Talk:For-profit higher education in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aanyajhaveri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be a hit piece written by people with an axe to grind on For-profit higher education. I am not a student nor a professor or owner of such an institution but the tone of this article makes it clear that nothing good can come out of for profit schools. Even in the section which purports to address benefits it feels it necessary to include a refutation. It seems to me that this article should be addressing the abstract concept of For profit education and let the failings of individual schools be included on their pages. This article, as currently written, seems instead be dedicated to showing that for-profit education is inherently inferior to non-profit education which would require actual proof rather than arguments made by academics and intellectuals, with a vested interest in the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewder (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are a very deeply unserious person. Education for-profit is a flawed and evil concept. By its very nature, the education provided is focused on making money, instead of educating individuals. 2603:7080:7F02:3F9F:DCEB:61E3:E7A5:8BE (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. The inclusion of rebuttals to the benefits should be moved to the drawback section. If they are going to stay there then rebuttals should be included in the drawback section as well. Also the benefit section is relatively underdeveloped while the drawback section is a gish gallop of sorts. GRosado 23:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. The inclusion of rebuttals to the benefits should be moved to the drawback section. If they are going to stay there then rebuttals should be included in the drawback section as well. Also the benefit section is relatively underdeveloped while the drawback section is a gish gallop of sorts. GRosado 23:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRosado (talk • contribs)

Article now has two History sections

This article has become a mess. The problem is that one editor added a great deal of unsourced content and deleted key information about the expansion of for-profit mechanisms in US higher ed. I tried to include all the information, even though it was unsourced. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove the list of for-profit colleges and their brands?

I suggest that we keep the section of for-profit colleges and their brands but remove the list for brevity. There already is a list on another Wikipedia page. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing through mass deletion

The for-profit or business model of higher education runs throughout US higher education and it has gone by many names. Entire books have been written about it. The model doesn't just exist in for-profit colleges. It is arguably the most dominant model in US higher education and has been growing since the 1980s. The idea of for-profit education is embedded in Human Capital Theory, and includes things like endowments at elite schools. To delete that without a vigorous discussion would be whitewashing the article. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Then you clearly don't understand the meaning of the terms you are using, which is a problem. The "for-profit model" you refer to does not apply to any institution classified as nonprofit regardless of how much money it makes, just like the for-profit corporation model does not apply to a nonprofit organization, no matter how much money it makes. There are specific federal regulations that determine these classifications, not the fact that "they end up with more money at the end of the year" or whatever unstated criteria you are using to base this article upon. If you just want a space to rant about higher education costs, get a blog. Otherwise, you are engaging in original research contrary to accepted usage of terms. Harvard is still nonprofit regardless of its endowment, just like Capella is for-profit regardless of its lack of endowment. 146.115.153.133 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summaries: This single above post by you does NOT constitute a discussion, let alone consensus. Your edits not being reverted for any amount of time does not give them credibility. If the article was 'List of for-profit universities in the United States' you would have a much greater foundation for argument, but saying that X universities are not legally defined as for-profit is not the end-all be-all when arguably the entire education system in the U.S. is a for-profit system. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Many universities in the United States file nonprofit tax returns. To do that, they need to meet certain guidelines; hat is why they are nonprofit. Again, this is not difficult - what is going on is a subjective article stating that "because universities make money, they are for-profit". This is a fork of an article by an author who is a consultant and is pushing his own views. The material I removed is not addressing "for-profit" education - it is lumping Harvard and Yale, which are nonprofit, in with Capella and Phoenix. Nonprofit universities can receive federal funding, for-profit cannot. This article is misleading because it defines its terms according to what its author wants, not reality. 146.115.153.133 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@146.115.153.133 I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make, however, your logic is flawed.

You assert above that “nonprofit universities can receive federal funding, for-profit cannot.” This is simply not true in the United States. For-profit institutions can and do receive funding from the federal government, and the use of public funds to support said private operations is exactly why this article and current content are relevant. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)