Tim Cavanaugh Talks Higher-Ed Bubble: 11am Pacific (2pm Eastern) On Thom Hartmann Radio Show

Reason senior editor Tim Cavanaugh will be discussing student loan debt, rising tuition costs and the bubble in higher education with radio host and male hysteric Thom Hartmann -- a man so ill-used by the education system that he is unable to spell "Tom."

News hook is the release of this tendentious and thinly sourced study [pdf] on for-profit colleges from the Education Trust.

Time: 11am PST, 2pm EST.

Here's a list of local radio affiliates.

You can also listen live via the intertubes.

Comments

[Mainer]

"a man so ill-used by the education system that he is unable to spell "Tom."

If you think that's petty, think again. "Thom" is clearly an affectation, intended to call attention to itself. So I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair to pre-judge a "Thom" as a douchebag.

[anarch]

Re alt text: s/b shipaku

[gharlane]

If you listen to the segment you'll hear Hartmann eating Cavanagh's lunch, and Cavanagh trying to evade and change the subject. Good stuff. Podcast will be up in a week. Happy listening if you missed it.

[tkwelge]

I read the study from the education trust. Basically, the crux of their "evidence" is that, when compared by the percentage of applicants denied, the public colleges and private non profit colleges have higher 6 year graduation rates. Basically, they compare private, for profit, colleges that exclude a certain percentage of their applicants to public colleges that exclude an equal number of applicants. This is a faulty method of comparing quality, as the pool of applicants applying to state schools is different than the pool of applicants applying to for profit colleges. At this stage in their development, private colleges largely serve students that would have trouble getting accepted to state and non profit schools. Because of this, the pool of students applying to for-profit schools is less academic and much less likely to graduate. Just because two schools decline 25% of their graduates, that doesn't mean the students that remain should have the same chance of graduating at either school. That statistic tells you very little about the actual quality of education that you receive.

Yes, private for-profit colleges have some problems. They largely serve a market that consists of the underachievers, because those that achieve are already able to get into other colleges. They don't have the legacy and reputation of other colleges, so their graduates have a harder time finding work. They don't receive nearly as much subsidy or private donation as traditional colleges either. The study didn't go into detail about the subsidies and donations that most state schools receive.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is forcing anybody to attend any of these for-profit colleges. I know several people who do choose to attend such schools, and they are always people who have little other choice, or they are seeking specific skills and don't have the patience for a traditional 4 year program. If a for-profit college is ineffective, won't people just stop attending that college sooner or later? As I've already mentioned, this is an industry in its infancy, and it will take time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[tkwelge]

"Just because two schools decline 25% of their graduates,...."

SHould say "applicants" instead of graduates. SOrry, I just got off of work.

[fdgfd]

Hello. My friend

=== http://www.aeooe.com ===

Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

thank you !!!

=== http://www.aeooe.com ===

[han]

ews hook is the release of this tendentious and thinly sourced study [pdf] on for-profit colleges from the Education Trust.

[han]

We should consider