I went to a similar for-profit school in Minnesota who also similarly shut down last year.
I still feel like they get a bad rap. Was it overpriced? Probably. Did I learn a ton and have small class sizes. Absolutely. The instructors had all previously worked in the industry, and knew their topics very well.
On top of all that, after graduation their persistent pestering of "how many places did you apply to this week?" (surely to help their numbers) had a lot to do with me actually getting a job. I didn't want to let the lady that called me weekly down. It took a lot of persistence and interviewing but I finally got my foot firmly in the door about 6 months after graduation.
I've been gainfully employed in the industry for ten years, I'm debt free, and I'm happy. I'm thankful for my time there.
Just because you had a great experience does not negate the fact that for-profit college students, statistically, fare much worse.
A common pattern I have seen:
Person does terrible in high school, doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades. They go to community college, and surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going. After a while they want to go back to school, so they start looking into these for profit colleges that promise them everything. These colleges make it sound so much more appealing than community college, because, well, community college isn't trying to sell you a bullshit education. Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50k+ in worthless education.
The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort.
I have seen many people follow this exact path and I am glad to see these companies shutting down. You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.
I don't disagree that for-profit colleges get a bad rap, but I think it's deserved in the case of ITT Tech and Corinthian.
I think about the government handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it. Taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for these failed loans, and if they know which institutions are largely at fault then good on them for being proactive
While there may well be more bad (by whatever metric) for-profit colleges there are also bad non-profit colleges. And non-profit itself is a bit of misnomer. It is true that registered non-profits can't pay dividends to their shareholders, but they can and sometimes do pay exorbitant salaries to those that have control over them.
As the gainful employment rule[1] currently stands it exempts degree programs from public and private non-profit institutions. I'd rather see a uniform set of metrics and standards applied to all institutions eligible for student loans.
I believe that all schools should have partial liability for the defaults of their students. You make a good point that this heavy-handed regulation of schools by shutting them down can hurt a few people who may benefit from alternative schools.
If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.
You remind me of their commercials; not that such a thing is bad, it just always seemed to me that some percentage of the people attending these schools must be having a positive experience.
Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority.
I also wonder how much their lack of success could be contributed to the kinds of people who have ITT as their most viable option. You might be able to better speak to this than I, but I've always kind of assumed ITT was a "last resort", where other institutions (community colleges, etc) would be better options if available.
The dream: take students who are mostly unprepared to succeed at college and educate & prepare them for success in the real world.
The reality: most of these students will not realize a return on the investment of their time and acquisition of a ton of debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy. Many will fail to attend class, fail to take notes, fail to do homework, fail to learn, and will not complete - but because they have already sunk huge costs into the endeavor, will continue incurring more costs in spite of the writing on the wall.
The economics means that these schools are unsustainable. However, some people find success through these schools. How can we continue to serve these people?
Perhaps we could avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by creating more community colleges, allowing more people to enroll in affordable community colleges, complete milestones at their own pace, while providing more direct subsidies of tuition for the truly needy. I agree that we would benefit from more German-style apprenticeship programs as well. For all of their worker protections, they still have incredibly low youth unemployment.
What's the case against community colleges historically? I graduated from university a while ago and still take a community college course from anything from math to photography when I have the time. I have been largely impressed by what they have to offer.
Honestly, even though this is harsh, I think your "the reality" description of for profit colleges applies to community colleges as well. Graduation rates at community college are very low (like 35%ish) and more than half of community college students need to take (and pay for) remedial classes before they even start earning credit.
They are comparatively affordable though and you aren't likely to go into crushing debt to go to community college, though it's possible, my uncle did it.
There was one of the "best" community colleges in the country in my hometown. Best ranked by, I have no idea, people in town just talked about how it's ranked high nationally. I took a few classes there the summers I spent in my hometown during my college years to speed up my university degree. The quality of classes and education was seriously lacking in the classes I took. They were not college level in my opinion (even though my credits had no problem transferring). Grades were posted online without names attached and it was shocking to me that half the class was struggling to pass such a basic class. These C community college students are not going to make it in a 4 year university if that's what they are aiming for.
My friend did get her LPN there though and seems like a good nurse so maybe it was ok for more "trade" type degrees.
Community college is not the answer to the kids flunking out of ITT tech. They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt. Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer. More subsidies is even more not the answer.
My experience is that there are plenty of community colleges, but people don't want to go to them because they feel they're stigmatized.
I have to admit that while I'm obviously against exploitative schemes, the shutdown of something that may have been a viable alternative to a traditional university hurts a little. Small trade schools, which ITT presented itself as even if it was in reality just a scam, are much better learning environments than large universities for most of the kind of stuff that hackers do.
I'm worried there will be a small cultural backlash against people without traditional educations on the heels of this shutdown. Since traditional university education is mostly just a massive, deeply-ingrained scam itself, this is disappointing.
That's not the dream. The dream is to get access to the billions of dollars the Federal Government spends to finance college degrees. Tuition costs at for-profit schools track neither those companies inputs nor the value they actually provide to the market.
The distinction is important. It is likely --- overwhelmingly likely, I think --- that there are programs with "the dream" you site that will work well. They just won't work like government-subsidized for-profit colleges.
Your last paragraph is spot on. Community Colleges (supported by MOOCs) and apprenticeship and trade school programs are the way to go.
3rd tier colleges with Ivy League prices aren't, and are only done based on misleading financial aid. I've seen a lot of resumes of people from for-profit schools. The graduates fall in 2 camps: Those who regret the decision, and those who don't realize how badly they were scammed.
90% of the time I see a title attached to someone's name ("Jane Smith, Phd" or "John Doe, MBA") it's from one of these overpriced degree factories, and it's a terribly negative signal.
It feels like non "for-profit" schools also suffer from the same reality, now that the prices are commonly hovering around 40K per year at smaller liberal arts schools.
I am personaly happy to see the hammer come down on these for-profit universities. I too feel for the students as I was one of the Corinthian Colleges students a few years ago at Everest University through one of the Florida campuses. My degree program was the A.S. in Computer Information Sciences -- such a waste. Look up the job placement rates for that program in 2010, just insane.
Thankfully I too have been able to take advantage of the Department of Education relief. But I have to go through the process of the “borrower defense to repayment”. It continues to be a tough process but at least it some form of relief for me.
I hope former ITT students are able to find a quick resoluton. This type of school shutdown is not easy on anyone.
On another note, I wonder if this is the start of the 'higher-ed debt bubble' that has been predicted for quite some time now...
You have my condolences. Corinthian Colleges was a client of a company I worked for. They were...not pleasant to deal with. The board meeting in which it was announced to our team that they were being fined into oblivion by the federal government was met with more laughter than sympathy.
Maybe we should have more of them. When they're not meeting the expectations of their students, the students go elsewhere and the school is forced to close.
Far cry from the current entrenched and inflexible education system.
I'll preface this with my lack of any love for ITT, but there's a piece of the story that bothers me:
"Last month, the feds demanded the company produce an additional $153 million in collateral—nearly double its $78 million in cash on hand—to cover possible losses that the government might incur if the company were to suddenly fail."
Here's how that sounds to me: "Well, ITT technically hasn't done anything illegal. But we don't like them. How much cash do they have? Double that amount and tell them we need this much for 'collateral' or we shut them down."
Can anyone fill in the blanks that Bloomberg didn't? What basis does the government have to make such demands (as it appears to me) out of the blue? Why make such demands knowing going into it that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy? (That last question is kind of rhetorical.)
> "Well, ITT technically hasn't done anything illegal. [...]"
The DOE action is based on a risk of business failure produced by fraud lawsuits by the SEC (for securities fraud) and CFPB (for consumer fraud) against ITT, both directly and because the costs and potential fundamental issues with ITTs then-existing business model revealed by those lawsuits also led to the risk of losing the accreditation from its accreditor.
(Incidentally, that's an accreditor whose notorious laxness in enforcing standards on private universities has led to the recommendation that it be no longer accepted as an accreditor by the Department of Education, a recommendation which may result in action this month removing it as an accreditor.)
ITT Tech received > 70% of it's revenue from federal student loans. As soon as their business plan became "take as much money from taxpayers as possible because we know our 'graduates' will never be able to pay this back" they opened themselves up to this.
> What basis does the government have to make such demands (as it appears to me) out of the blue?
The utilitarian argument is that the taxpayers should be secured against paying for useless education. I guarantee you schools like that are a net utility loss for the public and the government obviously doesn't like that.
My wife had worked as a temporary at ITT here in Calfornia. It was the most degrading work I have ever seen. She was teaching English courses, and 98% of the kids plagiarized, not even trying to cover it up. When she gave failing grades to the papers, the students fought back and the director at her location told her she can't do that. She quit that week.
I really feel for all the students who are so close to graduating and not knowing if they'll have anything to show for it.. And their credits will most likely not transfer to another school because of the different accreditations.
That their credits had virtually no chance of transferring to any other institution --- a point ITT was forced to make on its own website --- is a pretty good reason not to allow it to be the beneficiary of billions of dollars of public financing.
> I really feel for all the students who are so close to graduating and not knowing if they'll have anything to show for it.. And their credits will most likely not transfer to another school because of the different accreditations.
I'm pretty sure the ones that graduated have no chance of their credits transferring either. Only difference is they saved whatever the last couple tuition payments would have been.
For IT degrees (bachelor and master) for those who cannot go to a "normal" college for four years, an option to consider is the online non-profit Western Governor's University [1]. It is especially interesting if you already know much of the material through work or self-study.
It was founded by several state governors about 20 years ago, and is accredited by The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
It's pricing is interesting: $2890 per six-month term, regardless of how many classes you take or credits you earn during that term. If you want to take a heavy load to earn the degree faster and save money, you can.
Each degree program has a particular list of skills that you have to demonstrate competency in to earn the degree. They offer, of course, all the necessary classes to learn those skills, but you are not required to take those classes--you are just required to demonstrate the skills. If you have already acquired some of these skills elsewhere, you can take the test or do the project that demonstrates it and that will count toward the degree.
For most of the IT degrees you also earn several widely recognized third-party IT certifications, at no extra cost. For example the IT bachelor's program in network administration includes these certifications: MSCA Windows Server, CompTIA Linux+, CompTIA A+, CompTIA Network+, CompTIA Security+, and CompTIA Project+.
(The offer more than IT, BTW. The also have bachelor and master programs in teaching, business, and health).
"Free education" they say. "It will solve problems" they say. "Education will be better" they say.
No, it won't. Free education -- or subsidized loans -- puts a disconnect between education and its cost.
If the person paying is not the person deciding, a poor decision will be made. It's just like how HSAs prompt people to think about what they're spending their money on.
ITT would not exist but for government spending. Sure, some will beat the dead horse of more regulation. But the real answer is STOP SUBSIDIZING. Stop subsidizing education, stop subsidizing mortgages, stop subsidizing GM, stop blowing decisions sideways by removing the universal language of cost from the discussion.
Stop subsidizing education? Do you propose this for just higher education? Or is it all education you'd like taxpayers to stop paying for?
Unsubsidized education either a) means more private loans somehow now exempt from bankruptcy proceedings or b) education is now only for those that can afford it.
I am the complete and total opposite of your position. How it is that we provide 12-14 years of education for free, but then burden the economy with an insane amount of unsecured debt for the last four is insanity. It places our economy at risk, it severely stunts upward mobility, it burdens our youngest minds with mortgage-sized debts, and it sinks people into a lifetime of debt.
If college is, in general, required to actively participate in our society, it should be paid for the same as (Pre)K-12.
Edit: I'd like to say that I agree that subsidizing activity as a direct pass through of money from government to for-profit enterprise is a bad idea. Don't subsidize for-profit colleges. But they were never needed to begin with.
It looks like the main problem in this whole scheme is the government-funded student loan program. ITT was wrangling to get access that that loan money as a key to its operations. Failing to comply with the Dept of Ed's requirements caused them to go out of business, since they would no longer have a place at the public trough.
How many state schools and private colleges could survive without government largess? We've seen a massive increase in tuition costs, far beyond inflation in recent years. Such is the result of artificially boosting demand for college on the backs of the taxpayer.
As for forgiving ITT student loans, I say no. Students are responsible for their own loans and (bad) decisions. By that reasoning, shouldn't we just forgive all student debt for anyone who didn't get their dream job straight out of undergrad? What about those who don't finish school but still have loans? For everyone but the far left, these ideas are ludicrous. Let's not make the taxpayer suffer twice for the poor decisions of others.
Related: "The Law School Scam. For-profit law schools are a capitalist dream of privatized profits and socialized losses. But for their debt-saddled, no-job-prospect graduates, they can be a nightmare."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/09/the-law-...
From TFA: "Other former students are pushing to have their debts canceled by alleging that the company defrauded them into taking out the debt by advertising false job-placement rates."
I live in Minneapolis and the City Pages did quite an exposé on them back in 2015. It was pretty eye opening and gives a really good glimpse into their tactics:
What disgusts me most about the for-profit schools -- not to come off as too much of a snob -- is that the money we the taxpayers put into their pockets would be better spent improving community colleges and state schools.
I get not everyone needs to go to an Ivy League school, but for vocational basics -- what people are going to these for-profit schools hoping to gain -- community college should be "good enough."
I'd look at Bellevue Community College as a great example of a strong vocational tech school. That should be a model others could strive for. When I was younger I learned a great deal in BCC classes -- knowledge that was immediately beneficial to my day job as a software developer.
In contrast, the classes at BCC were far more hands-on training than what I got at the school I eventually graduated from. Educationally, community college I feel was better... but certainly for connections and networking the "name-brand" schools pay off.
> Students now enrolled at the company's technical schools will be able to cancel any federal student debt they incurred for their education if they decide against transferring their credits elsewhere... Taxpayers will record a loss on those debt cancellations.
This seems very unfair to taxpayers, who are essentially forced creditors. If the college reneges on its contract with students, then the students should seek to reclaim their losses through a class action lawsuit against ITT. The government shouldn't be covering losses on what were, arguably, bad investments.
Question for lawyers in the audience: If ITT is shut down because the "education" it was providing was complete shit and not recognized anywhere else, does that mean that the usual rules about education related personal debt surviving bankruptcy wouldn't apply?
Unfortunately, ITT is just the visible tip of the iceberg. There are MANY more for-profit schools of the same ilk as ITT that will fleece the same archetype of education-seeker. This isn't over by a long-shot. These schools are everywhere and they are probably chomping-at-the-bit to get their mits on displaced ITT students and all others that are susceptible to the type of manipulative and deceptive marketing practices that ITT, and many other for-profit schools, use.
It's not just for profit schools. There are a ton of private non-profit schools that operate the same scam. Instead of paying off shareholders, they operate to keep the organization going for all the people who make their living off it. Even many public schools run programs that are scams or just deliver such a terrible education that they aren't worth operating.
> Unfortunately, ITT is just the visible tip of the iceberg. There are MANY more for-profit schools of the same ilk as ITT that will fleece the same archetype of education-seeker. This isn't over by a long-shot.
Its not over, but the writing is on the wall, not just with the Corinthian and ITT actions, but more with the focus on ACICS (the accreditor of both Corinthian and ITT, and a vast number of other for-profit schools) which has formally been recommended to be removed as an accreditor recognized by the DOE (a recommendation which, I believe, must be acted on by the end of this month.)
Next, go after the public colleges? Other than brand, do they do a better job? Spend more than 30% of income on actual educational expenses (like IIT does)? I doubt it.
{edit}
Seems like US Universities are about 1:1 faculty vs staff. Up from 2:1 40 years ago.
[+] [-] donatj|9 years ago|reply
I still feel like they get a bad rap. Was it overpriced? Probably. Did I learn a ton and have small class sizes. Absolutely. The instructors had all previously worked in the industry, and knew their topics very well.
On top of all that, after graduation their persistent pestering of "how many places did you apply to this week?" (surely to help their numbers) had a lot to do with me actually getting a job. I didn't want to let the lady that called me weekly down. It took a lot of persistence and interviewing but I finally got my foot firmly in the door about 6 months after graduation.
I've been gainfully employed in the industry for ten years, I'm debt free, and I'm happy. I'm thankful for my time there.
[+] [-] dntrkv|9 years ago|reply
A common pattern I have seen:
Person does terrible in high school, doesn't get into a good college because they don't have the drive or commitment to get good grades. They go to community college, and surprise, they again get terrible grades and stop going. After a while they want to go back to school, so they start looking into these for profit colleges that promise them everything. These colleges make it sound so much more appealing than community college, because, well, community college isn't trying to sell you a bullshit education. Anyways, these sales people will constantly pester you trying to get you to signup and take out huge loans because for some reason we think that it's ok to lend someone with terrible credit $50k+ in worthless education.
The end result is either them regretting their decision or trying to justify it with some bullshit about it being a good learning experience or something of the sort.
I have seen many people follow this exact path and I am glad to see these companies shutting down. You can get a much better education for cheaper at a community college.
[+] [-] arenaninja|9 years ago|reply
I think about the government handing out student loans to students who statistically won't be able to repay, and I'm OK with the DOE putting a stop to it. Taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for these failed loans, and if they know which institutions are largely at fault then good on them for being proactive
[+] [-] bradleyjg|9 years ago|reply
As the gainful employment rule[1] currently stands it exempts degree programs from public and private non-profit institutions. I'd rather see a uniform set of metrics and standards applied to all institutions eligible for student loans.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-255...
[+] [-] robotcookies|9 years ago|reply
If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.
[+] [-] SteveNuts|9 years ago|reply
Is it prestigious? Nope. But it got the job done and I was done in 2 years.
[+] [-] dimino|9 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority.
I also wonder how much their lack of success could be contributed to the kinds of people who have ITT as their most viable option. You might be able to better speak to this than I, but I've always kind of assumed ITT was a "last resort", where other institutions (community colleges, etc) would be better options if available.
[+] [-] aaronchall|9 years ago|reply
The reality: most of these students will not realize a return on the investment of their time and acquisition of a ton of debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy. Many will fail to attend class, fail to take notes, fail to do homework, fail to learn, and will not complete - but because they have already sunk huge costs into the endeavor, will continue incurring more costs in spite of the writing on the wall.
The economics means that these schools are unsustainable. However, some people find success through these schools. How can we continue to serve these people?
Perhaps we could avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by creating more community colleges, allowing more people to enroll in affordable community colleges, complete milestones at their own pace, while providing more direct subsidies of tuition for the truly needy. I agree that we would benefit from more German-style apprenticeship programs as well. For all of their worker protections, they still have incredibly low youth unemployment.
[+] [-] Yhippa|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nommm-nommm|9 years ago|reply
They are comparatively affordable though and you aren't likely to go into crushing debt to go to community college, though it's possible, my uncle did it.
There was one of the "best" community colleges in the country in my hometown. Best ranked by, I have no idea, people in town just talked about how it's ranked high nationally. I took a few classes there the summers I spent in my hometown during my college years to speed up my university degree. The quality of classes and education was seriously lacking in the classes I took. They were not college level in my opinion (even though my credits had no problem transferring). Grades were posted online without names attached and it was shocking to me that half the class was struggling to pass such a basic class. These C community college students are not going to make it in a 4 year university if that's what they are aiming for.
My friend did get her LPN there though and seems like a good nurse so maybe it was ok for more "trade" type degrees.
Community college is not the answer to the kids flunking out of ITT tech. They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt. Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer. More subsidies is even more not the answer.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|9 years ago|reply
I have to admit that while I'm obviously against exploitative schemes, the shutdown of something that may have been a viable alternative to a traditional university hurts a little. Small trade schools, which ITT presented itself as even if it was in reality just a scam, are much better learning environments than large universities for most of the kind of stuff that hackers do.
I'm worried there will be a small cultural backlash against people without traditional educations on the heels of this shutdown. Since traditional university education is mostly just a massive, deeply-ingrained scam itself, this is disappointing.
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
The distinction is important. It is likely --- overwhelmingly likely, I think --- that there are programs with "the dream" you site that will work well. They just won't work like government-subsidized for-profit colleges.
[+] [-] pgt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|9 years ago|reply
3rd tier colleges with Ivy League prices aren't, and are only done based on misleading financial aid. I've seen a lot of resumes of people from for-profit schools. The graduates fall in 2 camps: Those who regret the decision, and those who don't realize how badly they were scammed.
90% of the time I see a title attached to someone's name ("Jane Smith, Phd" or "John Doe, MBA") it's from one of these overpriced degree factories, and it's a terribly negative signal.
[+] [-] droopybuns|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liveoneggs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joedissmeyer|9 years ago|reply
Thankfully I too have been able to take advantage of the Department of Education relief. But I have to go through the process of the “borrower defense to repayment”. It continues to be a tough process but at least it some form of relief for me.
I hope former ITT students are able to find a quick resoluton. This type of school shutdown is not easy on anyone.
On another note, I wonder if this is the start of the 'higher-ed debt bubble' that has been predicted for quite some time now...
[+] [-] ams6110|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayvd|9 years ago|reply
Far cry from the current entrenched and inflexible education system.
[+] [-] mbesto|9 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAPOL&fstype=ii&ei=...
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ADV&fstype=ii&ei=HvnO...
https://www.google.com/finance?q=OTCMKTS%3ACOCOQ&fstype=ii&e...
[+] [-] the-dude|9 years ago|reply
The deflation of it you mean?
[+] [-] TwoFactor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|9 years ago|reply
Here's how that sounds to me: "Well, ITT technically hasn't done anything illegal. But we don't like them. How much cash do they have? Double that amount and tell them we need this much for 'collateral' or we shut them down."
Can anyone fill in the blanks that Bloomberg didn't? What basis does the government have to make such demands (as it appears to me) out of the blue? Why make such demands knowing going into it that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy? (That last question is kind of rhetorical.)
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
The DOE action is based on a risk of business failure produced by fraud lawsuits by the SEC (for securities fraud) and CFPB (for consumer fraud) against ITT, both directly and because the costs and potential fundamental issues with ITTs then-existing business model revealed by those lawsuits also led to the risk of losing the accreditation from its accreditor.
(Incidentally, that's an accreditor whose notorious laxness in enforcing standards on private universities has led to the recommendation that it be no longer accepted as an accreditor by the Department of Education, a recommendation which may result in action this month removing it as an accreditor.)
[+] [-] syntheticcdo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antisthenes|9 years ago|reply
The utilitarian argument is that the taxpayers should be secured against paying for useless education. I guarantee you schools like that are a net utility loss for the public and the government obviously doesn't like that.
Not out of the blue at all.
[+] [-] aerhakr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayla210|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure the ones that graduated have no chance of their credits transferring either. Only difference is they saved whatever the last couple tuition payments would have been.
[+] [-] tzs|9 years ago|reply
It was founded by several state governors about 20 years ago, and is accredited by The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
It's pricing is interesting: $2890 per six-month term, regardless of how many classes you take or credits you earn during that term. If you want to take a heavy load to earn the degree faster and save money, you can.
Each degree program has a particular list of skills that you have to demonstrate competency in to earn the degree. They offer, of course, all the necessary classes to learn those skills, but you are not required to take those classes--you are just required to demonstrate the skills. If you have already acquired some of these skills elsewhere, you can take the test or do the project that demonstrates it and that will count toward the degree.
For most of the IT degrees you also earn several widely recognized third-party IT certifications, at no extra cost. For example the IT bachelor's program in network administration includes these certifications: MSCA Windows Server, CompTIA Linux+, CompTIA A+, CompTIA Network+, CompTIA Security+, and CompTIA Project+.
(The offer more than IT, BTW. The also have bachelor and master programs in teaching, business, and health).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Governors_University
[+] [-] paulddraper|9 years ago|reply
"Free education" they say. "It will solve problems" they say. "Education will be better" they say.
No, it won't. Free education -- or subsidized loans -- puts a disconnect between education and its cost.
If the person paying is not the person deciding, a poor decision will be made. It's just like how HSAs prompt people to think about what they're spending their money on.
ITT would not exist but for government spending. Sure, some will beat the dead horse of more regulation. But the real answer is STOP SUBSIDIZING. Stop subsidizing education, stop subsidizing mortgages, stop subsidizing GM, stop blowing decisions sideways by removing the universal language of cost from the discussion.
[+] [-] themartorana|9 years ago|reply
Unsubsidized education either a) means more private loans somehow now exempt from bankruptcy proceedings or b) education is now only for those that can afford it.
I am the complete and total opposite of your position. How it is that we provide 12-14 years of education for free, but then burden the economy with an insane amount of unsecured debt for the last four is insanity. It places our economy at risk, it severely stunts upward mobility, it burdens our youngest minds with mortgage-sized debts, and it sinks people into a lifetime of debt.
If college is, in general, required to actively participate in our society, it should be paid for the same as (Pre)K-12.
Edit: I'd like to say that I agree that subsidizing activity as a direct pass through of money from government to for-profit enterprise is a bad idea. Don't subsidize for-profit colleges. But they were never needed to begin with.
[+] [-] clarkmoody|9 years ago|reply
How many state schools and private colleges could survive without government largess? We've seen a massive increase in tuition costs, far beyond inflation in recent years. Such is the result of artificially boosting demand for college on the backs of the taxpayer.
As for forgiving ITT student loans, I say no. Students are responsible for their own loans and (bad) decisions. By that reasoning, shouldn't we just forgive all student debt for anyone who didn't get their dream job straight out of undergrad? What about those who don't finish school but still have loans? For everyone but the far left, these ideas are ludicrous. Let's not make the taxpayer suffer twice for the poor decisions of others.
[+] [-] peterhadlaw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightsize|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tickthokk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|9 years ago|reply
So it looks like you might have a chance.
[+] [-] jrs235|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|9 years ago|reply
http://www.citypages.com/news/itt-tech-sells-an-american-dre...
[+] [-] dbg31415|9 years ago|reply
I get not everyone needs to go to an Ivy League school, but for vocational basics -- what people are going to these for-profit schools hoping to gain -- community college should be "good enough."
I'd look at Bellevue Community College as a great example of a strong vocational tech school. That should be a model others could strive for. When I was younger I learned a great deal in BCC classes -- knowledge that was immediately beneficial to my day job as a software developer.
In contrast, the classes at BCC were far more hands-on training than what I got at the school I eventually graduated from. Educationally, community college I feel was better... but certainly for connections and networking the "name-brand" schools pay off.
[+] [-] ramblenode|9 years ago|reply
This seems very unfair to taxpayers, who are essentially forced creditors. If the college reneges on its contract with students, then the students should seek to reclaim their losses through a class action lawsuit against ITT. The government shouldn't be covering losses on what were, arguably, bad investments.
[+] [-] ben_jones|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spudlyo|9 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31I9RvluEA
I asked that once during an interview, and was met with blank stares. Haven't asked it since, but I feel like it could have been hilarious.
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Unbeliever69|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhino369|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
Its not over, but the writing is on the wall, not just with the Corinthian and ITT actions, but more with the focus on ACICS (the accreditor of both Corinthian and ITT, and a vast number of other for-profit schools) which has formally been recommended to be removed as an accreditor recognized by the DOE (a recommendation which, I believe, must be acted on by the end of this month.)
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
{edit} Seems like US Universities are about 1:1 faculty vs staff. Up from 2:1 40 years ago.