tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post6535164048270688945..comments2024-03-28T03:11:22.839-07:00Comments on PHILANTHROPY 2173: Reality revealed by a scorecardLucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-50157106084677286792013-02-21T15:47:18.755-08:002013-02-21T15:47:18.755-08:00Phil
Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your tak...Phil<br /><br />Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your taking the time to elucidate points 1 - 3, all of which I agree with. And I agree that the current state of the field is such that the data on the scorecard does make for-profit colleges look worse than nonprofits. There is, no doubt, an important political backstory to the choice of data used and the timing of the release - just as there is a long history of "justifying" a liberal arts education there is a loud, recent history of distrust of for profit colleges, many of which seem to be doing a far better job of accessing public funds than of educating students. <br /><br />And I agree with the need for an independent, associational space - free of profit and free of majority-rule politics. That is the value of civil society. I don't mean to imply that the growth in hybrid or commercial business models, or that a comparison on "value" or "Values" or that any form of "free market competition" within the "social good" market is going to make it easy to determine which goods are better provided by nonprofits and which by other enterprise forms. I don't think it's that simple. <br /><br />I do think that we need to recognize just how these services and products are produced and delivered and recognize the value of each kind and don't make rules that don't unfairly favor one over the other unless there is a clear, stated, majority-supported policy agreement about why we are doing so. <br /><br />I also think that the frames we've been using to distinguish "private resources for public good" from commercial and public sector is getting harder and harder to distinguish and the enterprise form itself - the 501 c 3, nonprofit, tax exempt organization - may not be the best, only, or sufficient enterprise form to ensure we can continue to work together as "private citizens for a public interest" It works well for some things and less well for others. Our nonprofit - as represented by the scorecard and Mark's problems with it - is not always seen as associational and expressive - in the scorecard's view it is simply one of two "distribution channels" for publicly financed AA and BA degrees...We might not like that perspective, but that's what we've got<br /><br />Thanks again<br /><br />Lucy<br />Lucy Bernholzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-50004829666010933422013-02-21T14:07:24.380-08:002013-02-21T14:07:24.380-08:00Thoughtful post, Lucy. Thank you.
I also agree tha...Thoughtful post, Lucy. Thank you.<br />I also agree that Mark Rosenman's piece is important and should be widely read.<br /><br />A few, hopefully not too random, or too disconnected, thoughts...<br /><br />First, I think the data being put out on the scorecard the Administration is creating – regarding costs, graduation rate, loan default rate, average amount borrowed, and employment – should absolutely be widely available.<br /><br />Every reputable and ethical college should make that data easy to find – and aggregating it centrally is great (although I am not sure it is as novel as Obama made it sound; my understanding is much of this data for many colleges is available elsewhere). Anyone deciding on a college should have access to this information: sadly, many who have attended for-profit colleges and universities, including many of our military veterans, have been lied to about this information by recruiters, as has been well documented.<br /><br />Second, I don’t think making this data widely available need necessarily suggest nor imply that it is only the economic value to the graduate that matters. Data should inform decisions, not make them. I attended college almost entirely on loans and institutional grant aid – my expected contribution was what I earned working during the academic year and during the summers. But I did not make my college choice solely on economic grounds, although I was well aware of all the data.<br /> <br />So while I agree with Mark that economic return should not “be the exclusive or even the principal measure of the value of a higher education” I don’t think that the Obama initiative, as I understand it, really suggests otherwise.<br />Rather, it suggests that this information should at least be easily available so it can factor into a decision. <br /><br />Third, I think it’s important to remember that there is nothing new about for-profit higher education institutions – although they certainly have proliferated since the early 1990s when, as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), it became easier for students attending for-profits to receive federal aid. So I question the notion that the scorecard is some kind of wake up call for nonprofit institutions, which have, after all, been operating in an intensely competitive environment – with each other and with for-profits – for some time. <br /><br />Fourth, to that point, the available evidence would, I think, suggest that it is the for-profit institutions that stand to lose if the truth comes more fully out about the low graduation rates and high indebtedness of so many of their graduates. I think where we differ, Lucy, is that I believe nonprofits are generally better at providing certain kinds of services – like education and health care – than for-profits and that there is a fair amount of data and research to back that up, some of which I allude to here. <br />http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/what_capitalism_cant_fix.html<br /><br />And there is also the simple logic of the fact that philanthropy allows nonprofit colleges, universities, and hospitals to provide services at below cost. This is tremendously important for those basics that provide a foundation for opportunity. <br /><br />So my sense is we shouldn’t be concerned only with the potential loss of an “an associational and expressive space,” although this matters very much. We should also care about preserving spaces in which financial profit is not sought – spaces in which, to the greatest extent possible, it is mission, and mission alone, that guides our decisions. Will there be resource considerations? Of course. But, as I wrote in the post I reference above, there is a crucial distinction between an institution that reinvests surpluses in its mission and one that faces unrelenting pressure to distribute profit to shareholders. <br /><br />I love free market capitalism and I applaud the “movement” – if that’s what it really is – to seek profits while also seeking positive social impact. <br /><br />But I believe that nonprofits play a unique and vital role in this country.Phil Buchanannoreply@blogger.com