Talk:For-profit education

message: Arkman87 06:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Reading through the page, it seems definitively pro-for-profit schools. Because Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, I'd add a box to the main page, except that I don't know how. Just thought I'd let somebody know somewhere, though. 72.200.122.120 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page seems relatively biased 

message: I think this topic should should have a brief list/discussion of for-profit universities and colleges.  Once it gets big enough, it may warrant a separate page from schools (which implies elementary to high school).  I'll start compiling a list of higher-ed institutions that are for-profit Bobak 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For-profit colleges/universities 

message: I edited the number of students enrolled in for-profit schools. If you're talking post-secondary the number quoted was obviously low (100k). Just Apollo and CEC combined have 200k to 300k enrolled. This needs more research and I am about Wikied out. --Utahredrock 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers wrong

message: "The reputation of some of these schools is already in jeopardy. The two largest EMOs in operation today, Edison and Advantage claimed to have high school juniors completing college-level coursework, but recent studies have shown that many of these students are performing at or below the 11th grade level. Another, Career Education Corporation faces intense federal scrutiny. The Apollo Group owner of the University of Phoenix (among others) has also endured investigations and penalties leveled against them"
::"Several of the largest for-profit education schools have been alleged to have suffered from these situations, including the University of Phoenix (a division of Apollo) and also ITT Technical Institute.[citation needed]" With no answer to the requested citation I am removing this sentence. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide references 

message: Why is this "For-Profit School" instead of "for-profit school"? -Midnightdreary 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: The article refers to the ACCSCT, but never mentions what the acronym stands for.
:Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT)--orlady 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACCSST 

message: I would like to see institutionalized cheating mentioned in this article.  The article is so well written and I would hate to interrupt the flow if it.  
-Veecort (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institutionalized Cheating 

message: My only real passion in life is taking a bite out of predatory schools.  (They victimize so many people every year.  I think the topic deserves more attention than it currently receives. It is to the victim's advantage to deny that their degree is a sham.  Also, people's dreams being crushed by multinational corporations is real drag, and nobody wants to hear about it.)  I think I will create a Wikipedia page entitled "predatory schools."  
-Veecort (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predatory Schools 

message: I find the following sentence extremely offensive:
::"For profit schools are also more likely to serve 'lower-income, minority, and first-generation college students', as the schools are concerned with money, and have lower academic standards for admittance.[8]"
Clearly, this sentence implies that "lower-income, minority, and first-generation college students" are only accepted to these schools because the schools have low academic standards for admittance. Obviously, this is not a "potential benefit." I reviewed the associated reference and I determined that no such connection was made or implied. Do the right thing & delete it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.67.220 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential benefits 

message: The GAO report cited does not use the term illegal. Describing the activities as illegal, regardless of what the USC says, is improper synthesis.  See WP:SYNTHESIS.  WP wants verification, not user conclusions. --S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAO report 

message: I was reading the campus newspaper and it seems Keiser University is suing FSCJ on charges of a supposed smear campaign against them and for profit colleges, http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010-10-04/story/profit-college-sues-fscj-president http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-10-11/story/short-seller-says-lawsuit-he-never-heard-keiser-university http://dailyme.com/story/2010100600001831/keiser-lawsuit-fscj-showcase-college-scorn.htmlUmitencho (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's interesting but right now it's an isolated incident.  (And "fighting back" is quite a spin on it.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A few days after this discussion they kissed and made up. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I missed the fact that Keiser, far from fighting back, is now non-profit. A bit odd, see and . Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For profit fighting back. 

message: There are various opinions regarding for-profit schools, and editors seems to either like them or hate them.  But why are we using the term "for-profit"?  Wouldn't Free market apply just as well?  Indeed, given the connotation/argument that making a profit in an educational setting is bad, the more NPOV term free market might be better. Feel free to make comments! --S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, "free market" is a POV term recently coined by lobbyists for these institutions. Let's stick with the standard terminology, please. ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  why  not [[Free market]] schools? 

message: This tactic has not been mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but it appears to me to be extremely pertinent:
:"[For profit colleges] were buying small, struggling religious colleges or nonprofit colleges that had very few students and were losing money, but had the coveted regional accreditation. And because the accreditation essentially went with the institution rather than changing with the owner, the colleges were essentially buying accreditation, and so a number of for-profit colleges now to have regional accreditation by virtue of those acquisitions.  [...]  And what they did was that they acquired the college, but then they would totally transform it. So they would acquire the accreditation, but the college, then, they would turn into an online, standard for-profit college, offering the same programs as many of the others: business, education, criminal justice. So the traditional college often only existed in name, and often the name was changed, too. And essentially, the accreditation was passed on, and the, you know, only the shell of the old college that had gained that accreditation remained. So the accreditation, in a sense, said very little about the actual quality of the new for-profit college. There has been some tightening of the, you know, a crackdown by the accreditation agencies after this encountered a lot of criticism."
(from For-Profit Colleges: Targeting People Who Can't Pay. NPR, May 12, 2011.)
Daniel Golden's "series of articles he co-wrote for Bloomberg News, investigating the $30 billion industry of for-profit colleges" undoubtedly has more details on this tactic.
Wingman4l7 (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  For-profits "purchasing" regional accreditation 

message: *Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
*"Senate Report Paints a Damning Portrait of For-Profit Higher Education" User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

message: The benefits/drawbacks section jumps back and forth between research on primary/secondary and research on postsecondary for-profit schools. This is both confusing and misleading, since the scope of the research wasn't supposed to extend to both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC35:4909:40A1:2E4C:BA24:E3FD (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up information on primary/secondary and postsecondary for-profits? 

message: This page appears to have been written by those opposed to for-profit education institutions. The errors, omissions, and types of bias are too numerous to mention but I thought it worth mentioning a selected few. If the uneven length of the sections on positive and negative considerations, including only faint praise in the positive section, were not sufficient indications, notice the grammatical differences in the two sections. The article addresses loan default rates but no mention is made of the substantial difference in taxpayer costs between non-profit and for-profit institutions or the fact that Historically Black colleges and many community colleges have much higher loan default rates than do for-profit colleges. No mention is made of the fact that the federal government made $51B in profit from students loans last year, including the profits it makes from added costs with defaulted loans. (Defaults are not what the public would think them to be.) Tuition is addressed but no mention is made of the fact that private non-profit tuition is twice that of for-profit colleges while the non-profits escape all taxation, including on many billion dollars in endowments. This article fails to acknowledge the dishonesty established against one of its primary sources, Harkin's HELP committee. Tape recordings were released showing that Harkin's forced the GAO to make false statements in its reports in support the Committee's pre-determined conclusions. Also a matter of record is Senator Harkin using the power of his office to suppress facts that did not support his bias. These are only examples of the bias. I suggest restructuring the article so that is systematically explores the structure and functions of for-profit institutions in an unbiased way.
R117532 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top.</br> The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy bias, factual errors,  lack of systematic comparisons 

message: Hello! You are invited to participate in Talk:Warren National University#RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill?  --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Dsackey (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse