Are there any good ITT / University of Phoenix type schools? They all seem like scams.
I don't count community colleges here, I know those can be very good. My wife went to one, got great education, was able to pay it by just budgeting money every month out of her part time work. Then switched to a 4 years univeristy, transfered credits and graduated with honors after 2 more years (with minimal loans).
Would it be hard for any of these for-profit school to also do a good job?
You have a situation where the quality of the thing (in this case teaching) isn't easily known ahead of time, so the success of the organization isn't dependent on the quality of teaching, but instead is dependent on the quality of marketing (roughly).
So now you have a bunch of organizations with limited resources competing in the same space, and we'd like it if the organizations who provided the best education were winning. And providing a good education isn't opposed to also having good marketing, in principle.
The problem is that the organizations that try to be good at both teaching and marketing are competing against organizations that are trying to ONLY be good at marketing. The marketing organization will tend to win over time because it's easier to be good at one instead of being good at both, and the organizations that are just good at teaching die because they are bad at marketing.
tldr; Teaching is hard. Marketing is hard. Both at the same time is hard squared.
You're missing a key component: ITT and Phoenix recruit students who don't gain admission to any other public and private schools, a group that is generally of lower general intelligence and critical thinking ability than other college students, and more susceptible to marketing lies. These schools are unlike competitive non-profit and public colleges, in that they are delighted to enroll wholly unqualified students.
pmichaud is likely referring to just the market place of technical schools like ITT/Phoenix etc. and not comparing them to competing with public/private colleges.
The ecosystem for HVAC schools is a competitive one where the winning HVAC program gains on the losers through a marketing advantage, not a teaching advantage.
The quality of education varies between institutions. I graduated from DeVry a little over 10 years ago. I got a decent education (ABET accredited B.S. Computer Engineering Technology) and was able to put myself through school and get a good job. I could have done it a little cheaper in a state school and a lot cheaper with a community college, but for what it was I don't really have any regrets.
My only critique is that they accept ANYONE. This leads to a large number of dropouts. You have people that haven't been able to grasp basic algebra and they bust their butts learning basic math and then hit Cal I, Cal II, Signal Processing, etc and they just can't hack it. By the time they flunk out they've wracked up tens of thousands in student loan debt.
We lost something like 60-80% of the students we started with in the first 2 years.
That seems immoral on the face of it to take advantage of those people, but at the same time this happens (albeit to a much lesser degree) in all schools, and I was grateful for the opportunity DeVry extended to me as a student with terrible grades in highschool.
I also graduated from DeVry quite a few years ago. I attended on a FISL (Federally Insured Student Loan it was called then). The FISL was easy to get because the school had a track record of nearly 100% hire rate for graduating students.
A few weeks before graduation an army of potential employers came and interviewed at the school. I received three offers. Everyone in my class who graduated had at least one offer. The education we received was solid, as evidenced by the demand from employers who knew the reputation of the school. I got a good job and paid off my loan.
It is true that the attrition rate among students was pretty high. Lots of people were admitted who weren't the least bit interested in attending class. Some even repeated a term a couple of times while they hung out and partied. They shouldn't have been there. If they were on a FISL they probably either defaulted or someone else paid it off.
I don't know what DeVry is like these days. But if I had to do it again in the same situation I was in back then I would do it. It opened a good career path for me.
I also went to DeVry and graduated in 2006. I was really upset for a long time about the cost and quality of the education after I got into the workforce, especially after having had a few manager tell me outright that they almost didn't bring me in to interview because of the school on my resume. After talking to other people who graduated with similar degrees (mine was in CIS) it seems like the actual quality of the education I got wasn't materially worse than any of the people I know who went to state schools. Really I was upset because the recruiter had essentially promised me a CS degree and what I got was a degree that was a hybrid between a business management degree and a coding bootcamp.
I think, cost aside, I do have to acknowledge that without DeVry I'd probably have never gone to college at all. I was definitely exiting high school hovering over the cracks and ready to fall through them, I had no resources to help me even visit any other colleges, let alone navigate enrollment or filling out forms for financial aid. DeVry recruiters might have been sales people, but they made sure I was able to navigate the process and because of that I had 4 years to self-study and learn and came out of it at least able to say that I have an accredited degree.
One attorney I know pursued several claims against scam schools a few years ago.
Of the schools he had investigated, he said DeVry was unusual because it was trying to operate like a real educational institution.
Federal loan money has distorted for-profit and non-profit institutions. But it's depressingly uncommon to find for-profit trade "schools" that actually care about educating students.
Interesting. Other comments imply that too. It would seem like actually trying to teach students something might be good for long term survival. Being around longer means make more profits for investors, go figure...
I went to NYU for a masters program, and it was similar in some ways. They accepted almost anyone who applied, so the students were on a spectrum between extremely motivated and barely present. That said, the quality of the permanent faculty and some of the facilities was world class. But you had to be assertive to get the most out of it. A lot of the most motivated students had a great experience. Some of the unmotivated ones got what they were looking for too, they basically bought a masters degree, or at least some time in a masters program. Many in the middle were disappointed. This is probably not uncommon in higher ed, where technical masters programs are treated like profit centers.
My understanding of the for-profit institutions is that the able sort of division exists, but it tends to be a lot more stark.
Interestingly enough, I found out quite a few years ago that my father followed the same path as you. I had always known he went to a university, graduated in computer science, and worked as a database administrator. I never knew which school he attended. When I found out I asked him if it was the same university I saw in computer/television ads and he said yes.
After a bit more discussion I think it's safe to say that DeVry is (or was between his time in the 80s and your time) a different breed of school than ITT. They seem to be a real school that just accepts anyone. Drop out/Graduation rates be damned.
I'll start with my immediate thoughts.
High dropouts are not absolutely a bad thing. In fact its pretty normal in all western schools that have zero focus on "how to learn". The "problem" is clearly earlier on in the education system, wherby students are reaching college age not knowing "how to learn", and suddenly finding its important.
Next up - the cost of learning/knowledge material.
I know of textbooks from the US being priced in the multi thousand dollar range (or simply not available for student purchase). "Teachers/Lecturers" aren't that important (I say that having graduated with a joint 1st from a top UK university having acquired a lot of warnings criticizing me for hardly ever attending lectures, but I wasn't skipping the material, I was skipping lecturers reading from textbooks).
All that said, I am left feeling these stories are more about attacking education that provides chances for the lower classes in the US to become middle and upper classes. Nothing about this ITT tech story addresses this one way or the other. Where are the employment stats for those who successfully graduate? Where are the interviews with graduates? I just see a ton of hyperbole he said she said. And whenever I come across that I automatically assume its a political power based decision, rather than a rational "good for everyone" one.
I know that all sounds a bit confused - that happens with "immediate thoughts". Its a first attempt at thinking about something we haven't really been allowed to think about.
Education was set up as a "production line" into large public institutions. But the politicians destroyed the "large public institutions", and education doesn't teach people to be their own institution.
"If you are interested in the model of learning you don't start from this production line mentality"
Everyone prefers they look at community college which is super flexible, dirt cheap, and will accept anyone.
There are also legit apprenticeship programs for trades.
The for-profit schools have a decades long record of charging 10x community college rates, paying teaching staff poorly, and almost always having poor standards of education. If government loans were ineligible, most of these institutions would close over night instead of trying to continue with poor friendly community college rates.
->If government loans were ineligible, most of these institutions would close over night instead of trying to continue with poor friendly community college rates.
Isn't that true of any education system based on tuition fees?
says:
Relatively few recent high school grads attending school full time flock to the halls of for-profit schools. These schools typically cater to nontraditional students, including older students with full-time jobs, parents, military veterans, at-risk students and those who need flexible class scheduling.
So is this really about "fixing" schooling, or just "fixing spending on people who don't deserve an education".
Makes sense. Thanks for sharing. I am glad it worked for you.
There is probably a good pattern of going there but studying yourself and then get an official paper there (as long as it states accredited).
I did that to a certain extent at an average state school. Got grades from there but also used to study in depth other things I was interested in -- learned Python, security stuff, networking. It was really knowing those extra things that got me the job later, but if I didn't have the official paper, would have not gotten through the door (unfortunately).
But yeah accepting anyone might seem nice "we don't reject people like those mean state schools" but they don't do it from the goodness of their heart obviously.
> My only critique is that they accept ANYONE. This leads to a large number of dropouts. You have people that haven't been able to grasp basic algebra and they bust their butts learning basic math and then hit Cal I, Cal II, Signal Processing, etc and they just can't hack it. By the time they flunk out they've wracked up tens of thousands in student loan debt.
I went to a private ABET certified school for an Aerospace Engineering degree. My class was maybe 80-100 students when I started, and at graduation there were only ~20 of us. Everyone who left early was also stuck with a metric tonne of student loan debt.
Besides the financial issues that these companies created, the main issue is the quality of teachers.
There are so so many of these colleges that the pool of quality teachers are almost all going to be in universities.
I took a business course for a year and all of the teachers were at most middle managers, marketing managers, or long retired company-men from IBM or other big corps.
They all just read off of powerpoint slides and rarely provided any valuable insight on their own, by design.
Mostly just a sea of mediocrity by people who were well intentioned but never made it far in industry so they got an easy job that's likely personally rewarding but not exceptionally valuable to the students vs reading a few books or any level of experience on the job.
And besides 50% of my class was Chinese kids who paid 5x as much as me in tuition to be there and had a poor grasp of English. These kids were the real target market. So quality wasn't necessarily the goal. Just filling seats and offices.
As a graduate of a few years ago and repeating what some folks from before even my time have mentioned I'll be the first to add that digipen isn't what it once was. Sure it's not really close to ITT levels of fail... Yet.
Western Governors University is an NWCCU accredited school that has programs in healthcare, business, information technology, and teaching. They're different in some ways from ITT tech and the like in their competency-based method and business practices (~$3.5k per semester), but they generally seem to be well respected. The teaching model (or lack thereof) does lend to high dropout rates, but it can be a good model for working professionals. I have an undergraduate degree from WGU and have had (comparable to my peers) considerable career progression that I would attribute to my withdrawal from the traditional brick-and-mortar academic system. I finished my B.S. in 2 and a half years and spent the rest of my 4-year allotment in full-time corporate employment while most of my friends over a year left at their traditional school. I also graduated with less than 20k in student loans, with most of that balance coming from my stint at a brick-and-mortar.
As someone who attended ITT Tech for software I would strongly recommend going for a traditional BS in Comp Sci or something similar. Initially once I landed a job I was okay, but as I have advanced in my career I have more and more moments when I really miss a fundamental understanding of various computer science topics. Whether that is a better grasp of algorithms and how to judge performance of various designs or database theory and its implications for complex data driven systems - I find myself wishing I had taken the "hard road" instead of going for the quick degree.
There have been a number of times I have sat staring at my monitor thinking that I just don't know enough to solve the problem at hand. That instead of spending days on the issue for someone better educated it would take hours.
I worked for a while at a culinary school in New York. The students got a fairly intensive prep for work in a commercial kitchen. They got what they were paying for, but it was expensive, so whether it was really 'worth it' was debatable, in terms of payoff jobwise.
From what i heard is that the big boys have bought out the decent ones and then proceed to scam the loan system immediately. Hell, some actually bought liberal art universities.
Now that they exhausted the supply of trade schools, they're moving on to buying bootcamps.
At least there is no federal loan system to "scam" this time, and the private loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I should also mention that some of the schools were already going downhill anyway, for example Heald College.
I don't count community colleges here, I know those can be very good. My wife went to one, got great education, was able to pay it by just budgeting money every month out of her part time work. Then switched to a 4 years univeristy, transfered credits and graduated with honors after 2 more years (with minimal loans).
Would it be hard for any of these for-profit school to also do a good job?