That their credits had virtually no chance of transferring to any other institution --- a point ITT was forced to make on its own website --- is a pretty good reason not to allow it to be the beneficiary of billions of dollars of public financing.
I've seen some discussion of letting credits transfer using something called Prior Learning Assessment, essentially having the student prove they've learned the material taught in various courses at the receiving institution.
Most schools will let you test out of pre-reqs if you get the right people on board. I've never heard of a school accepting prior learning as credit hours.
If that were the case anyone who figures out what they want to do and starts doing it in high-school would test out of a year or so worth of classes right off the bat. This would be particularly prevalent in STEM where there's a lot more test and "prove you know the material" based assessment compared to the humanities where there's more emphasis on producing a particular volume of work that meets a particular quality benchmark. Lots of STEM programs would be financially screwed if they couldn't bankroll themselves with huge freshman classes full of people who will change majors.
I got the ethics requirement for CS waved. I was a transfer student who had taken two semesters of business law, two security management courses, one class on computer and Internet specific law and crime and even then it was an uphill battle. After that they reworded the requirement to drop the "or take a series of comparable classes and obtain approval by the department" clause. My observation was that being as mostly dependent on tuition bred a "fight for every penny" attitude like you'd see in an insurance company which obviously caused a lot of inefficiency.
> If that were the case anyone who figures out what they want to do and starts doing it in high-school would test out of a year or so worth of classes right off the bat
Which is bad for the bottom line, but would be the disruption that higher ed needs. Face it, universities' USP is now being credentialing machines, learning can be done quicker and better from internet moocs/OCW/video lectures/tutorials.
Online/remote learning is a good alternative if you want to get an overview of a topic or expand your knowledge. However, I don't think that you can replace a proper scientific university degree just by online learning.
> Transfer of any sort tends to be tricky. You rarely get anything close to parity, particularly in core courses.
Depends on the school. I transfered from Northern Michigan University to University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Most of my courses transferred and fulfilled most of my gen-ed requirements.
That's true - and as a taxpayer, I don't relish the idea of funding things like this that are taking advantage of people... but I have to admit I feel a little icky at the thought of pulling something that might act as a ladder of economic mobility - even for just a few people - out from under them. It's like we're saying to people that don't fit into the "traditional" mold of college-goer: "You can't go to ITT any more"... OK, but what do they take on to better their station now? I just can't think of a great anwser to that, other than bloviating about theories of "post-scarcity" that do nothing to help these people and it makes me feel bad.
ITT was anything but a ladder of economic mobility. It preyed on those people who most needed that mobility. The institutions you're squeamish about harming are community colleges, which have much cheaper tuitions and actually do educate students.
Yep, community colleges are where it's at. I started at a small local college a half-step up from a community college as it offered 4 year degrees. Got a year's worth of credits there to establish a good record and then transferred out to an ivy.
My brother got his 4 year degree from the same college, moved onto a master's at a bigger school and is doing quite well.
The problem with for-profit schools like ITT and Phoenix is clearer when you see those companies as a sustained effort to profit by delegitimizing community college.
I think that is maybe where my uncomfortable feeling comes from: community college seems like an "extension" of the grand idea of higher education (which is awesome for people that want that!)- become a more well-rounded person, read the classics, learn history and art appreciation, etc. etc. - it's what I did, and I enjoyed it... but I know I'm not everyone. I grew up in a very poor place where it might just serve people better to "learn the things you need to know to pass for XYZ 9-5 job" and from what I read ITT (sort of) fit the bill. I worry that we're saying "You can't do that - you have to go try and be a well-rounded renaissance man/woman"... now I know that with federal money, maybe we have the right to say it, but still...
Community colleges (at least the one's I've seen) tend to have both traditional academic programs intended to fill the lower division of a classical four-year college program and vocational programs leading to a two-year degree or vocational certificate (or where you might just take a few ad hoc classes for career advancement without enrolling in any kind of certificate/degree program.)
The idea that the ITTs of the world are more effective for vocational education than Community Colleges is a product of the massive marketing campaigns of ITT-style for-profit institutions more than any reality, as far as I can tell,
I went the community-college-then-university route as well. I got enough credits to get an associate's degree before transferring and was able to put that on my resume, which I feel got me some attention when I was applying for part-time programming jobs as I finished my bachelor's.
The fact that credits weren't transferable always seemed so shady to me. That just made it seemed that whatever credits you did earn weren't legitimate or worth anything if they couldn't be equated to credits at another college.
> Why didn't ITT seek accreditation so that credits were transferable?
Accreditation and transferability are different issues; ITT was accredited (were it not, it could not have participated in federal aid programs.)
> It seems like it would instantly increase the value of what they are selling.
Like Corinthian, what they were selling was largely fantasies, specifically targeted to demographics who were unlikely to recognize that they were fantasies. Were ITT intending to sell a legitimate education, sure, transferability would increase the value, but they were never going to sell legitimate education at the mass-market volume and premium prices they were trying to sell at.
The additional cost of meeting the accreditation requirements, and the accreditation fees and dues, would exceed the portion that could be monetized out of the additional value imbued to the product by virtue of earning the accreditation.
Naturally, I am assuming that a for-profit business made a rational cost-benefit analysis.
But it also could have been that they would rather have had countable cash in hand than nebulous goodwill some time in the future. Business managers don't always make rational decisions based on what is best for the business.
Credits rarely transfer into a major or minor program of study regardless of source institution. Waiving of requirements to opt into higher-level coursework is fine. That's rarely what students want.
ITT is just the worst example of crappy education. There are plenty of schools where a crappy education is still available. Federally backed (edit: guarenteed) money for student loans intuitively seems problematic.
I graduated with a BS degree in the UC system and many years later decided to get another in the CSU system and even then there were difficulty getting transfer credits for base classes to get the second degree.
