Does anyone have references to more specific accusations against ITT? There are lots of vague claims in the article, but the only semi-specific ones -- misleading students about program quality and pushing them into irresponsible loans -- could just as easily be laid at the feet of public and private nonprofit colleges.
I have no particular reason to trust or distrust ITT. But it strikes me as a trade school that presents itself as a college, and that seems like one viable approach to our credentialism issues, so I want to know if it's being attacked for legitimate or political reasons.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a lawsuit against ITT Educational Services, Inc., accusing the for-profit college chain of predatory student lending. The CFPB alleges that ITT exploited its students and pushed them into high-cost private student loans that were very likely to end in default. The CFPB is seeking restitution for victims, a civil fine, and an injunction against the company.
A recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit against for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute accuses the school of operating a “systematic scheme” to defraud the government by using a litany of abusive, deceptive practices to enroll students.
For-profit educational giant ITT Technical Institute inflated its job-placement rates by counting “any job (graduates got) that somehow involved the use of a computer” and misled prospective students about the quality of its programs as part of its high-pressure recruitment tactics, the Massachusetts Attorney General alleged in a lawsuit announced Monday.
The earlier Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/2... mentions a fairly large list of investigations and lawsuits. Yes there is some political pressure on for-profit colleges, education always has some politics involved, but this long list of investigations and the seriousness of the allegations paints a picture of a company that has utterly failed to meet regulations and likely has massive financial improprieties. Most companies with regulatory issues, even fairly major ones will settle the multiple lawsuits and then put in place controls.
It seems there have been multiple lawsuits filed semi-recently against ITT. Here's a story about one from last year which was started by a former employee and later joined by the DoJ; you can skim it for some allegations about ITT deceiving students:
A separate suit was filed by the SEC around the same time alleging that ITT deceived investors and auditors regarding the financials of its student loan program:
The gist is that they let anyone in (and advertise heavily to try to let everyone in), regardless of their ability. They also charge exorbitant amounts that students can only pay because of their government loans. That might sound a little like the general complaints about college, except that they don't really offer anything in the way of actual education, and the costs are really high, even for U.S. colleges.
So what ends up happening is the government pays the school and the students lucky enough to graduate end up with massive debt, no useful skills, and a degree that actually counts against them on the job market as employers think, "They were dumb enough to fall for that scam?" Other students who leave part way through are often surprised to learn that none of their credits are transferable to a real college because other schools know how bad these are.
> (and advertise heavily to try to let everyone in)
Notably, they advertise heavily on Comedy Central and Cartoon Network during the Adult Swim "burner hours". It's not a good look when you're targeting the same demographics as phone sex lines...
Do they really provide nothing resembling education? I once had a friend of a friend ask me for some CSS help for some assignment, later I found out it was for some University of Phoenix course. Ideally the instructor would have taught the principles of CSS so that my assistance wasn't needed, but instructors not teaching the fundamentals and letting students figure it out somehow (or muddling through without ever learning) is par for the course at most colleges. Presumably these schools have lectures, assignments, projects? What explains the gap seen by companies on the other side apart from letting students graduate without actually having learned anything? And does this really only apply to these sorts of private schools?
Class quality varies greatly by program but they are notorious for recruiting people who can barely read or will pass since the real goal is aquiring their hefty federal student loan allowance.
So either classes are dumbed down so they can eventually graduate or fail many leaving them with a gigantic loan amount(most schools try to max this out) and no education cert.
Also, they tend to pay fairly low for teacher faculty while having little prestige or oversight: quality is unlikely in this environment.
However they have top notch recruiting and sale teams.
Almost all universities public and private in the US are 501(3)(c) nonprofit organizations. (Some public ones are more or less an extension of the government and don't count)
For-profit universities ... aren't. They're owned and operated by for-profit companies, the accreditation is usually terrible and in no way comparable to other universities, and they deceive students into thinking they'll be getting something similar to a university degree.
For example, ITT is run by ITT Educational Services Inc
What really needs to happen, is the US needs to restrict federal student loans to programs on a whitelist of accreditors (whitelisting the accreditation organization not the program, like ABET for example) as well as restricting organizations calling themselves "institute", "university", etc. as well as giving out "degrees" without matching the whitelist.
I have _no_ problem with the concept of a for-profit university, but they're being allowed to exist with very low standards and it needs to stop.
In fact I think the whole university system needs to tighten it's belt and be made smaller and more elite. Too many people think that ticking a university box is necessary to get a job / to hire a person, especially when so many people get such low quality degrees.
I'm not even railing against soft degrees, but their contents instead. "Liberal Arts" ... if you deconstruct that you can get to the original meaning which might be rephrased something like "the skills necessary to live a free life" which a whole lot of university degrees these days do not do at all.
So, this seems to me like a problem that is almost perfectly amenable to market solutions.
University has poor standards? Don't hire their graduates, or at least, don't weight their qualifications as heavily.
I don't understand why you think Government action - that is, force - is necessary here. Or is it that you think they are defrauding their students by calling themselves Universities?
The main reason is that the government is the one holding the pursestrings that enables the whole system to operate. If federally-guaranteed student loans cannot be used by these places, their business model collapses entirely. And a big chunk of these terrible for-profit universities are also preying on veterans using their GI Bill benefits.
Accreditation organizations are private. Vetted by the Department of Education, but still private organizations.
It's just an external audit, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. These for-profit organizations are defrauding students by providing very low quality and very expensive educations, all the while passing the low quality standards set by a broken accreditor.
Market solutions don't work when the target audience are young people investing a huge chunk of their lives in education. If a new brand of coffee and it's horrible, you can just try a different brand. A college student doesn't have the same luxury.
The two big differences are that (most) private universities are accredited by some recognized body, meaning your degree from a private university will be recognized as valid by other universities if you want to transfer or continue your education somewhere else. Most for-profit schools are not accredited and thus their degree isn't recognized by other universities.
The second difference is one of structure. For-profit universities are, well, for-profit companies, meaning their top priority is to hit earning targets and satisfy shareholders, many of whom may very well put their own short term financial interests ahead of the long term well being of the school or its students. Private universities tend to be set up as non-profit trusts, answerable to a board of trustees who's priorities should be more aligned with the long term reputation and well being of the school.
Of course this is all on some sort of sliding scale and there may very well be well-run accredited for profit schools with share-holders with a long term vision for the school and there are no doubt terribly run private universities with trustees whom try to use their position to wring out personal profits. But that is the basic gist of it.
ITT is accredited by an organization recognized by the US Department of Education. It's a shitty accreditation, but it's there. (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools)
The problem is that the government allowed the problem to persist for too long before acting. If the government wants to be in the business of approving schools (even if it's only indirectly) it should hold schools to a lot higher standards and move a lot quicker when results start to slip.
For better or worse when people see "Approved by The US Department of Education" they have (perhaps unreasonable) expectations that that means something.
I think it's important to distinguish that the government should not be directly approving of universities. Instead they should approve professional accreditation organizations that manage their own standards (which is what they do). In no circumstances do we want elected politicians to be legislating what goes into a university degree.
The Department of Education just needs to give a little bit less leeway to low quality accreditors. (and even then, the decisions should be made by career bureaucrats led by an appointed secretary, not by legislation)
Its actually pretty common for legit training programs with decent acredation to get bought out by these shady operators and then run the school at lower standards.
I once looked at art Institute and each campus location varied greatly in accreditation.
I agree that a lot of post-secondary institutions in the US push students into irresponsible loans. If you measure program quality in terms of employability, some others may mislead students students as to program quality too. If you measure program quality by pace and depth, MIT has an objectively higher program quality than most public universities which generally have a higher program quality than most community colleges.
This metric is a gradient which can be used to rank undergraduate educations. ITT Tech falls below the vast majority of other institutions by this metric. If this were not the case, credits from ITT Tech would easily transfer to other institutions. Beyond that, they are in danger of losing their accreditation. This suggests to me that their already low standards have been declining in recent years and look unlikely to improve.
The problem may be precisely that it is a trade school presenting itself as a college. If it were actually a college, the program quality would be higher. If it were presenting itself as a trade school it wouldn't be misleading its students about program quality.
These institutes charge excessively high fees for poor education....and funnel that money into more marketing, lobbying, or investor pockets.
These institutes typically recruit anyone eligible for a government student loan and lobby hard for the ability to recieve them.
When the student fails (common), the school keeps the loan and the student owes the feds. If he graduates, the school still wins becuase they spead very little on education unlike a traditional non-profit.
I have no particular reason to trust or distrust ITT. But it strikes me as a trade school that presents itself as a college, and that seems like one viable approach to our credentialism issues, so I want to know if it's being attacked for legitimate or political reasons.