PAC-12 Protests Grand Canyon University's move to DI

[SubGod22]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22798477/pac-12-protest-targets-for-profit-grand-canyons-move-to-division-i

Personally, I don't see the big deal of them being for or not for profit.

[wu_shizzle]

They sound threatened by an institution that's accountable to shareholders.

Can't have the "purity" of their "non-profits" threatened.

[The Mad Hatter]

There have been some legitimate questions about how well for-profit universities have actually worked to educate their students rather than to simply make money for their shareholders. I can't say whether these problems exist at Grand Canyon University nor do I have a particular opinion about whether for-profit schools should be allowed in D1, but the non-profit skepticism about for-profit schools isn't entirely arbitrary (which is also not to say that there is no way to do for-profit in a more balanced way than in is currently done).

• More than half of the 1.1 million students who in 2008-9 were enrolled in colleges owned by the examined companies had withdrawn by mid-2010.
• In 2010 the for-profit colleges examined employed 35,202 recruiters, compared with 3,512 career-services staff and 12,452 support-services staff, which amounts to more than two recruiters for every student-service employee and 10 recruiters for every career-services staff member.
• Colleges owned by a company that is traded on a major stock exchange had 2008-9 withdrawal rates nine percentage points higher than the privately held companies examined. Among the 15 publicly traded companies, 55 percent of students departed without a degree, compared with 46 percent of students at the 15 privately held companies.
• In the 2009 fiscal year, the colleges examined spent:
  $4.2-billion (22.7 percent of all revenue) on marketing, advertising, recruiting, and admissions staffing.
  $3.6-billion (19.4 percent of all revenue) on profit.
  $3.2-billion (17.2 percent of all revenue) on instruction.
• 96 percent of students at for-profit colleges take out student loans, compared with 13 percent of community-college students, 48 percent of students at four-year public colleges, and 57 percent of students at four-year private nonprofit colleges.

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Damning-Portrait-of/133253/

[wu_shizzle]

The idea that Pac-12 schools are "non-profit" is laughable.

[The Mad Hatter]

The idea that Pac-12 schools are "non-profit" is laughable.

That is sort of the argument that the Daily Kos makes, which given the political leanings of this board would suggest that agreement between this board and the Daily Kos is the ultimate sign of bipartisan agreement. Essentially their argument is that while non-profit schools do a better job in key areas like student retention and debt, that is not remotely the same thing as saying that they do a good job.

[wu_shizzle]

That is sort of the argument that the Daily Kos makes, which given the political leanings of this board would suggest that agreement between this board and the Daily Kos is the ultimate sign of bipartisan agreement. Essentially their argument is that while non-profit schools do a better job in key areas like student retention and debt, that is not remotely the same thing as saying that they do a good job.

I don't know what to say, I'd rather change my opinion than agree with anything on the Daily Kos.

[SubGod22]

My thoughts on this are if the NCAA has allowed these school to be under their umbrella in lower divisions, than it shouldn't make a difference if they move up to DI from DII. They're doing it for the same reason all the other DII schools that move up do; more money and more exposure.

If the NCAA hasn't found fault with the academic side of things, than there's no reason to keep them out of DI or any other division as far as I'm concerned. And it sounds like the spotlight may shine on them a little more than others because of this so if they do something wrong or outside of the NCAA standards I'm pretty sure they'll get nailed for it.

[SHOCKvalue]

Sounds to me like GCU is a story of two schools - an older, smaller traditional arm with a brick and mortar campus, and a new wave online arm. The fact the former predates the latter by a huge margin makes me think this is a bit of an overblown story. Now if one of the sham "schools" like University of Phoenix or National American University were doing the same there would be an issue, for me at least.

Personally, I have little issue with the non-profit versus for-profit models. What I have an issue with is people getting "degrees" with drastically less commitment of work or time simply by paying an inflated for-profit fee, and then the HR mouth-breathers treating such "graduates" as on equal footing with someone who has sacrificed nine months of full time labor through four or five years of life. Now THAT gets me going. To heck with a line in the sand needing to be drawn with respect to non-profit versus for-profit in relation to NCAA athletics; a line in the sand needs to be drawn in the job market.