They actually are a non profit.
Which seems like a pretty good model to rescue a school. They were non profit for 55 years. Then for profit and privately held for four years. Then for profit and publicly held for seven years. Then they tried to go back to non profit but it took them three years to persuade the govt to let them do it.
Unfortunately you could say the same for a lot of non-profit-college degrees. The problem lies much more in the administration and faculty, and in how the job market evaluates degrees (ie, just a box to be checked), and in how higher education is funded and incentivized, than with whether capital is raised from donors or investors.
Communist.
As if 'non-profit' schools haven't also profited tremendously from the market-distorting effect of federally guaranteed loans...? Only instead of the profit going to a capital investor, it goes to administrators and tenured faculty. The only question is who on campus has the power to seek and collect the profit – a shareholder, a dean, a faculty committee, a bondholder. It's not as if non-profit schools are run more efficiently than for-profits; if anything, the opposite.
So, you're on a GT board arguing for a liberal arts education? Bold strategy, cotton.
Just the opposite – but I am saying if you pitch yourself as preparing people to make money don't be surprised when people want to make money off it.
Many for-profit schools - esp ones that offer online degrees tend to admit anything with a pulse just to use the applicant/student to generate student loan income. Works like this: apply - routed to fin aid - get approved for federally-subsidized student loan - keep student in school as long as possible to continue income stream. Student/education is secondary consideration (if a consideration at all).
You mean like every liberal arts university?
