Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution. Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.” One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog. Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.”
In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. Here’s another aspect of public education that needs more discussion.
Do for-profit universities help prepare students for the coming technology tsunami? My view? No. First, let’s define for-profit universities, or FPU`s. These are institutions with a primary purpose of making a profit for investors. In an FPU, education happens to be the product. The product to generate a profit could just as easily be processing waste – e.g., Waste Management Incorporated – or selling coffee – e.g., Starbucks.
While doubtlessly some FPU’s are well-intentioned and focus on educating students, let’s not forget the primary purpose of any for-profit company. Duh, sell a product/service, make a profit and return money to investors.
But you ask, “What about private colleges and universities? Aren’t they in business to make a profit? I mean, Harvard has a huge endowment — maybe $10 billion or something?”
Harvard’s endowment is more like $35-40 billion.
“Alright, lots more endowment than I thought. I’m confused. What’s really the difference between Harvard or MIT and say Trump University? Maybe Trump University is a bad example, but what about say University of Phoenix? It’s for profit and from what I can tell, University of Phoenix does more public good for lower-income people than either Harvard or MIT. University of Phoenix educates a lot of people who otherwise could not attend college. Your argument against for-profit universities sounds elitist.”
Agreed that University of Phoenix seems a lot more affordable than many private education institutions. But such an argument creates a false equivalency. Realistically, 99.9% of the students attending University of Phoenix could not qualify academically to attend the top-end academic institutions in the US. Not being qualified academically does not mean these students are dumb; they lack demonstrated skills in key areas.
Maybe the better question about public good is, “When all the costs are taken into account, is there a less costly and more effective alternative to teach basic skills than such places as University of Phoenix?” Let’s also be honest about education and skills. Not everyone has the same skills or can even acquire the same skills. My crayon jungle drawing from grammar school might have won 2nd place prize at the county fair, but no amount of training is going to make me a successful professional artist.
From a public good perspective, how can we… the proverbial societal “we”…make sure all students have an opportunity to learn basic skills that will enable them to secure and retain a reasonably well-paying job? While everyone in the US is supposed to have access to free public education through high school, a remarkable percentage of students do not complete high school.
As of 2016, the high school drop-out rate was 25% or more in some states. (When reviewing the data by state, reported graduation rates in some states seems highly inflated…or the standards to graduate in those states are exceedingly low.) Lots of reasons for not finishing, including recognizing that not all students learn at the same rate or the same way. In addition, some families have such limited income that children must work to help support the family as soon as possible, even if it means dropping out of high school.
While the reasons may vary for dropping out, should society ask these students to pay to finish their education, especially through for-profit institutions? Asking them to pay a very high price just to finish their high-school education is a disincentive to complete the degree. Plus the cost of attending remedial classes at a for-profit institution creates an excessive financial burden on someone who’s likely to be earning low wages and have little or no savings.
Wouldn’t society be better off to pay for their education? Paying to complete high school would provide those who didn’t finish a better opportunity to secure higher-paying jobs and, with those jobs, pay more taxes for their entire life. Providing an opportunity to complete high school and maybe two years additional education at no cost could likely help reduce crime and the cost of incarceration.
As noted in Entry #326, the estimated cost of incarceration per prisoner per year ranges from roughly $30,000 to $60,000. Based on the analysis described in Entry #326, paying for prisoners to secure a technical degree or college degree while incarcerated resulted in a return on investment to taxpayers of 400-700%, and possibly higher.
“OK, I’ll buy your logic but what’s wrong with using for-profit universities to offer such some education? Besides, the private sector is always more cost-effective than government.”
Why use public education rather than private for-profit institutions?
- No additional facilities required to host classes. The remedial, technical and early college classes could be held in the evening and/or weekends using existing high school, junior college or some government buildings. Virtually all of these buildings are used more during the day and have surplus capacity in the evening and on weekends.
- Alternative teaching methods in place. Virtually all public school systems have implemented alternative teaching methods, which could be adopted for older students who learn differently.
- Public education does not add additional financial burden on the student. University of Phoenix, for example, charges about $1,200 per course. For student needing say ten classes to complete high school (equivalent about one year), the cost using the University of Phoenix rate would be at least $12,000. What may be even more of a problem for these students is the course material for what is usually a semester course – say 3-4 months – is crammed into five (5) weeks. Cramming material into five weeks leaves virtually no time for course material to “sink in.” Think of drinking out of a fire house. If a student does not fully grasp the idea when presented, the student is immediately behind. For institution like Phoenix, this approach can lead to the same person attending yet again…and another tuition payment.
- Class content can be tailored to help prepare students to continue their education in community college programs, whether technical training or prep for college.
The question posed in the title of this Entry, “Do for-profit universities help prepare for the coming technology tsunami?” I continue to say, “No, these institutions do not.” As frustrated as we sometimes are with the public education system, the system is designed for the public good…and not to generate a profit and provide (some believe maximize) a return to investors.
The US needs to prepare for the oncoming technology tsunami. One key component of preparation is to increase the number of qualified workers. Much like educating prisoners, providing classes/remedial training to those who have not completed high school is in the public interest by increasing at very low-cost, the pool of skilled workers. A larger pool of skilled workers is essential for the US to maintain production of goods and services and remain competitive worldwide.
What about for-profit institutions designed to train people to become technicians, designers, hairdressers and a host of other occupations? Don’t these for profits offer a benefit to the public? Possibly but maybe a more cost-effective approach is to the scope of public education to include such training. (The question is a bit off-line from the more serious issue of preparing for the technology tsunami. I might offer a few thoughts in one of the next couple of entries.)
JC: “Look, I like the idea of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ as the standard for behavior. But let’s not be naïve. What do we do about those people who don’t follow the rules?”
Greenie: “Until Trump. Then he and his gang basically gave the finger to everyone. He even trashed people in his cabinet who supported him from the get go. Some display of appreciation and loyalty, huh?”
Greenie: “A start would be to reinstate the 60-vote rule in the Senate for approving appointments, whether for the agencies or the courts. A 60-vote rule would force the White House to offer nominees toward the middle politically…not the extremes.”
Jordan: “On the Judicial side, even with the 60-vote rule, what about limiting tenure of Senate-approved judges? Right now these judges have lifetime appointments.”
Jordan: “Re-upping.”
Greenie: “I don’t know if the limit should be at the court level or in total. For now, let’s assume the limit applies to a specific level. Otherwise someone might get to SCOTUS with only 6-7 years left out of the 30-year limit. That doesn’t seem fair.”
Greenie: “OK, Jordan, any ideas how to stop such behavior? And what about all the obvious ethics violations by Trump, the Trump family and some cabinet officials? How do we stop that going forward?”
JC: “More teeth and more transparency. I realize there’s some information cannot be disclosed. But, and this should be a big but…no comments, please about personal appearance…the baseline should be to make the public as aware as possible of the shenanigans and unethical behavior by people inside the government, especially members of Congress and high-ranking agency personnel. The disclosures might force some people to stop.”
Greenie: “Make it in addition to impeachment. Some of the behavior will be illegal. Why shouldn’t that behavior get punished like the rest of us are subject to?”
Greenie: “Since neither JC nor I play golf, we have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Greenie: “Are you serious? The individual golfer is supposed to penalize herself or himself for some rules infraction? I agree, that does seem weird.”
JC: “I guess I never appreciated all the hullabaloo about Trump, when he was president, driving his cart on the putting green at Mar-a-Lago and that place in New Jersey he used to play.”
Jordan: “As far as hurting or killing the grass on the green, you’re right. Driving on the green one time is no big deal. But, in terms of golf etiquette, I can’t think of anything more egregious. In the rules of golf etiquette, you’re not supposed to walk on the green in an area where someone else is going to putt…aka, the putting line.”
Jordan: “I’ve tested this theory over many rounds. If you are playing golf with someone you don’t know, by the 4th hole you will have a very good idea of their personality and their ethics.”
Greenie: “Your theory is, if the person readily admits a mistake, or takes the penalty or apologies for breaking some etiquette rule, then that’s a reflection of their true personality. Same if they don’t acknowledge the mistake, right?”
Greenie: “What was the title of that book? ‘All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.’”
Greenie: “I shouldn’t even smile at that one…but it was pretty good. Now, JC, stop the puns and tell us your idea.”
JC: “Two prongs. (i) Reconfigure existing roads into smarter roads. Smarter roads can carry more traffic with a lot less congestion; (ii) rebuild and expand the rail system to handle more passenger trains and freight traffic.”
Jordan: “Commuting by rail in metro areas is easier, more pleasant, less expensive and faster. Plus, you can work on the train.”
Jordan: “High-speed rail needs to be defined given the barriers that exist. High-speed in the Northeast corridor is not going to be like a bullet-train in Japan. Making that happen would be outrageously expensive and disruptive.”
Jordan: “Don’t know exactly but I’ll bet you’re pushing 85-90%.”
JC: “This sounds great but what about resolving the conflict between freight and passenger traffic? The little that I know about rail, the freight railroads seem to keep resisting any efforts to add passenger traffic to certain rail lines…in fact, most rail lines.”
Jordan: “Other than difference in speed between freight trains and passenger trains, I don’t know of a technical reason the two can’t share the tracks.”
Jordan: “The article was in the Harvard Business Review and written by Theodore Levitt. The title was ‘Marketing Myopia.’ An example of the myopia was the railroads viewing themselves as being in railroad business and turning thumbs down to considering being in the transportation business. As a result, the railroads lost a huge share of the logistics business to the trucking industry.”
Greenie: “Before the break, I said I thought at first Jordan’s idea of reinstating conscription was stupid. Then I came around and supported it.”
JC: “What’s your logic? Something wrong with charter schools?”
JC: “Not that I disagree with you but why do you think charter schools are a band-aide?”
JC: “We need to get more specific about the issues. Besides we know that merely throwing money at schools does not necessarily make schools better.”
JC: “I agree that many were top-notch, especially those teaching math and English. To think we were so motivated we used to diagram sentences for fun!”
Jordan: “What about teacher pay?”
Jordan: “OK, I’ll be the bad guy. Why do we need free public education? What percent of the public thinks education should be privately provided and not publicly provided…forget who pays for it?”
Greenie: “…an educated populous. And how did the US populous become educated? Not just an education for the elite but an education for everyone, including immigrants, many of whom arrived here illiterate. They were educated through a free public education.”
JC: “While we’re throwing out ideas about education, what about banning busing? Busing seems like a waste of time and money.”
Greenie: “Tell me how a politician is going to campaign against free, quality public education for all? That type campaign, especially in this post-Revenge Revolution environment would be suicide.”
eenie: “Ready for another idea how to really make America great again?”
Jordan: “You mean like Trump, Limbaugh, Hannady, and the former right-wing truthsayer, Bill O’Reilly.”
enie: “Jordan, pulleeeze. Be a bit more diplomatic, will you?”
Jordan: “For now, we’ll include both men and women.”
Jordan: “Eligible at 18 but must begin service by say age 26. A person could get a deferment to attend trade school or college but would need to start by age 26.”
Jordan: “Federal agencies that have operations in most parts of the country. Agencies that serve people locally or work with the states to service people locally.”
Jordan: “Same with EPA. There are lots of areas where an ‘EPA corps’ as it were, could help gather data or fix an issue before it becomes difficult and costly to solve. Just like that old commercial, ‘pay me now or pay me later.’ But later is almost always much more expensive.”
JC: “I can hear it now. Some people are going to claim what we’re proposing will be taking away jobs from others. Or worse yet, conscription will interrupt little Johnnie’s or little Susie’s career that mommy and daddy paid so much to prepare them for. How are we going to counter that argument?”
JC: “…Let me try. #4, forced diversity. Exposure to a wide range of people and backgrounds never hurt anyone. Maybe we, that is societal we, could become a bit more civil if we understood others’ perspectives. Brilliant statement, huh?”
JC: “You know, the time might be right to reinstitute conscription. Since the Revenge Revolution people seem more willing to explore old and new ways of trying to solve problems.”
Greenie: “Jordan, that’s quite a list of ideas about how to make America great again. We’ve got to call this project something else but let’s not spend time on that now. Which item on the list seems like a good place to start?”
JC: “Let’s say there’s no major legal issue. Then how should Federal funds be allocated to the candidates?”
Jordan: “Good points. Try this. Presidential elections get the full $10/head funding. Off-year elections get $5/head allocated.”
JC: “Let me try the math. If I remember Ester’s Algebra class, that would be 200X+435X=$1,700,000,000. Using my hand-dandy phone, x equals almost $2.7 million. So Senate races get about $5.4 million and House races about $2.7 million.”
JC: “3rd-party candidates?”
Greenie: “Now, JC, I mean really. What’s a few billion in a trillion-dollar Federal budget – a rounding error? I agree the approach seems expensive until you begin to add up all the hidden costs with today’s approach to funding elections…and all the backroom deals connected to the funding.”
Greenie: “Because funds will be limited, the approach will likely also force candidates to get out on the campaign trail and meet the voters. Maybe we’ll get fewer negative ad blitzes and more time on the campaign trail.”
Greenie: “Oh, you mean like South Carolina’s Mick Mulvaney? What chutzpah. He bragged to a group of bankers that before he became part of the Trump Administration, he only talked to lobbyists who paid him. Wonder if he stopped the practice when he became director of OMB and consumer protection bureau for Trump? Pardon me — that seems like a rhetorical question.”
Greenie: “He retired from the House. I guess you call it retired if not seeking in November 2018 qualifies as retiring.”
JC: “C’mon, you love it. Now what’s the idea?”
Greenie: “Let’s keep in mind the past does provide some guidance to the future. You do agree with that, don’t you, Jordan?”
Jordan: “For one, Greenie’s articles about the Revenge Revolution. We might have more understanding about the causes of the Revenge Revolution than anyone in Congress, especially incoming members or staffers.”
(Following is the list from the brainstorming session about how to really make America great again. Over the coming blog entries, a number of these ideas will be discussed in more detail.)