy to slow climate change and mitigate its effects. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives hang in the balance with the fate of the bill.And Sinema has placed herself at the center of this political drama. So it matters how she marshals her power. It also matters how she manages attention.Sinema largely allows her performance to speak for her. She avoids interviews, and has been quite guarded about what she wants out of these negotiations. As Politico writes, “On policy, the first-term senator has remained almost completely quiet during breakneck negotiations to finish Biden’s agenda.”That silence puts a curtain between a powerful political actor and the public, who have a lot on the line. It also means it is more than fair to discuss and critique the political rhetoric coded in her performance, and that includes what she is wearing. Politicians should not be allowed to have a one-way dialogue with the American public. One-way political communication is a very slippery slope to a closed political process — one that trades real accountability for a process that appears transparent only because we can see the moving images on our screens.We get to talk back. And we should.Speaking of talking back, many of you wrote in and said we should be keeping our eye on what matters. A pair of reports, both from this month, got my attention. I think they point to an important trend.First, Politico reported that Sinema has received donations from the multilevel marketing industry:The political action committee associated with Alticor, the parent entity of the health, home and beauty company Amway, gave $2,500 to the Arizona Democrat in late June, as did the PAC for Isagenix, an Arizona-based business that sells nutrition, wellness and personal care products. Nu Skin Enterprises, another personal care and beauty company, gave $2,500 that month, as did USANA Health Sciences, which sells similar products. In April, Richard Raymond Rogers, the executive chair of Mary Kay, a Texas-based cosmetics company, gave $2,500 to Sinema. Herbalife, which also sells nutritional supplements, gave $2,500 in July. All are affiliated with the Direct Selling Association, a trade group that promotes multilevel marketing.These are not enormous sums of money, but it is notable for a few reasons. As Politico notes, it’s relatively uncommon for some of these companies to get involved in national politics at all. And Sinema has had a friendly relationship with the Direct Sellers Association, which represents 130 multilevel marketing companies, including Amway and Herbalife.This alliance is unusual for a Democratic senator given her party’s longtime alliance with unions and labor more generally. In multilevel marketing structures, the independent contractors who sell the product are paid commissions from their own sales of the product, but they also can receive income based on the sales or purchases of the sellers they have recruited. Sinema is the one of only three Democratic senators who do not co-sponsor the PRO Act, which would allow the “independent contractors” to unionize, as well as making it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors at all.Second, Dr. Mehmet Oz is reported to be considering running for Senate in Pennsylvania, to fill the seat being vacated by Pat Toomey. Through a very convoluted process of media culture that is possible only in the celebrity-obsessed American culture, Dr. Oz has become one of the most visible and wealthy endorsers of a host of scientifically questionable vitamins, herbal remedies and miracle cures.These news items brought to mind the way these kinds of businesses — on the border of illegality and not quite respectable — have gone mainstream in America. Donald Trump is perhaps the best example of this phenomenon. Among other things, he happened to be the founder and namesake of one of the most blatantly fraudulent for-profit school apparatuses that I have ever seen: Trump University, which National Review called a “de jure” scam.Donald Trump’s election seems to have opened the door to us not even pretending anymore that these kinds of scams aren’t legitimate parts of our political and economic system, and even pathways to power.Whenever I talk about multilevel marketing, people often make two suggestions of things to check out. One is a podcast called “The Dream” by Jane Marie. The other is a recent documentary about LuLaRoe, which sells leggings. Both of these tell stories about the mechanisms of multilevel marketers, how they work and why they work.With the holiday coming up, I’m going to spend some time on your behalf listening to the “The Dream” as I travel around by car. And I’m going to watch the LuLaRoe documentary. I have questions about why scamming has become mainstreamed as a legitimate part of national politics, and what it says about culture. We’ll be talking about that soon. I’ll be off next week to celebrate Thanksgiving, and I’ll see you the week after that.Tressie McMillan Cottom (@tressiemcphd) is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science, the author of “Thick: And Other Essays” and a 2020 MacArthur fellow. More