Midnight Mini-Rant: For-Profit Schools

[RavynousHunter]

Okay, so I figured I'd put this here and see what you guys have to say about it.  I, personally, do not trust private schools; be they primary, secondary, or post-secondary facilities.  Why is this?  Because it treats the education of the next generation as nothing more than part of the bottom line.  I am of the opinion that it is not.  I'm of the opinion that educating the next generation is one of the most important duties a society must undertake to not just survive, but flourish.

By making your school a business, you worry more about getting your teachers on the cheap instead of getting better quality teachers.  Now, a lot of public schools fuck this up, and some private schools succeed at it.  However, the very principle behind for-profit schooling is aggravating.  It treats education as a privilege and not a right.  Education is a fundamental right of every citizen.  It doesn't matter what their gender, ethnicity, or handicaps might be; they all have the right to not just an education, but a quality education.

Alas, people seem to conflate expense with quality and, many times, the opposite it true.  Such is the case, in my view, with education.  Let's say you spend $20,000 a year (probably a REALLY conservative estimate) on getting your kid in a private school.  What does your kid get?  What extra do you get out of a private school that you don't get in a public school?  I'm honestly curious, because I fail to see any advantages to treating something as fundamental as education as just another business transaction.

Yes, this even (and especially) applies to colleges and universities.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the gap of education quality between public and private universities isn't just a gap, its a motherfucking canyon, with public university being the clearly superior choice in all but a very few cases.  Hell, were Eniliad here and posting, I'm sure he'd back me up on this one: for-profit universities, more times than not, fuck their students out of meaningful diplomas while costing a great deal more than their superior public counterparts.

To make a long rant short: I don't see how anyone could win with a privatized education.  We all lose.  A societal duty is turned into yet another simple product.  We put the fate of future generations in the hands of people who, many times, care only for profit.  That's not what education should ever be about.

[LeTipex]

Interesting topic : must go now, but will post on that thread later.

Suffice it to say that for now, I completely agree with you on the ethical issues raised by making people pay for education, but not so much on the economical ones.

[Art Vandelay]

Alas, people seem to conflate expense with quality and, many times, the opposite it true.  Such is the case, in my view, with education.  Let's say you spend $20,000 a year (probably a REALLY conservative estimate) on getting your kid in a private school.  What does your kid get?  What extra do you get out of a private school that you don't get in a public school?  I'm honestly curious, because I fail to see any advantages to treating something as fundamental as education as just another business transaction.

Not really. Remember, private schools have to compete with state schools (which are free), so unless they're a religious or foreign school, they need the quality edge to compete. They tend to pay teachers somewhat better to attract better/more experienced ones, hire more of them to reduce class sizes, be a lot more liberal about expelling bad students to keep bullying at a minimum. That sort of thing. Otherwise, they're going to have a very hard time convincing little Timmy's parents that they should drop ten grand per semester to send him to them when they could get him just as good a education at a state school.

That said, I do agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your rant. The government has no business subsidising private schools, especially when there are rather serious, funding related issues with public education that needs to be addressed.

[chitoryu12]

Generally private schools don't NEED quality to keep little Timmy in school for ten grand a semester. Parents often put their kids in private schools not because of a definite quality improvement, but because they distrust public schools. While this is sometimes true (especially in poverty-stricken areas where schools are faced with constant budget cuts and overly large class sizes), there's also a distinct bigotry by the wealthy against public schools in general, not unlike a general bigotry against the poor. Sending their kids to a private school keeps them "away from the riffraff".

[Art Vandelay]

Some operate on that logic, but they're not the majority by any means. Middle class parents in particular do tend to look for quality over simply avoiding poor people.

[chitoryu12]

Some operate on that logic, but they're not the majority by any means. Middle class parents in particular do tend to look for quality over simply avoiding poor people.

The average private school tuition in 2007-2008 was about $10,000 per semester. Non-sectarian schools can go to $15,000 or even $27,000. In 2011 it reached an average of $21,695 per year. That's 44% of an average American household's income. At least one (Riverdale) exceeds $40,000 per year.

Middle class families aren't exactly the target for private schools.

[Art Vandelay]

Some operate on that logic, but they're not the majority by any means. Middle class parents in particular do tend to look for quality over simply avoiding poor people.

The average private school tuition in 2007-2008 was about $10,000 per semester. Non-sectarian schools can go to $15,000 or even $27,000. In 2011 it reached an average of $21,695 per year. That's 44% of an average American household's income. At least one (Riverdale) exceeds $40,000 per year.

Middle class families aren't exactly the target for private schools.

Ten grand per semester (or twenty per year) is, while not exactly cheap, still affordable on a middle class income (between around $100 000 and $200 000 per year). Those ones tend to at least partially target middle class families. The more expensive ones, not so much, but the cheaper ones do.

[RavynousHunter]

I will admit that there are likely quite a few non-religious private schools that are better than their closest public rivals.  Sometimes, the private sector can do better than the government.  I just despise the sense of anti-entitlement it gives to some folks; and this is a case where one actually is entitled to something, and that something is a proper education.

I wouldn't be surprised if some businesses lobby government to subsidize private schools to give them an edge against their public rivals so as to keep the poor kids from getting the quality that everyone deserves.

That said, some kids just can't be taught.  Some don't want to learn, and it wouldn't matter if you sent them to a public school, private school, or even a military school.  Granted, they're rare cases, but they're there and we shouldn't allow our education to be dictated by the lowest common denominator, but by the overall mean.  Your average student, for example, likely knows that the numerous standardized tests we get in the US are, by and large, completely meaningless.  They have absolutely ZERO bearing on whether or not you get into college outside certain schools/districts that don't let you pass to the next grade level unless you also pass that year's standardized exam.

People ARE entitled to some basic things: food, water, adequate housing, transportation, and education.  We shouldn't have to break our backs to get those things, they should be provided by our society at little to no cost to the populace at large outside taxes.  I also hate that private schools seem to operate under an entirely different set of rules from public schools.  They're free to teach whatever garbage they want; climate denialism, creationism, anti-intellectualism, and a host of other garbage that only serves to harm the minds of our children, stunt their intellectual growth, and limit their potential.

[R. U. Sirius]

Some operate on that logic, but they're not the majority by any means. Middle class parents in particular do tend to look for quality over simply avoiding poor people.

The average private school tuition in 2007-2008 was about $10,000 per semester. Non-sectarian schools can go to $15,000 or even $27,000. In 2011 it reached an average of $21,695 per year. That's 44% of an average American household's income. At least one (Riverdale) exceeds $40,000 per year.

Middle class families aren't exactly the target for private schools.

Ten grand per semester (or twenty per year) is, while not exactly cheap, still affordable on a middle class income (between around $100 000 and $200 000 per year). Those ones tend to at least partially target middle class families. The more expensive ones, not so much, but the cheaper ones do.

Since when is $100-$200,000 a year "middle class"? I'd rate that range as toward the higher end of middle class, at the very least; the vast majority of people I know make nowhere near that amount.

[Art Vandelay]

Some operate on that logic, but they're not the majority by any means. Middle class parents in particular do tend to look for quality over simply avoiding poor people.

The average private school tuition in 2007-2008 was about $10,000 per semester. Non-sectarian schools can go to $15,000 or even $27,000. In 2011 it reached an average of $21,695 per year. That's 44% of an average American household's income. At least one (Riverdale) exceeds $40,000 per year.

Middle class families aren't exactly the target for private schools.

Ten grand per semester (or twenty per year) is, while not exactly cheap, still affordable on a middle class income (between around $100 000 and $200 000 per year). Those ones tend to at least partially target middle class families. The more expensive ones, not so much, but the cheaper ones do.

Since when is $100-$200,000 a year "middle class"? I'd rate that range as toward the higher end of middle class, at the very least; the vast majority of people I know make nowhere near that amount.

I'm not really sure what that proves other than the vast majority of the people you know are not middle class.

[Sleepy]

Looking at this, $100-200k is, at the very least, upper middle class.

Anyway, the types of for-profit schools that piss me off the most are 1) places that teach outright lies like creationism, and 2) colleges who fuck students out of thousands of dollars and a meaningful degree.

[Art Vandelay]

Looking at this, $100-200k is, at the very least, upper middle class.

That's ridiculous. Either I'm vastly underestimating US$ purchasing power, or Americans have become a hell of a lot poorer recently than I realised. How $35k a year is considered even close to middle class is completely beyond me. I made more than that working part time as a warehouse labourer.

[Cerim Treascair]

It also depends on what part of the country you're in.  Like if you live in New York City? You could make 50,000 a year and barely be out of poverty (seriously, the line in NYC is something like 48,400 a year for poverty)

[SpaceProg]

Indeed.  The cost of living middle class in the US sweeps the entire board.  I guess it would be hard to get an average from that.

[kefkaownsall]

in my case the nearest state school is 90 min away so living at home and going to private uni is cheaper.  For most though ripoff