This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of For-profit education was copied or moved into For-profit higher education in the United States with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]-- CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of For-profit education was copied or moved into For-profit higher education in the United States with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]-- CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
References