[mcjon77]

>The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges).

The difference is that the percentage of people with that negative end result is MUCH higher. Looking at stats like the default rate for students at for-profits vs non-profits is one indicator.

>It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.

There is definitely some truth in this. HOWEVER, a big difference is that in many cases the interests of the department and the student are more aligned at non-profits than for-profits. The most obvious example is completion/graduation rates. At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program. Bringing in woefully underprepared students who have little chance of finishing the degree seems to be strongly discouraged at the undergraduate and masters level. I cannot speak for the PhD level, since I have little experience in that area.

Contrast that with stories about MULTIPLE for-profit colleges going so far as to target the homeless for recruitment into their universities. In some cases they went so far as recruiting people who DID NOT OWN A COMPUTER to sign up for online degree programs. Since virtually all Americans (regardless of credit score) qualify for up to $20K in loans per year (with a cap of about $180K total), a students ability (or lack there of) to complete the program is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing in.

[xaa]

> At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program.

Is there? It affects their attrition rate, but I am not sure that is a big factor in which schools students choose. It seems to be based on things like facilities, "vibe", majors available, prestige, quality of education. A high attrition rate need not even suggest a low prestige or quality of education: in many graduate programs, almost the opposite is true.

I went to a very expensive private but nonprofit Christian school for undergrad. They accepted anyone, and their attrition rate was abysmally high (although the education quality was fine). The attrition rate didn't matter at all to their marketing, as parents sent their kids there for different reasons. In fact, those kids who dropped out after 1-2 years were big moneymakers, as they only took gen ed classes that are cheapest to staff.

For PhDs, attrition is much more discouraged, at least economically (I'm in bio), because PIs/advisors pick students with the understanding that their first 1-3 years they will be useless in research and only start "paying off" near the end. This is why at the higher-tier graduate schools, there is a big attrition at the general exam (1.5 years in) and it's very low afterwards. In lower-tier programs there is low attrition throughout. And of course, many grad programs pay stipends, so those programs lose money with no compensation if someone drops out. Very different incentive structure than programs where the student pays tuition.