TREND/BUSINESS GLENN LANDB ER G
Pull up a chair with Jennifer Couch. Sit, stay awhile. Ask her about life at your local community college.
ing through his firm, InterEd, in McCall. Cultural bias it may be, but Tucker added that it’s unfounded. “Are there abuses in those career college systems? Absolutely. But I don’t think that they’re any larger than those going on in other institutions,” he said. “Being not-forprofit doesn’t mean you don’t take a lot of money from people.” Using a model he constructed in the midto late-1990s, Tucker said when a student attends a public college, taxpayers subsidize that choice to the tune of at least $9,500—a figure that includes allocations for direct and indirect taxpayer funding, grants, loan forgiveness, loan defaults and income, property, sales and use taxes. In comparison, his model states, when a student attends a for-profit institution, taxpayers actually come out about $500 ahead—benefitting from the federal, state and local taxes paid by the institutions. “One important component to that bias [against for-profits] is that we don’t understand the true taxpayer support profiles of these different types of institutions,” Tucker said. Critics say that any tax benefits accrued from for-profits are outweighed by the cost of federal student loan default rates, which are out of proportion to the industry’s share of total enrollments. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, even though for-profit students only make up between 7 percent and 10 percent of total enrollments, as a student population they’re responsible for 44 percent of all federal loan defaults. That’s 1 percentage point higher than all students at two-year and four-year public institutions, which account for a combined 74 percent of total enrollments. Regardless of the type of institution, when students default, taxpayers are on the hook. WWW. B OISEWEEKLY.C O M
But Tucker said that’s no fault of the college or university. It’s the responsibility of the student to borrow and repay responsibly. “Default rates are due to the students, not the institutions. To blame the institutions—it’s as unscientific as it comes,” he said.
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? Bach said he understands why some may be critical of for-profit education’s healthy share of federal student aid. “Those criticisms exist because of the shrinking tax funding available to public institutions, and they’ve got to be concerned and looking for any way possible to continue to provide services for their students,” he said. “But the reality is we’re putting money back into the economy, back into the community.” Kustra, despite his unease with them raking in federal dough, also said for-profits “have performed a service in certain states or communities,” but added that local community colleges are increasingly filling their niche. Jennifer Couch, communications director at the College of Western Idaho, said demand for the new community college is still increasing, and it isn’t under any direct threat from the valley’s for-profits. “Community colleges act a little differently. They are really established to help open public access and are often more affordable,” she said, adding that CWI’s enrollment reached 4,800 in the spring semester. “Definitely times are tough, but we’ve been very fortunate to work with a lot of local businesses and other education institutions.” According to Bach, the for-profits aren’t out to privatize the education system—they’re just giving customers what they want. “I just see us as a viable solution and an opportunity to take on additional students and fill needs,” he said. “Thank heavens we have a country that allows those kinds of private sector solutions to national needs.”
BOISEweekly | APRIL 14–20, 2010 | 23