- The major for-profit university chain DeVry has agreed to stop making its often-repeated claim: that since 1975, 90 percent of its graduates seeking employment found jobs in their field within six months of graduation.
That's because of a settlement announced Thursday with the Department of Education. In August 2015, the department requested that DeVry prove that claim, which it has used for years in radio, TV, online and print advertisements. Now, in a statement, the department said "DeVry could not provide evidence to substantiate this claim."
A great shame of mine is that a relative is a former president of this shithole. Actually a very smart and engaging person. I've never been able to pry out of them how they reconcile their unabashed Republicanism with the fact that for profit education ceases to exist immediately when the GI loans go bust. Government teet is apparently only bad for others. I used to teach at a for profit school when I was in grad school so that I could, you know, eat, and I hated myself for it. The "education" they were selling was useless. I used the same book to teach physics that advanced eighth and ninth grade students use. What a scam the whole industry is.
Do you happen to know how accreditation is handled? Over here we have the NVAO, which is a dominant government authority, setting strict standards for higher education. They thoroughly audit faculties every seven years, resulting in a hefty document full of criticism by field experts, criticism that they expect to see addressed the next time they come around. Losing accreditation means that the credits become worthless and the degree is no longer worth anything to companies. There's no way a joke like DeVry would get through that. When I did my bachelor's, I was one of the students they interrogated about what we thought of the degree, what we liked and disliked, etc. I remember the professor-now-dean that tried to prep us being super nervous about the whole ordeal.
'member that Frontline you couldn't watch? There are two of them on diploma mills. The first one led to the report that John Oliver did that led to ITT Tech being shut down which led to the second one which has a bunch of John Oliver footage in it. I wholeheartedly recommend hunting them up, VPNing your way in or whatever.
There's so many. Start with the merchants of cool.
It depends on the school and the degree. Professional degrees, e.g. medical and legal, have their own standards and usually a singular accrediting body. For general undergrad degrees there are a number of organizations that are reputable, that I believe operate on a regional basis. Those organizations operate similar to what you describe. The for profit thing is its own beast, and I have no idea how they stay in good standing other than having good surrogates in government.
The whole goddam reason that the government backs student loans is because they're supposed to be an investment in future tax payers. That's the shitty thing for us. The ROI to the gov't (i.e. taxpayers) is highly negative. I can't remember the stat off the top, but I think it's about 50% of defaults are from for profits, while they only represent 5% of students (something close). The students are getting fucked; the tax payers are getting fucked; Jack Welch is getting richer. The US government should not be in the business of funding any unaccredited schools, but especially ones based on a for profit model. Such a scam.
I know for a fact that this lady's job pays $13 an hour. I know this because the black guy who lost his job so the white woman could have it (also an ITT Tech grad) was a buddy of mine who told me he made $13 an hour. I knew bartenders in Seattle who made $500 a night.
My friend makes $400-$600 an evening serving and cocktail waitressing at a Four Seasons hotel restaurant. Two weekends ago, she made $1000 in one night. I average about $150 for my one or two 5-hour shifts a week at a more typical restaurant, with outliers of $50 and $300. I make $15 an hour at my day job as an assistant to a property owner (granted, it's under the table, but granted, I have zero benefits). A lot of my friends make $15-$20 an hour at office jobs (pretax). I have some very rich, hardworking friends who were fortunate enough to graduate from Ivies or some place like Johns Hopkins who started $80k, but for every one of them, I know a dozen people their age with and without college degrees who don't have health insurance, live in squalor, subsist off cigarettes, don't know how they're gonna pay rent. I don't know my point in bringing up all these anecdata, other than maybe I know exactly why people play video games like there's nothing better to do.
Part of the problem there is that wait staff get paid too much because they often dont share or share enough of the tips with the kitchen staff. They get all the credit for a great restaurant experience but only contribute to 20-30% of the experience. Video games are our generations TV, maybe the next generation will get VR but bang for the buck video games are a great entertainment source. $10-20 a month is cheaper than cable and provides the player some sort of marginal sense of achievement and social interaction that they wouldent get with TV. Now that I've gotten more wealthy I spend almost no time on games but when I was poorer they were my go to entertainment.My friend makes $400-$600 an evening serving and cocktail waitressing at a Four Seasons hotel restaurant. Two weekends ago, she made $1000 in one night.
I know exactly why people play video games like there's nothing better to do.
I would love to see a restaurant that pools tips in that way. I completely agree, it's ridiculous that servers collect 100% of the variable income when they provide only a subset of the positive dining experience. Question: from an economic standpoint, why has this model of restaurant -- where the Back of House is more incentivized via pooled tips collected by the Front of House -- not taken off in the industry? It seems that even a modest incentive system, where only 10-20% of tips from the diners are given to the Back of House, would lead to a consistently higher quality dining experience, and this would maximize profits. This is befuddling. Even if a lot of servers would boycott working at this restaurant because of an ostensible 10-20% pay decrease, surely not all of them would. Furthermore, that pay decrease may be offset by the increased popularity of the restaurant because the food is always hot and cooked excellently. Yet, I've never heard of such a restaurant. Thoughts? edit: After posing this question to some friends, I was told that tip sharing with employees who aren't tipped is illegal. See Department of Labor Fact Sheet concerning tipped employees.
Most wait staff I know don't have any problem tipping out back of house, it's pooling tips with front of house that pisses them off. When I was a hostess the servers would normally tip me out a little extra than what they were required but the other hostess that was useless got the regular amount. It's not very fun giving another server your tips if they didn't put in half the effort you did. Basically what they did at the restaurant I worked at was set aside the tips for BOH and let them handle how they pay it out ( I think it was normally every two weeks or something they got a lump sum ) and hostesses were tipped out at the end of every shift.
Certain high end restaurants are already switching to a no tip model and just asking for higher base prices to cover that. The problem I see with paying kitchen staff more and wait staff less is that it will be difficult to hire and retain good wait staff as your competition will always pay better. The upside of slightly better retention and quality of kitchen staff may be outweighed by the inconvenience of continually hiring new wait staff. I think in general wait staff also are more mobile because they tend to be the more social and attractive employees so it's easier for them to get new jobs than say cooks. Then there is just the issue of not wanting to rock the boat. If a model already works acceptable why mess with it. Only newer up and coming players will challenge the existing system
Oh hell yeah. The "live at home and play COD4" choice is a rational one. This article made a really big splash: (I thought it made a bigger splash here, but I can't find the link) The jobs that non-college-educated men held were the greatest victims of "structural unemployment" during the recession - the shit that didn't come back. And those guys? They're in a much better position to find new work doing something else at a diminished wage than the guys fresh out of high school or who give up on college. It's an argument for basic income, for sure - these folx ain't got job prospects in many, many ways.