Let's break it down folks. I worked for ITT for 10 years and left when I could no longer deal with 60 hour work weeks or the corporate definition of recruitment success. I held several positions including management level so I saw a lot. Kevin Modany is without question the main culprit here. Greed was his only motivation for getting up in the morning. However where was the board of directors when he reneged on his resignation? He 'resigned' shortly after the announcement that he and the CFO were under investigation. How did his effective date come and go with him still there? Why wasn't it questioned by the board? The dept of ed? Anyone? Why has no one questioned why suddenly ACICS just thought to mention ITTs accreditation violations? Apparently they were numerous, but only came to light when ACICS was being investigated for lack of oversight. Let's talk now about the villification of the campus level recruitment staff. They are being painted as predatory liars that will do anything to admit students. Is anyone aware of how difficult it became to NOT enroll a student? Recruitment staff had no recourse even when they knew the student in question would likely not be successful. The corporate explanation was that we could not 'discriminate' against anyone wanting an education. Many unemployable students attended classes regularly. A lot of them graduated saddled with debt and no hope of a job. Recruitment staff did not lie or misrepresent, however people with criminal backgrounds, evident learning disabilities and apparent behavioral problems are not getting jobs. For profit schools exist for a reason. Traditional education has one learning model. It does not fit everyone. There is simply no need for a student looking to receive education and training for electronics, computer services, automotive, etc to take sociology, psychology or study Shakespeare and yet these are frequently required to earn a traditional degree. For profit career schools become a very attractive alternative for that hands on learner who has recognized that he or she will not be an attractive candidate without the piece of paper. And yes, they are willing to pay for it making them vulnerable to predatory institutions and lenders. So tonight almost 50,000 people are reeling....employees that will struggle to find new jobs with ITT on their resumes; students that will struggle to complete the degree they need. And after everyone gets done fingerpointing, maybe Modany and company will face real charges. Maybe the dept of ed will accept that they looked the other way for far too long. Maybe traditional ed will look at ways to create educational opportunities for all kinds of learners. Maybe employers will look at resumes that have experience or experiential learning so that it becomes less easy for a Kevin Modany to line his pockets at the expense of so many people.
10 replies (most recent on top)
Gen ends may be necessary but they are no longer affordable and that's the bottom line right now in for profit education. Go to community college to get Gen ends and specialize elsewhere. Also not everyone has the intellectual capacity to do college level work in which case trade school is a great option.
Employers are complaining because people are lacking in the necessary soft skills in the business world. Then, people like you turn around and say the courses that are intrinsic to those skills are unnecessary? It's not just about fluff courses or padding the schedule. It's about what you can learn from those courses.
I took several philosophy courses in college because they were part of my Gen Ed curriculum. From those, I learned how to formulate a cohesive and valid argument and avoid the common logical mistakes.
From Literature, I learned that Eugene O'Neill said: "Ireland has no future, simply the past happening over and over again now." A basic history class will teach you that quote applies not just to Ireland, but globally.
We can't keep focusing on basic skills and expect to turn out a work force that can critically think or creatively problem-solve.
The soft courses are nice, but they do not get you a job. They may enrich your life, but they do not directly help you earn a living. I've heard people make that statement about the soft courses and they are out of touch with hiring practices. Only if you teach those subjects will you financially benefit from them unless you are very, very lucky.
ITT Tech students can perhaps benefit more than most from improving English skills etc. as part of their "degree" but that would be seen as remedial learning in many countries. The idea that you need to study classics as part of something like an engineering degree is quite simply ludicrous.
Glad someone beat me to the punch on this statement, "There is simply no need for a student looking to receive education and training for electronics, computer services, automotive, etc to take sociology, psychology or study Shakespeare and yet these are frequently required to earn a traditional degree. "
Dead wrong. Taken at face value, this might be correct. God knows that the typical ITT student does not WANT to take those classes. However, I can't stress enough how important those types of classes have been in my overall development as a person, citizen, and employee.
Let's look at one line from Julias Caesar, "It is not in the Stars to hold our Destiny but in ourselves." How many students do you think would have benefited from truly understanding AND believing in these words? My college Shakespeare instructor was so passionate about Shakespeare that he would sometimes cry as he read it! I won't forget that class to this very day.
Don't even get me started about the benefits of more classical education!
Somebody doing a Cisco CCNA has more earning potential for less money than an ITT Net Admin "degree". No - you don't need all those soft modules for a Net Admin "degree" especially at the prices ITT tech charged. FYI - That model is very American. Go to Europe and technical degrees have a lot less soft padding because students are expected to learn to write essays etc. at high school!
For the most part, I agree that for-profit education serves (and served) a very needy niche. However, when you say: "There is simply no need for a student looking to receive education and training for electronics, computer services, automotive, etc to take sociology, psychology or study Shakespeare and yet these are frequently required to earn a traditional degree."
You. Are. Wrong.
Those softer classes are most DEFINITELY needed. Sociology, psychology, literature are all about our ability to communicate with and understand our fellow human beings. Something that is both necessary and currently lacking in today's world.
bullshit gibberish teaching lesson
What, exactly are you referring to? Are your medications outdated?
I taught at ITT in 1996 through a series of incidents. I'd probably have stayed longer if the management hadn't taken advantage of me (my replacement earned 25% more). I saw students like myself, as you say "hands-on learners" and I liked teaching, I had an understanding with many of the students. You're right, there is a space for a place like ITT and it's unfortunate that it's been wrecked.
The last thing people need is a bullshit gibberish teaching lesson about for profit schools and it's ills....do us all a favor refrain from posting in the future..aka sit your a%$$ in a dark away corner somewhere...geesh...