Interesting article on front page of the Wall Street Journal about how upper middle class families are feeling the pinch on college tuition prices. Not a word spoken about the for-profit schools at all. It is all about the not-for-profits schools and their exorbitant tuition prices.
In the article.....1 year at Notre Dame costs $58,000. Does not include books and various other sundries. And tuition prices continue to rise. Not-for-profit schools are also paying outrageous salaries to professors that do not even teach, but just do "research", the vast majority of which is useless, or the professors write books or do outside consulting (and get paid by publishers or by third parties for consulting work, all of it done on the College's time!). And of course the extra book earnings and consulting pay goes 100% to the professor and not to the school).
So at these schools, 9 months of schooling is $58,000, which is a stunning $19,333 per quarter (three months). Now these schools operate on a semester basis usually, so there really only two tuition periods in the year. But ESI teaches and charges tuition quarterly, so to compare the two, I have parsed the Notre Dame "annual (9 months actually)" tuition into three quarters. At ESI, one quarter of student tuition is $4,600.
So, ESI costs $4,600 per quarter and Notre Dame and the other high falootin not-for-profits cost $$19,333 per quarter. And on top of all that, at the not-for-profit schools, the professors don't teach, only 50% graduate on average (no different than the for-profit schools), only 50% of graduates are getting jobs out of the not-for-profit schools while ESI has a 70% graduate job placement rate, the students at ESI learn real job related skills (as opposed to majoring in "Sociology in the Tribes of the Amazon" or other ridiculous majors at the not-for-profits), and the students at the not-for-profit schools spend all their time at football games and frat parties.
And everyone thinks that ESI is the bad guy and does not offer a value proposition? What a joke. All ESI does is show everyone that you can successfully educate students with job specific skills, charge them one quarter of what the not-for-profit schools charge, and still generate great profitability by staying focused and not wasting money on all the useless and ridiculous things on which these not-for-profits squander student tuition. And ESI does this with a 50% minority student population, compared to 30-35% minorities at Notre Dame and other leading not-for-profit schools.
With these stunning comparative cost numbers between ESI and the not-for-profits, I just wonder how "gainful employment" rules would go over with the not-for-profit schools. You graduate Notre Dame and you have $240,000 in debt. Half the class can get a job. The other half of the graduating class is probably making the same amount, or less, than the ESI graduate who is trained specifically for a functioning job in industry.
Gainful employment in the not-for-profit sector would be a catastrophe and this is why Harkin, Obama, the DOE and their liberal Democratic hacks can not go down that road. It is so much easier to attack the for-profit schools, when the real problem lies in the not-for-profit sector.
It just goes to show how when one removes the "profit motive" from an enterprise, the incredible inefficiency that occurs. Not-for-profit schools and the government are very much alike in this regard.