Search News


Browse Archives

News

Tears for a For-Profit College's Demise

February 20, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Think of all the ink (or its digital equivalent) that has been spilled in national publications (including this one) over the possible closure of places like Antioch College and the New College of California. Distraught faculty and staff bemoaning lost opportunities for students. Anguished alumni and local residents decrying the potential disappearance of a cherished community asset. And dozens, even hundreds, of faculty and staff members confronted with the loss of their jobs.

Contrast that with the relative silence (here and elsewhere) that greeted last week's announcement that Career Education Corp. planned to "teach out," or slowly close, nine of 11 unprofitable campuses that it had announced in November 2006 that it would try to sell. (The company had previously announced that it would shutter two other troubled campuses.) But as one of our bloggers noted critically, Friday's announcement and most of the coverage of it focused on the decision as a bottom-line call by a for-profit company, after Career Education said it had been unable to find a suitable buyer for the institutions.

But most of the campuses that Career Education plans to sell have much in common with the nonprofit colleges whose potential demise has generated enormous hue and cry from academics elsewhere. Institutions like New Hampshire's McIntosh College and Gibbs College (formerly Katharine Gibbs College), seven of whose campuses Career Education plans to shut, were founded in 1896 and 1911, respectively. They have given a leg up (educationally and professionally) to generations of students, been home to scores of dedicated full-time faculty members with expertise in their fields, and been important institutions in their local areas.

"These campuses had been losing money, and had been losing money for a while. So looking at the financial side of the picture, it's clear that closing them down was a last resort, but the company felt like it had to do something, and sooner rather than later," said Jeffrey M. Silber, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets who studies for-profit higher education. "But putting on my social hat, it's a shame. Some of these schools were sizable, with as many as 1,000 students at various times, and they were significant parts of their communities. It's sad."

Just how sad was clear in a conversation Tuesday with Julia K. Littlefield, a 16-year veteran of the faculty at McIntosh College, in Dover, N.H. Like many instructors at institutions like McIntosh, which was once known as Dover Business College and offers associate degrees in fields such as business management, criminal justice and graphic design, Littlefield joined the college after a career as a lawyer, drawn by the "role it has served, as an open admissions college, educating students who might not be getting into some of the other schools" in the area.... They can come and try to get a college education, and we do an amazing job of turning kids who have maybe self esteem problems or learning issues into high functioning, tax-paying people," she said, adding that she and her colleagues "love this demographic."

As she spoke on the telephone surrounded by other faculty members, Littlefield, who teaches English and legal studies, grew increasingly personal, as well as sorrowful. "I am a retired attorney, was editor of a law review and I could have taught in many other kinds of institutions. I came here because we have the power to really change people. But now I'm being stripped of that possibility. When I was in class today, people were crying, I was crying. This is a family," she said, her voice breaking. "I'm 57 years old. I may look good on paper, but I'm not the most marketable person. It's going to be hard for me to go out on the market, but the market is really hard, and I doubt many of us will get new teaching jobs. I really thought I would retire here."

Factors in the Decision

Lynne Baker, a spokeswoman for Career Education Corp., acknowledged the difficult situation in which employees and students at McIntosh and the other campuses find themselves. She insisted, though, that the company had done everything it could to try to sustain the colleges and is doing its best to take care of their people.

Career Education officials "were working very hard to try to sell" the campuses after concluding, in late 2006, that 13 of the company's 90-plus campuses -- 9 that operate in the Northeast as either Katherine Gibbs School or Gibbs College, two Brooks College campuses in California, Lehigh Valley College, in Pennsylvania, and McIntosh College, in New Hampshire -- had combined to lose $30 million in the first nine months of 2006, and that it planned to sell them.

In addition to losing money -- and perhaps contributing to that fact -- many of the campuses targeted by Career Ed had faced scrutiny from either government regulators or investigative reporters. The Katharine Gibbs colleges, one-time secretarial schools that trained generations of young (mostly) women in the Northeast and have struggled to stay relevant, were among the Career Education institutions featured in a highly critical “60 Minutes” report in 2005. Lehigh Valley came under scrutiny from the Pennsylvania attorney general in 2006. And Brooks College, which the company sold off in 2007, got into serious hot water with officials in California. (McIntosh seemed not to have any major regulatory issues.)

"We were very much working hard to try to sell the colleges. We truly could not come to an agreement that was going to be acceptable to the purchaser and to us in terms of protecting the long- and short-term interests of our students, faculty and staff," Baker said. Friday's decision, which involves phasing out McIntosh, Lehigh Valley and seven Gibbs colleges and transforming two other Gibbs campuses into the company's Sanford-Brown Institutes, "was not made easily," she said.

As for the treatment of students and of professionals like Littlefield, Baker said that the company has sought to protect them throughout the process. At the time the plan to sell the colleges was announced, in November 2006, "we did give faculty and staff 'stay bonuses' to ensure both for them and for our students that we would be continuing to provide the services that students need," she said. Career Education is doing the same thing now, she said, offering bonuses to full-time faculty members who choose to stay with McIntosh and the other institutions until they shut down. And for those employees who are laid off, she said -- as admissions officials already have been, given the decision to take in no new students -- "they will have severance in accordance with the company's severance policies."

Some of those affiliated with McIntosh and other colleges challenge the account of Career Education officials. Trustees of McIntosh told Seacoast Online, the Internet arm of The Portsmouth Herald and several other Southern New Hampshire newspapers, that they had been rebuffed by company officials when they sought to buy McIntosh. (Although the company has owned the college since 1997, the college continues to be overseen by a Board of Trustees, on which Career Education is represented.) "The trustees are all local so we wanted to see if local control or local ownership was a possibility," Paul Flynn, a local school administrator and chairman of the McIntosh Board of Trustees, told the newspaper. "We received very little response on those inquiries. CEC may have felt on occasions that they had parties interested in a group of schools rather than one individual college, but they didn't seem interested in selling us the one school." (Supporters of Gibbs campuses in Boston and elsewhere expressed similar sentiments in The Boston Globe and other newspapers.)

Baker, the Career Education spokeswoman, said in response that "we evaluated every offer we received and we have worked very hard since November 2006 to sell these schools. We certainly would have preferred to sell the schools rather than teach them out."

Several faculty members at McIntosh also say they had not received bonuses to stay in 2006, and they noted that the company's offer to them to stay now was merely two weeks' pay. (Baker responded that the employees were told in 2006 that those who stayed would receive bonuses 90 days after a sale had been completed, and Career Education is now "enriching the stay bonus for those employees who were originally eligible for the bonus, and will be providing all current employees a stay bonus to encourage them to stay with us through the teach-out.") Still, most of them say they have no intention of leaving, given that they have full-time jobs now and many feel as if their prospects on the market are not great.

They express a mix of feelings. Some is frustration, citing the heavy administrative turnover at the college since Career Education took over -- seven presidents in eight years, by several accounts -- and price setting policies that put McIntosh's cost to students far above those of other nearby institutions, and out of reach of many of its hardscrabble students.

But mostly they feel a sense of lost opportunity, for themselves and for students. "Most of us came here even though there was never a tenure track," said Littlefield. "We just wanted to be around this beautiful, sweet, lovely college, and assumed it would be around at least for our lives. Looks like we were wrong."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Tears for a For-Profit College's Demise

  • Posted by Karen M on February 20, 2008 at 7:40am EST
  • McIntosh College was a fine small college serving an important need before Career Ed bought them out. It's interesting that when the focus went from educating students to improving the bottom line the college began to fail.

  • Katharine Gibbs as Legacy
  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 20, 2008 at 7:55am EST
  • The saddest thing that ever happened was a one-time school system that empowered women to make something of themselves has been destroyed by shareholders, a corporate culture of greed, and failure to put people first, ethics last. There are many such schools, and not always run by CEC.

    Katharine Gibbs in Vienna VA (one of the teach-out schools) used to be Washington Business School, a school with a similar mission and long history of success as a mom and pop. But small mom and pops rarely survive in high cost of living areas like D.C. Metro, and the owners were forced to sell. What happened when CEC came in?

    Teachers and administrators who had worked there for years were fired. As middle management, I and others were asked to fire people like an 80-year old lady who had worked there her entire life. I couldn't do it. The "President" did. I was asked to terminate or cut hours of teachers who had worked there for 10+ years. "They are out of date," I was told. "They don't want to learn anything new." "The students don't like them."

    I couldn't do it. Neither could others in my position. And the faculty DID want to learn! They needed the opportunity, positive environments, and the chance to express themselves. The corporation would not provide that opportunity. So other teachers and I within the school tried on our own.

    Then came the leeching....the inner city students struggling to even GET to the school, the promises of jobs, the lies about campus facilities, the high interest loans, the mistreatment of the disabled...I could go on and on. No wonder the schools were losing money. They were abusing their human capital. That's not the school I thought I was working for. I thought I was hired to live up to the name of Katharine Gibbs.

    When something like this happens, teachers and students who don't know the structure of the industry or the whole story blame it all on "disgruntled employees" or "a few disgruntled students," never understanding the onus has always been on the corporation, the accreditors who have turned blind eyes, and the government agencies who have sold themselves to lenders and corporate lobbyists.

    NONE of this has to happen. These schools CAN be salvaged by PRIVATE schools whose aim is to service the public, not necessarily their over-stuffed pocketbooks. There ARE ways to run schools like these effectively and profitably. If they want ideas, they can meet with successful schools who do it well without hurting teachers or students.

    There are still many such schools, but they are NOT Wall-Street or political pawns.

    And NO WAY should these schools be allowed to simply change names, recycle management and owners, and continue on. This happens too many times; history continues to repeat itself, and states allow it to happen.

    Successful private schools are groups of educators who have a common goal, ethics, and a right to earn a DECENT living--not millions off the backs of students. They invest in teacher education as a means to serving students. They provide stellar student services. They are the GOOD GUYS in private higher ed.

    Even after all I have seen in this industry, I still believe in good guys. I have worked for one private school for more than five years, and while I have never earned a lot of money or benefits (like every other adjunct across America), I have always been treated fairly and honestly. My students are impressive, and they receive support. I am proud to be an adjunct for them.

    CEC ruined not just a school but a heritage in less than ten years, a school Katharine Gibbs had running successfully since 1911. (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E2DD1031F936A2575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

    Bring Katharine back the respect she deserves! Return her to her former self, a former source of real hope for the disadvantaged. Katharine doesn't need to do it with white gloves and pantyhose, but she CAN do it for today's students and alums. Honor the legacy of Katharine Gibbs.

  • Posted by Jim on February 20, 2008 at 8:25am EST
  • A for profit organization is just that, for profit. This type of organization has empathy for its students, but they must produce, if they do not produce then they should be closed.

    Yes it is 'sad' that these schools are closing, but how many more are just opening up? There will always be 'losers' and 'winners' in our economic system.

    To say the students are losers, I wonder. Did they not get what the paid for? A quick education with out all the bells and whistles of a true academic experience?

    Most people confuse the role of proprietary schools, that is to make a profit based on delivering services to students. There are no guarantees. Like everything else the 'buyer beware' sign is in full force.

    There are no 'quick and easy' educational answers. Education is hard work. Students must work hard to make the grade. If they chose to believe all the promises, etc, well then the student will get what they pay for. A wise man said "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn't"

    Students must take responsibility for their actions, if they go to a profit school, they need to understand exactly what they are receiving: job training some of it is good and some of it is not so good. What they do with that training is up to the student, not the place they received it. It is like a true 4 year college education, what a student does with it, depends on the student. Some students chose to be 'victims' and blame others for their short comings.

    Again, it is sad to see any school close, but for everyone that closes another one will spring up to take its place in the grand scheme of education. Our federal system of grants and loans makes this all possible.

  • Buyer Beware is Bunk
  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 20, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • Jim I agree with you on most counts, but when school reps actually LIE to students about services, deny legally required accommodations for students with disabilities, target vulnerable groups like minorities for admissions and loans, prey on people who don't understand academic structure or interest rates, don't tell students they have no consumer protection, don't explain the difference between a Wall Street school and a Private School, sell themselves on accreditation but don't have the programs or success rates to show for it.....it's more than just "buyer beware." It's fraud.

  • tears for for -profit college's demise
  • Posted by rosanne on February 20, 2008 at 9:25am EST
  • I taught at one for years and teach in a similar type of program now, altho this one is a "certificate" program within a college. However, both programs attracted the same student body--mostly those who did NOT have the "ability to benefit" from a college education. Dropout rates and attrition were high--financial "aid" all-too-strangling..need I go on? And this leaves us, the instructors, without stable employment. That's the real shame--if you want to attract great faculty, you must attract a student body that really wants to learn, and not just those looking to coast or waste time.

  • 'bye, Katie
  • Posted by Comm Prof on February 20, 2008 at 9:25am EST
  • Katie Gibbs had been dying under successive corporate owners for a good 20 years. I worked at KGS in Boston (one of the originals) as a part-time paralegal instructor from early 1988 to late 1991. I left to do a Ph.D. shortly after everyone's pay was slashed 10%. For me, that was the handwriting on the wall. I still have the coffee mug commemorating the move from Arlington Street to Boylston Street, though.

  • For-Profit Schools are Dangerous
  • Posted by Jenny on February 20, 2008 at 9:25am EST
  • The for-profit problems seen recently in the college arena is also infiltrating into the high school and even elementary school world. The British Schools of America run some for-profit schools that have made some of the very same decisions that the proprietary colleges have made; they put profits before students. I agree with the "buyer beware" caveat, but also think that companies running these type of schools are very savvy in the way they market these schools. Parents and students don't always realize that a money making corporation is behind the "excellence in education" trademarks.

  • All is not lost
  • Posted by Greg Harris on February 20, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • I understand people’s frustrations that are close to all this. Jobs being lost, reputations on the line, alumni and current students who wonder if maybe “buyer beware” is the case…but this graduate of one of CEC’s schools AIU (whom has just went though a living hell); plus another non accredited private institution whom is completely disrespected….. so bad that I want even mention their name( a good school too)…yet I agree with Jim. A degree is only as good as one is able to apply it to the real world, I said this before here and will say it again….a degree and two bucks will get you bus ride in New York, Chicago, London and any other place with a Mass Transit System.

    Success in life has nothing to do with what school you have on your resume nor if your school closed after ten years or one hundred years. Even some great Non-for Profit schools such as George Williams College gets assimilated or names change to Aurora University or have a special place on campus as a reminder of a great legacy. We all hope to be associated with a long legacy such as William & Mary or University of Edinburgh but America is a young country with new ideas yet old beliefs and change is perpetual and dynamic.

    Education for me has never stopped and it’s not about a destination but all about the ride. For-Profits accommodate that riding process and are never about arriving to a comfortable end. Sure opening a door or two does help but believing in one’s own self, selling one’s self and skill set plus knowing that come rain or shine when one door closes a window opens.

    Those of you reading this and close to the flame on such fine schools closing up need to understand…life does not end with CEC closing these schools in fact change is good…good for the students who never really tried, good for the Professors who were lucky enough to be in a such a cushy position and never really cared and good for the future of some great modern day for profit schools such as UOP or AIU and dozens of others who are trying to change the face of education to accommodate the futurist learner and educator …..and that is something the Non for Profits have trouble with. And for those of you who tried and cared….in life if you get knocked down….try and land on your back…because if you can look up…you can get up.

  • Posted by An observer of higher education on February 20, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • One tragedy about the Katherine Gibbs school in Rhode Island is that it was profitable while it was located in Providence. Career Education made the decision to build a large, expensive facility in Cranston and charged the building debt to the school's bottom line, which made the campus "unprofitable." Career Education could have found an additional tenant for the unused space in the new building, and the rent would have flipped the operation to profitability. So bad business decisions by Career Education led to the demise of a otherwise viable and useful institution.

  • Posted by Utahprof on February 20, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Well-I find this kind of interesting-especially as I have started to teach for a for-profit in addition to my state school job.

    I think the cautionary tale at work here is that maybe the market is not the best model for everything.

    I have no real complaints about the for profit for which I work. Their pedagogy seems to be sound. I do miss some of the autonomy I have in "my classes" that I teach for the state school, but I did know it was going to be different going in.

    I don't see the two as being in competition with each other (although curiously enough my state school is starting a "degree completion" program to compete with a for-profit, which has a learning center located right across the street).

    One of the reasons I signed on with the for-profit was to learn how to do online teaching better and to make a little more money. I don't see it as my career, but I do see it as a fallback for when I get to my "twilight years" and can maybe do it for some retirement income.

    I'll tell you one thing I do like about it.

    When I'm putting in my mandatory "office hours" for the for-profit I am getting some of my academic writing done.

  • For Profit schools
  • Posted by R.F. on February 20, 2008 at 11:20am EST
  • This is a very simple issue that the advocates of For Profit schools alway gloss over as unimportant. Mission is everything!

    The mission of schools is to educate!

    The mission of For profit business is too make profit.

    These two missions are in conflict with each other.

    A non profit college will always put education first and adjust accordingly.

    A For Profit college will always put profit first and adjust accordingly.

    The nonprofit will use the tools of management and finance to advance their mission of education.

    The for profit will use the tools of management and finance to increase profit.

    Education as a mission at a for profit will always be a second tier concern. Management will use their knowledge to maximize profit first. Cutting programs, instructors, janitors, food service or whatever is needed to show a profit.

    Management at a nonprofit will use their knowledge to maximize education cutting expenses or raising income only where it will preserve or advance the mission of education.

    Bottom line thinking is only good for one thing; i.e. Bottom line thinking!

  • Did CEC Really Want to sell?
  • Posted by Bob Barker , President at BEST LLC on February 20, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • I really have to wonder if they wanted to salvage some of these schools? I tried to contact CEC officials several times to no avail. Not one of my communications were returned despite my ability to perform, in terms of a purchase, or my ability to run campuses (Retired Executive of a for-profit college).

    I have spent quite a bit of time in New England and Katherine Gibbs is a well known regional brand that should have been given another chance.

    My guess is that they only pitched the schools to folks who spent time looking at the financials and did not consider the fact that there may be value beyond their spreadsheets. In my opinion, succesful colleges, regardless of their profit status, do well because they have good leadership and they value their faculty, students and employees.

  • Check out CEC Now!
  • Posted by Jack Zork on February 20, 2008 at 12:05pm EST
  • CEC has now decided to close the Los Angeles campus of their American Intercontinental University system even though that campus has become the crown jewel in the AIU system. Why are they closing it? Purely for profit motive--to impress the stock market. After all, CEC's stock has plummeted so someone had to pay. Whom? The faculty, staff and students, that's who. For-profit based schools are a failed model.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 20, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • AIU has an extensive history of accreditation problems. It's a regionally accredited school that CEC has managed to ruin.

    RF, you are generalizing. There are also many non-profits that operate on the same "sleaze level" as bad CEC schools.

    Finally, I am convinced a school can be for-profit and serve students without ripping them off, over-charging them, or leaving them crippled. I am NOT convinced any college that has Wall Street and big corporate overlords will ever have the incentive to do right by students and faculty.

  • Common Objectives of Failed Colleges
  • Posted by Haim Baruh at Rutgers University on February 20, 2008 at 2:40pm EST
  • When one looks at the failed colleges, one see that they all have one of the two objectives: 1) To advance their ideology, or 2) To make money by any means possible.

    None of these institutions (if they can be called that) have the best interest of the students in mind. The colleges with ideologies do not offer a broad and comprehensive education, instead their programs are the most repressive. Eventually, their approach backfires.

    The colleges where the bottom line is money will do or say anything to attract students, regardless of background, talent or ability. And, they will give a diploma regardless of what the student's performance in college is. These for-profit entities have boiler room operations, they make cold calls, and they make amazing promises, which, of course, lies.

    Eventually, the fraud perpetrated by these colleges catch up with the students. Unfortunately, it is too late for many of the students, who waste four years of their time, and end up with a useless diploma, and thousands of dollars in debt.

    One should not forget that what fuels these fraud colleges is the easy availability of money. While I am a big proponent of making student loans available for needy students, I also think that there should be more oversight in the process of awarding loans and scrutinizing the educational institution.

  • For Profit vs. Non Profit
  • Posted by Nadia on February 20, 2008 at 3:15pm EST
  • One aspect of the for profit sector that needs to be addressed in these discussions is whether the intitution is privately or publicly held. I know from extensive personal experience that there are excellent for profit colleges as well as absolutely terrible ones. The best ones seem to be privately held, and usually have regional accreditation. Their missions honestly emphasize student satisfaction and success - building an institution's reputation with employers and securing future students through referral is simply good business. The publicly held institutions seem to always degrade in response to constant pressure from their stockholders. The reactions to quarterly earnings become more and more knee-jerk until the basic integrity of the educational offering is compromised. An interesting trend is several previously public for profits moving to private ownership. Time will tell if this will allow the colleges to better navigate the often fragile line between quality education and profitability.

  • CEC bad business not bad education
  • Posted by Ex-CEC on February 20, 2008 at 6:15pm EST
  • Not all for-profit colleges should be judged on the failure of CEC to run either a college or a profitable business. There are many for-profit schools some of them claiming to be not-for-profit (fund balance, surplus, rainy day fund, endowment anyone) that are very sound academically. They educate, train and help students on their way to excellent lives and futures. There are also some very poorly run not-for-profits that do not provide a good education.

    It is very enticing to use the failure of CEC to run profitable schools and say “See. They all are bad educationally.” That does not follow. CEC is closing the schools not because of poor education. They are closing them because CEC runs a bad business. If we closed all the not-for-profits for running bad businesses, we might not have enough colleges period.

    CEC is a corporation run by people who do not know how to do business. They really do not care about learning and educating. They are blood sucking amateurs playing at both education and business. Yes, they have made themselves rich but destroyed their assets, the schools and the people who run them to do so. Their model is to suck out all their assets as they did with all of these schools. Then use the assets to buy new schools to drain and over and over. Sort of like academic chalices for the vampires of Chicago – drained until they are bloodless. Just look at the schools they have owned the longest. They are the ones most in trouble. Gee, just like Gibbs, Brown, Mac, Lehigh………

    CEC drains successful schools of all their “profits” as well as their ability to function in so doing. They set arbitrarily high goals for schools that cannot be met and then fire people for not meeting them. But to save more money, they do not rehire replacements. They just eat away at the school’s operating ability, staff, and operating funds by demanding a margin/EBITA be met even if it means firing most everyone needed to make the school work, deferring maintenance, to feed the greed, avarice and egos in Chicago.

    And they manage to not just suck schools dry to slake their thirst but they bleed dry the people they hire too. Their HR policies think that summarily firing a person who worked for them for decades with no reason and 30 minutes to vacate an office is good practice. I know all too well of that policy. Someone looking for a thesis would do well to study CEC as a how not to do business.

    But once out of Chicago and away from the fiends they send out to do their dirty work in the field, what happened in the classroom was as good as anywhere else. Dedicated teachers teaching and students succeeding. Just as it is in most good for-profit and not-for-profit schools.

    Blame CEC for being terrible business people but do not blame the individual schools or all career schools.

  • Student Lending, For Profit Education, and the Credit Crunch
  • Posted by Josh Grinstead , Director of Business Development at TFC Credit Corporation on February 20, 2008 at 6:15pm EST
  • Times are indeed hard right now in the education industry—especially regarding student financing. Budgets are being slashed, payrolls are getting cut, masses of students are being turned away, and the end is not yet near. Each day student loan requirements become increasingly tighter and each day more students are rejected. Fortunately there are innovative, proven, and highly effective ways to increase enrollments and revenue in these and any market conditions.

    As our industry faces these unprecedented challenges, private lending—for much publicized reasons—can no longer be depended upon to fund the tuition gap left by government-backed grants and loans. Schools themselves are now pressured and challenged to find alternative financing for students. Stakeholders, stockholders, and students all demand a quick and effective solution. In their recent call to action, the Career College Association (CCA) noted that if left unchecked, “the situation could foreclose access to higher education for thousands of borrowers.” According the CCA President Harris N. Miller, “Access to private lending is absolutely critical for many working adults to bridge the gap between federal grant and loan program limits and actual program costs.” It is a business-survival imperative that the industry should seek inventive alternative financing solutions now.

    Furthermore, in times of economic slowdown, the prospect of displaced workers reinvesting in their education has always been a well-known part of the for-profit education’s sustainability. We are on the cusp of such an occasion now. But as the big-name players have left sub-prime loans and recourse lending, not only could institutions lose their base student market, but they could also fail to seize upon this new opportunity in their inability to finance the probable influx of adult-learners that come with recessionary economies. It’s definitely time to get creative.

    What’s more though, is the moral obligation the industry at-large shares to provide fair rates to prospective students and profitable financing options to schools. It’s a matter that consumers, schools, and government must indeed work collectively to resolve (as called for by CCA President Miller) because economic growth and a healthy society demands the skilled labor provided by for-profit education institutions. In most cases, the curricula instructed at for-profit institutions are for skilled positions that cannot be outsourced, off-shored, or easily down-sized. The education is market-driven as well – highlighting what works versus theory, which is invaluable to the students competing in a global market. And as we are facing an economic down cycle, now more than ever we have to work to maintain (and preferably exceed) the growth metrics forecasted before the bottom fell out of the student lending sector. That means taking student financing into our own hands. It is a survival and ethical obligation to ourselves and our students.

    So what can we do? One thing all schools, school systems, and education corporations should definitely not do is wait for government intervention or help from institutional banking. Government action will be far too slow to affect the short term, and the market is far too shaky for commercial banking to offer loans to sub-prime candidates—now and for the foreseeable future. There will be attempts to recover some of the sub-prime student market, but it will purposefully fall short due to the perceived risk. Schools large and small are summoned to find ways to fill this void previously covered by private lending. And even with some assistance from institutional banking - that’s no small hole. Industry insiders estimate that private loans cover on average 20% - 50% of student tuition depending on a school’s state, course of study, tuition, program length, and demographic.

    The good news is there are ways to mitigate these challenges: endowments, school-based scholarships, employee reimbursement plans, direct-to-employer partnerships, extended payment plans (EPPs), fellowships, work-study programs, school-employee scholarship funds, articulation agreements, the use of financial services partners, corporate sponsorships, alumni contributions, and other creative solutions will all come into play. But it comes down to smart alternative student financial planning. According to Stanley Sobel, President of TFC Credit Corporation, “In nearly four decades of service in the education industry, alternative financing solutions have always been a critical part of effective student financial planning and growth. But never has there been such an industry-wide critical need for the use of alternative financing and recourse financing plans. Education corporations and individual schools are encouraged to reach out to alternative financing service companies with a proven expertise in their field, and reexamine their approaches to lending, payment plans, tuition, spending, and recourse loans.

    Options that will most likely play into student financing in the short-term are the use of third-party accounts receivable servicing to cost-effectively keep receivables high; the employment of extended payment plans on a more widespread basis to manage the tuition gap; and the use of recourse loans (for private institutions these are often used as a cash flow tool and to maintain a good cash position; and for public education corporations these are often used to maintain solid quick ratio and current ratio to keep stock prices peaked).

    Recourse loans, and the ability to select which students are good candidates for such plans, will be invaluable in times of capital investment and situations where spending is needed for marketing campaigns. Schools will have more control over which students can be approved and much greater control over their fiscal fortunes by properly implementing such options. There is risk, but there are also best practices and actions that can minimize this risk and turn recourse loans into a viable part of student planning, growth, and fiscal solvency. Student financing companies can consult and liaise with schools seeking to explore these options.

    Extended Payment Plans (EPPs) will have to see greater use as well. This will require a culture shift from disbursement-based planning to a more steady annuity model – as students formerly funded with private loan disbursements will no longer meet the new standards of qualification. Schools don’t want to lose the students, therefore the EPPs is the best, easiest option. In this model, schools will see the revenue shift from a cash upfront plan to a student volume based revenue stream approach - but once a critical mass of students are financed via EPPs, the revenue will level out and actually allow schools to focus on more reliable growth than quarter to quarter mania. These EPP paying students should also be serviced by student financing professionals as well, as the credibility and expertise of a national third-party finance company will bring greater returns on receivables extended past graduation.

    The important thing to remember is that schools and education corporations large and small can take control of their destiny and turn crisis into opportunity by smartly utilizing the right cocktail of the aforementioned alternative funding resources. Where there’s a will there’s a way—and if schools are willing to challenge conventional wisdom, think creatively, leverage risk with opportunity, and invest in their students as an investment into themselves, they will find gold at the end of the rainbow for all.

    About TFC Credit Corporation
    With operations centers in New York and San Francisco, TFC Credit Corporation has served over 2,500 schools and 250,000 students in 38 years. Founded in 1970 by Stanley Sobel, TFC is a recognized industry leader in alternative student financing solutions and renowned for customer service and best practices excellence. TFC’s clients range from multinational education corporations to small individual schools. Our expertise is helping schools grow through smart, effective student financing solutions.

    TFC Credit Corporation. Student Financing Solutions since 1970.

    TFC Contact: Joshua Grinstead. Director of Business Development.
    www.tfccredit.com. 1.800.832.2733

  • Education
  • Posted by Greg Harris on February 20, 2008 at 6:15pm EST
  • Well folks I personally have little faith in the traditional route and For-Profits are expert marketers which ‘is’ a red flag for greed and greed does happen (both for and none profit)…except proprietary based education is wave of the future via Online Education…I mean…. what other way can it be done?; and Online is here to stay with the For Profits adjusting quarterly and leading the way annually.

    Non-Linear Online Education i.e.… e-books (reading while surfing covering several of Blooms Tax ideals) chat rooms, synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunism with Instant Messaging and live interaction with the right savvy IT literate professor, electronic white boards with enhanced chatting for group discussions plus archives storing for viewing after the fact .E-mail and multi media presentations via mathematical extreme learning applications such as Excel ,Quattro Pro and PowerPoint.

    All the above are offered in both Non for Profit and For Profit Institutions …except the later is funded without question with the former needing to go though chains of levels for approval and questioning of the vision based in the tradition etc, etc, etc…with a up to date education never coming into real focus and only some Professor’s ego still needing to be burst from to much hot air.

  • Amazing, yet so predictable....
  • Posted by Interested Observer on February 20, 2008 at 6:35pm EST
  • It never fails to amaze me how quickly the hawks come down to feed on the popularly publicized misfortunes of for-profit education. Despite having received a bachelors and MBA from two of the country’s most prestigious (campus-based) universities, I feel that I have to speak out, because it is clear that a balanced perspective is not being provided.

    First, the notion that ‘non-profit’ universities put education before profit is laughable -- perhaps Orwelian, at the very least naïve. Look at the size of most private schools’ endowments. Look at the growth rate in not-for-profit tuitions over time as compared to inflation. Look at a student ‘selection’ process that gives favor to children of alumni, and most importantly, alumni who have proven to be significant benefactors. Tell the aspiring high school student that didn’t get into my college that his place was instead taken by the otherwise unqualified child of a major benefactor. Then ask that disappointed prospect whether not-for-profits truly put education ahead of profit. What about a system that gives favor to students who elect ‘early admissions’ on the guise of virtue, but implicitly recognizes that most students who are able to accept early are those who can pay full tuition. Sorry folks, I’ve only listed a couple of examples (there are many more), but I think you get the point.

    Second point – the failure of the higher education system to deliver on its promise. For-profit education would never have come to existence if private higher-ed was adequately meeting the needs of the population. Less than 30% of the population has at least a bachelors degree. And there’s a huge gap between those that want to go to school, and those that can, and do. Traditional higher education continues to sit on its laurels and deliver service based on a model that was developed over 100 years ago, when college was ‘reserved’ for a few elite families. But times have changed, and the system hasn’t. For-profit education, and the popularity of a ‘customer-centric’ model should be viewed as a wake-up call.

    Yes, for-profit education is run with the bottom line in mind. But they wouldn’t be in business long if they weren’t delivering something of value to the student. Yes, it’s often a different kind of education (leaning towards applied skills vs. theory), and sometimes the ‘wrong’ student does end up in a classroom. But that phenomenon isn’t limited to for-profit schools. My ‘less-than-qualified’ friend whose father’s generosity got him admitted to my college barely squeaked by with C- average. Yet his diploma looks no different than mine. Conclusion: Bottom line matters to all – perhaps with some exception given to public (state) universities, but even they are forced to compete for limited government resources.

    Does the profit motive cause bad decisions to be made? Sometimes it does, and that’s unfortunate. But not-for-profit education is not immune to poor decision making. The difference is that NFP education is not put under the same microscope, and whenever someone attempts to do this, their efforts are thwarted by a powerful status-quo establishment.

    Remember too, that it’s progressive ‘for-profit’ education companies that are among the strongest proponents of outcome-based evaluation of education. Why has traditional education resisted any attempt to be graded on any measure besides student selectivity and faculty credentials?

    For-profit education has to be watched closely, and those that do not deliver true value to the student have to be weeded out from the others. But instead of being critical, and admonishing an entire sector, not-for-profit education could probably learn a few lessons from those FP’s who have enrolled, graduated, and improved the lives of thousands who would never have had the opportunity otherwise.

    You might read this and think I’m a ‘for-profit’ lover. I’m not. I’m actually quite ambivalent on the subject. And I don’t disagree with many of the points raised against FP education. This response leans towards the FP’s because all others here are so heavily tilted the other way. We must take our collective heads out of the sand, open our minds, and only then might we be able to truly deliver a product that is both acceptable and blessed by academia and desired and valued by the students.

  • The Honest Truth
  • Posted by future unemployed faculty member , No tears for Career Education on February 20, 2008 at 6:40pm EST
  • How does CEC define "acceptable offer"? How is it in the best "short and long term" interest of the students, faculty and staff to close a school that has been part of the community for over 100 years? CEC did everything they could to bury McIntosh College. They never intended to sell the school. They have been pumping out lies since they put McIntosh College up for sale. They charged so much for a degree that they priced themselves out of the market. If they truly cared about the students, faculty and staff, they would have allowed interested buyers to continue operating McIntosh College by turning over the school's charter to the interested buyer. Since CEC is writing the school off as a tax loss, they could have goodwilled it, since they are so concerned about the "best interest" of the students, faculty and staff. The only interest they have is for the bottom line and their shareholders. The problem with CEC is that their top level managers are taking too much profit for their salaries and stock options, while they whine about their underperforming schools. The want the whole pie, and let the crumbs trickle down to the lowly faculty members, who were played for fools. I don't know how anyone could invest in such a sleazeball company. Some might say that closing the college could be potential retribution for the attempts of faculty to unionize on 2 occasions. I don't think the management at CEC is shedding tears when they think of all the faculty and staff heading to the unemployment line, losing their benefits and insurance, their retirement plans, and their way of life. The management doesn't have to worry if they get axed, they will all walk away millionares after they sell their stock options, while the faculty walk away with a week's pay for each year of service.

  • Profit-Takers
  • Posted by Tara McCluskey on February 20, 2008 at 9:35pm EST
  • CEC manage to destroy 3 brands and now more than a dozen institutions when you add in Los Angeles and Canada.

    They have the same M.O. in each school that they buy. Replace the President (many times with an Associate Degree holder from one of they other crappy schools,...or even less, hire hundreds of Admission Reps, who could not gain admission to their own schools and are usually not college grads....over charge students...under pay the educators...spend millions on lawyers and consultants to overcome legal, political, and regulatory problems...roll in as much cash as possible, and leave when the going gets tough...That is what they did to the McIntosh, Lehigh, Gibbs, Brooks, and the others.

    The folks that say there is no difference between For-Profit and non-profit juat have no idea what kind of crowd CEC is...no idea whatsoever.

    Mcintosh, Lehigh, Gibbs...hundreds of years of history down the drain...shame on them all.

  • kgotthardt
  • Posted by R.F. on February 21, 2008 at 8:40am EST
  • "RF, you are generalizing. There are also many non-profits that operate on the same “sleaze level” as bad CEC schools."

    I am neither generalizing, not categorizing as "sleaze". I did not say that either sets of managers were sleazy. My argument was that the managers would be true to their core mission. For profit managers are working for profit. Nonprofit managers are working for their core mission, however stated.

    One does not blame a duck for acting like a duck. By definition, for profits can never put education first because to do so would lower profits, which is not their charge.

    It is one thing to make a widget of any kind, eg a snowblower or flashlight. It is quite another to educate a person.

  • Gibbs Is Not a 'Bad' School
  • Posted by Weary Adjunct on February 21, 2008 at 12:45pm EST
  • Gibbs is not a 'bad' school and never has been. As a faculty member who works at both non-profit colleges and Gibbs as an adjunct, I challenge anyone to say that I provide a different learning experience or opportunity to the students in my Gibbs classes. I don't. I never would because I view that as unethical. In all of my classes, I am there to help the students succeed and provide the same educational opportunity regardless. Believe me when I tell you, teaching students who were ill-prepared by their high school educations is no easy task. But, we take up that challenge every day, semester-after-semester, fighting a battle against a corporate owner who doesn't care and a society who would rather these students disappear into 'nice, cushy' jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

    I am beyond tired of hearing from academics who view themselves as superior because they have a lofty, tenured position in a non-profit school. I'm tired of the newspaper articles written by individuals with obvious prejudice who over-generalize and tell one side of the story. To those individuals, I challenge you to go 'slumming' and teach a class in one of these schools that you are so fond of criticizing. Find out what you are talking about before you heap on your negativity. Feel the reward that comes from the appreciation of students because they struggled, but kept trying, and you didn't give up on them. See the pride they feel and the tears in their parents' eyes when you meet them at graduation. Listen to the excitement that just having a 'chance' creates. Will you continue to advocate for taking it all away from them? Will you continue to criticize them and their education as invalid or sub-par? I wonder.

    We can talk about mission statements and finances running the corporate headquarters. That may be true. However, don't make the mistake of thinking that the faculty have the same mission statement or cares about finances. We don't. We care about our students and their education. We fight for their rights in and out of the classroom every single day. We will continue to do so every day until the last student has graduated and the doors are locked.

  • Tears for a For-Profit College's Demise
  • Posted by Jo Evans Coleman on February 21, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • As a former administrator for a for-profit University, I came to the institution with great expectations as I had in the non-for profits institutions I had served in. Shockingly, I found that the business side of education superseded the realities of learning for students. Marketing strategies by the University were done in a way that deceived students into thinking that the acquisition of a doctoral degree could be obtained in 2 years (including coursework and dissertation).

    Students became accustomed to not recieving quality instruction by a vast majority of faculty who had never taught in higher education, the University's executive administration were from either K-12 public education or other not so related professions. Oh yes, more than 90% of the student population in the University were of various minority groups whose ability to obtain entrance into traditional graduate schools would not be a reality.

    Alarmingly, most of the students do/did not understand the nature of obtaining a terminal degree and resorted to "by any means necessary" strategies in completing requirements for the respective degrees. This included: extreme documented plagiarism, solicitation of outside sources to write chapters of the dissertation, analyze statistical data which the student could not explain as well as such unethical behaviors by faculty of "charging students fees for some of the said services while being on the payroll of the University.

    Prior to my departure approximately (less than 6 months) one-half of the students were "stuck in the pipeline" of the ABD (all but dissertation) mode without any end in sight. Many had exhausted the maximum allowance of student financial aid for graduate students (high debt ratios) and no degree to show for it.

    In summation, for profit higher education should be monitored more closely by authorities (DOE, finaical aid lending institutions, and educational think-tanks and accreditation agencies) for the practices of "making profits" on the backs of venerable student populations.

    Dismayed Higher Educator

  • Posted by A former CEC adjunct on February 23, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • I spent a year and a half as an adjunct at a CEC school before moving on to a postdoc and then a tenure-track position. I loved working at the school, I found my students to be fascinating people whom I could have fun working with, and I liked my colleagues.

    At the same time, every faculty meeting had a bunch of ominous news and announcements from on high. I liked the school, but I've always been wary of the organization above the school.

    I don't really think the problem is the profit motive. Prestigious schools with big tuitions, big endowments, and big fundraising operations may not be "for profit" on paper, but they are certainly money-motivated. Some of those schools are quite screwed up in their own way. Private non-profit schools and public schools have been known to have their share of budget problems.

    The problem seems to be organizational: CEC is just plain bad news. I don't know enough about the higher administrative issues to say exactly what it is (I stayed away from administrative and bureaucratic matters). All I know is what I read in the paper, and I'd say that there's a sleazy organization doing everything in its power to screw up good schools.

    If I had to guess, I'd say it's not so much the profit motive (like I said, more prestigious schools can be just as money-motivated) as it is the lack of any other motive. At those big schools with big fundraising machines, their goal is to be a school that takes in a lot of money. But it's still to be a school. You don't make money running a business if you don't understand the business you're in. Those money-driven elite schools know what running a school is about, and they try to rake in as much money as they can within that business model. But they still know what their business model is.

  • For Profit Education
  • Posted by Trooper on March 4, 2008 at 9:00pm EST
  • I have been in the business for over 10 years. The industry has changed drastically. The main focus ten years ago was to educate, train, and help students obtain employment. Now the focus is soley on enrollment -- make the bottom line or else. I believe that everyone should have access to education. What needs to be done in the industry is to have a four week "boot camp" to work with the disadvantaged. Administrator and instructor turnover is due to extreme greed and outlandish requests. I am willing to bet that the top administrators have never ran a profit school. They look at the only thing they know EBT (Earnings Before Taxes). Our government cites the critical need for education and a free market society but fails to recognize that the for profit education industry in only interesed in enrollment. Everything else in between is simply lip service. The moral irony is that we are dealing with human lives not commodities. The sale is not over until the student graduates and becomes employed. If the for profit schools would concentrate on this the bottom line would come naturally. Afterall the employer is the customer that we are acutally try to serve not the bottom line.