|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| This has been known more or less since the 90's. It's really only now that this law school scam is going mainstream. The funny part is, people will continue to enroll in law schools in droves. I mean seriously, why not? Television tells you that lawyers are professionals that are cool and everyone respects them. When you are accepted into law school you want to believe that it's not a scam and that you are an exceptional being and be employed as a lawyer somewhere someday.. |
I agree with your reference to TV. Countless shows depict a legal career as a high-status, gainful vocation. These themes have an impact on the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
It isn't just Strayer, they are all down. Suffice to say, I'm happy that negative publicity is having an impact, but I won't feel more comfortable until there are actual market signals discouraging people from going to these craptastic for-profits. |
Over the holidays I watched daytime TV. Maury, Ricky Lake.. The degenerate stuff. I swear to Allah above, every other commercial was for a private school like Strayer. That's their target demographic. Unemployed people watching Maury on a Tuesday afternoon. They have excellent commercials. Very motivational/inspirational. A single Hispanic/African mom who was working in a cafe but now is a "medical billing specialist". The job is fine, it's the 30k in tuition to get there that is evil. All credit accepted, just give them a call and start next week.
...
This is relevant:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nia-comments-upcoming-bursting-bankruptcy-non-dischargeable-college-debt-bubble
The comments are good too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
It isn't just Strayer, they are all down. Suffice to say, I'm happy that negative publicity is having an impact, but I won't feel more comfortable until there are actual market signals discouraging people from going to these craptastic for-profits. |
Over the holidays I watched daytime TV. Maury, Ricky Lake.. The degenerate stuff. I swear to Allah above, every other commercial was for a private school like Strayer. That's their target demographic. Unemployed people watching Maury on a Tuesday afternoon. They have excellent commercials. Very motivational/inspirational. A single Hispanic/African mom who was working in a cafe but now is a "medical billing specialist". The job is fine, it's the 30k in tuition to get there that is evil. All credit accepted, just give them a call and start next week.
...
This is relevant:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nia-comments-upcoming-bursting-bankruptcy-non-dischargeable-college-debt-bubble
The comments are good too. |
A good read. Looking at the figures that's almost a trillion dollars of debt, yet the US government is still encouraging people to go into higher education. It's incredible, no lessons have been learnt at all. I wonder what the UK figure is. Of course the smaller population means the figure will be lower, but with fees there massively increasing in several years, it could be building itself a similar kind of problem as the money is only repayable once graduates secure an income of 21,000 pounds a year - not many do.
Of the comments, I think this one showed considerable prescience:
when we give colleges throughout the nation printing presses of their own, why do we not expect them to devalue their degrees? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
A good read. Looking at the figures that's almost a trillion dollars of debt, yet the US government is still encouraging people to go into higher education. It's incredible, no lessons have been learnt at all. I wonder what the UK figure is. Of course the smaller population means the figure will be lower, but with fees there massively increasing in several years, it could be building itself a similar kind of problem as the money is only repayable once graduates secure an income of 21,000 pounds a year - not many do.
Of the comments, I think this one showed considerable prescience:
when we give colleges throughout the nation printing presses of their own, why do we not expect them to devalue their degrees? |
It's actually 15,000 pounds. It has been at that level for a number of years now (2003 or there about). Luckily for me, as of next Monday, I'm no longer in debt to the British government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
A good read. Looking at the figures that's almost a trillion dollars of debt, yet the US government is still encouraging people to go into higher education. It's incredible, no lessons have been learnt at all. I wonder what the UK figure is. Of course the smaller population means the figure will be lower, but with fees there massively increasing in several years, it could be building itself a similar kind of problem as the money is only repayable once graduates secure an income of 21,000 pounds a year - not many do.
Of the comments, I think this one showed considerable prescience:
when we give colleges throughout the nation printing presses of their own, why do we not expect them to devalue their degrees? |
It's actually 15,000 pounds. It has been at that level for a number of years now (2003 or there about). Luckily for me, as of next Monday, I'm no longer in debt to the British government. |
No I'm talking about the increase of this threshold when the fees increases come into effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh shill of shills, Mr. Don Graham, chairman of the board for the Washington Post which also owns the for-profit Kaplan, is shilling for for-profits in the WSJ. I read it and it made my blood boil. Here it is:
| Quote: |
A disaster is shaping up for lower-income students who want a higher education. President Obama wants the U.S. to lead the world again in the percentage of adults with a college degree. (We currently rank 12th.) But his Department of Education has proposed new regulations that will make it more difficult for nontraditional and lower-income students to earn a college degree.
Most growth in student capacity over the past decade has come not from our public institutions but from for-profit, private institutions. These colleges�like Kaplan University, which my company owns, and the University of Phoenix�are taking on many of the lower-income, higher-risk students who can't find spaces in public institutions, or who need more support and schedule flexibility than the public system provides. If we want more graduates, we will need to rely in part on these colleges.
The federal government grants or lends the money that enables most American students, especially low- income ones, to go to college. So it is entirely appropriate that our colleges and universities�for-profit and not-for-profit�be regulated.
Such regulation should be designed to encourage excellence while expanding access. Unfortunately, the Department of Education's proposed regulations will do neither. While they start with good intentions�cracking down on "bad actors" in for-profit education and minimizing excessive student debt�their result will be less access for our nation's most needy students.
The proposed regulations would link programs' access to federal student aid to the loan-repayment rates of graduates and their debt-to-income ratio. In other words, they don't assess the quality of the education, and they limit the financial diversity of the students. These regulations, and recent scrutiny of for-profit colleges, stem from the following misconceptions. |
Happy Reading!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079781835777552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
Oh shill of shills, Mr. Don Graham, chairman of the board for the Washington Post which also owns the for-profit Kaplan, is shilling for for-profits in the WSJ. I read it and it made my blood boil. Here it is:
| Quote: |
A disaster is shaping up for lower-income students who want a higher education. President Obama wants the U.S. to lead the world again in the percentage of adults with a college degree. (We currently rank 12th.) But his Department of Education has proposed new regulations that will make it more difficult for nontraditional and lower-income students to earn a college degree.
Most growth in student capacity over the past decade has come not from our public institutions but from for-profit, private institutions. These colleges�like Kaplan University, which my company owns, and the University of Phoenix�are taking on many of the lower-income, higher-risk students who can't find spaces in public institutions, or who need more support and schedule flexibility than the public system provides. If we want more graduates, we will need to rely in part on these colleges.
The federal government grants or lends the money that enables most American students, especially low- income ones, to go to college. So it is entirely appropriate that our colleges and universities�for-profit and not-for-profit�be regulated.
Such regulation should be designed to encourage excellence while expanding access. Unfortunately, the Department of Education's proposed regulations will do neither. While they start with good intentions�cracking down on "bad actors" in for-profit education and minimizing excessive student debt�their result will be less access for our nation's most needy students.
The proposed regulations would link programs' access to federal student aid to the loan-repayment rates of graduates and their debt-to-income ratio. In other words, they don't assess the quality of the education, and they limit the financial diversity of the students. These regulations, and recent scrutiny of for-profit colleges, stem from the following misconceptions. |
Happy Reading!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079781835777552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion |
I wish Ayn Rand was alive to read this filth. Just look at the way Graham lies to make it seem like he's doing the world of favor by making education available to the retarded. *beep* him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-18-littlelearning18_ST_N.htm
| Quote: |
Report: First two years of college show small gains
Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don't make academics a priority, a new report shows.
Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students, who in turn are more tuned in to their social lives, according to the report, based on a book titled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Findings are based on transcripts and surveys of more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide, along with their results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students' critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.
After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.
Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago, the research shows.
"These are really kind of shocking, disturbing numbers," says New York University professor Richard Arum, lead author of the book, published by the University of Chicago Press.
He noted that students in the study, on average, earned a 3.2 grade-point average. "Students are able to navigate through the system quite well with little effort," Arum said. |
Hugely expensive with weak returns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
Is what happens when you treat the humanities like the sciences. Namely, make it research-oriented and hire professors based on how much they can publish.
| Quote: |
| Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students, who in turn are more tuned in to their social lives, according to the report |
There are still plenty of good (expensive) liberal arts colleges out there, but the above is the norm. And the erosion of the work ethic is contagious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Profile on Corinthian, a for-profit based in LA
Classy business:
| Quote: |
At Corinthian, recruiters are taught to convince students that their lives are bad and can be improved only by going to the school, according to a former recruiter.
"The ultimate goal was to essentially make them wallow in their grief, feel that pain of having accomplished nothing in life, and then use that pain" to coax them to enroll, the recruiter, Shayler White, testified in an affidavit in a lawsuit filed against Corinthian by Miller and other ex-students. |
Good point:
| Quote: |
Given the heavy reliance by Corinthian and other schools on federal money, industry critics express outrage that the industry is lobbying against the rule.
"They're using federal funds to buy advertising to stop federal regulation of the abuses in their industry," Durbin said. "It's a shameful situation." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
Oh shill of shills, Mr. Don Graham, chairman of the board for the Washington Post which also owns the for-profit Kaplan, is shilling for for-profits in the WSJ. I read it and it made my blood boil. Here it is:
| Quote: |
A disaster is shaping up for lower-income students who want a higher education. President Obama wants the U.S. to lead the world again in the percentage of adults with a college degree. (We currently rank 12th.) But his Department of Education has proposed new regulations that will make it more difficult for nontraditional and lower-income students to earn a college degree.
Most growth in student capacity over the past decade has come not from our public institutions but from for-profit, private institutions. These colleges�like Kaplan University, which my company owns, and the University of Phoenix�are taking on many of the lower-income, higher-risk students who can't find spaces in public institutions, or who need more support and schedule flexibility than the public system provides. If we want more graduates, we will need to rely in part on these colleges.
The federal government grants or lends the money that enables most American students, especially low- income ones, to go to college. So it is entirely appropriate that our colleges and universities�for-profit and not-for-profit�be regulated.
Such regulation should be designed to encourage excellence while expanding access. Unfortunately, the Department of Education's proposed regulations will do neither. While they start with good intentions�cracking down on "bad actors" in for-profit education and minimizing excessive student debt�their result will be less access for our nation's most needy students.
The proposed regulations would link programs' access to federal student aid to the loan-repayment rates of graduates and their debt-to-income ratio. In other words, they don't assess the quality of the education, and they limit the financial diversity of the students. These regulations, and recent scrutiny of for-profit colleges, stem from the following misconceptions. |
Happy Reading!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079781835777552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion |
I wish Ayn Rand was alive to read this filth. Just look at the way Graham lies to make it seem like he's doing the world of favor by making education available to the retarded. *beep* him. |
It's just incredible that the government, in a position of considerable indebtedness, is bankrolling these private for-profit colleges. It is even more lamentable in that the positive externalities associated with education do not apply in this case, as the graduate labour market is characterised by oversupply. This means that the government is simply supporting an industry which is superfluous to requirements. It may as well offer subsidies to a snake oil skin manufacturer. It's criminal. Graham is nothing more than a crook!
Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Dear, we are all in for a real treat. The UofM's Cooley School of Law wants to teach Sharia Law.
| University of Minnesota's Co-Director of Human Rights wrote: |
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, co-director of the Human Rights Center, said they haven't all been supportive.
"As some of the negative responses came out, I guess it just had me recharged for the importance of having the Islamic Law and Human Rights program in existence," she said. "Because if there really is that much fear out there, then it's obviously a program and these conversations are things that we need to have." |
LULZ! I had spaghetti flying out my nose because I was laughing so hard. Listing to this clueless believer of the multicult talking about her resolve. Never mind that Sharia has no place, and is incompatible with, the U.S. practices of common law and constitutional law. There is just too much fear out there. We really need to have these conversations, don't we?
Link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| Oh Dear, we are all in for a real treat. The UofM's Cooley School of Law wants to teach Sharia Law. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7631388.stm
Common Law is based on Sharia. We need to thank the medieval Norman invaders who introduced Arab laws in England.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
