How Education Has Become Corporatized

"Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get" - William Lowe Bryan

            Privatization of public goods has become a norm as we see an increasingly large movement against public institutions. A widespread belief among the American public is that the government is inefficient, and all economic woes can be solved by the privatization of public necessities such as health care, education, and media organizations. This approach can be beneficial if done right, but by privatizing one of the most important facets of our society, education, we have seen a for profit model that has morphed this once public institution into more of a corporation than a public good. While there are increasing tuition rates, an increase in people attending college, and the overall costs associated with these changing factors, the need for a change in the system to accommodate such changes is necessary. For profit colleges have been viewed as the antidote, with now nearly 7 percent of this country's 19 million students being enrolled in these for profit colleges (College Inc.). Many questions arise as to the consequences of creating a system where someone or some entity actually profits from providing somebody else's education. Is this a way of curing the ailments of a bloated college system, or is it just a detriment to the creation of a more moral and altruistic society? Should education morally be for profit? Is this system of for profit education actually bettering the economy as a whole, and whom does it benefit more? The C.E.O. or the student? Who gets to really decide in what ways the education is administered? An impartial body or the stockholders? Many of these questions have been raised and as our values are put to the test, we as a society must decide what programs or institutions should be based on a profit motive. As the stories of huge student loan debts, lack of accreditation for these schools, and predatory recruitment practices come to light, it is hard to defend such institutions that are sworn to educate our youth and lead them on a path of success. It seems that the only ones who benefit from such a system are those who have created the system and have sold it to us, the American public, as a viable alternative to the traditional university system.
            When we talk about the differences between a traditional university system and for profit, we must look at the ways in which both operate. Many will argue traditional universities aren't entirely non-profit, as the presidents of the public universities are paid large salaries, usually in the six figure range (New York Times par. 1). The difference between a president of a public institution, and a private institution, is who they are beholden to, and what interests they want to serve. A public university president is held accountable by the state, the students, and the academic world, and are expected to uphold a level of morality and ethics when administering new policies or curriculums for his students. A private university president is held accountable by the stockholders, the board of directors, and the private donations received by investment firms. This is what makes the priorities of the private, for profit university president much different than that of the public university president. The public university president must serve the needs of his student, while the private university president must serve the needs of Wall Street.
            We can already see how privatizing education and making it for profit perverts the motives of those in charge. When a person or an entity is to earn a profit off of somebody else's education, a conflict of interest arises. Mark Defusco, a former president of the University of Phoenix, the largest of the for profit institutions, begs to disagree. Defusco defends his stance on the need for this type of system in today's economic environment and how business and education do not create a conflict of interest, but rather the system fills the void left by traditional universities. Defusco says "I would suggest that in the practical world that we have to pay for things and that when we get scarce resources, as we have these days, that we have to make some decisions about where we use those resources. So I would say perhaps not a business, but certainly as a steward of resources, we ought to know what we do, and we ought to use our resources where we need them most" (Defusco par. 36). While this may be Defusco's defense and it sounds pretty good on paper, when you look at the facts and statistics, it is hard to tell whether the priority of these schools is in providing a quality education, or simply generating a high enrollment rate for the profit. The University of Phoenix spent over $130 million alone in advertisements in 2009, rivaling multinational corporations like Tide or FedEx (Wilson par 22).
            These for profit universities on average spend more on advertisement and recruitment techniques than the actual education itself (College Inc.). Much of the recruitment efforts these schools use border on being illegal, providing false information and unaccredited diplomas to students. High pressure tactics like incessant phone calls, creating a false sense of urgency for the students to apply, and promising degrees and diplomas the school does not actually offer have been alleged by various sources, from graduated students to former enrollment advisors. Some of these enrollment advisors are required to meet quotas of at least 150 calls a day to prospective students, and expected to close on at least 12 students a month (College Inc). This is troubling as it shows the significance the school places more on hooking the students in rather than providing them a quality education. It is said about 20-25% of what for profit universities spend their money on is advertising, meanwhile only 10-15% of their budget is allocated to the salaries of teachers, curriculum design, and the actual education of the students. Since the University of Phoenix and other for profit universities are actually sanctioned as private businesses, it is hard to get an exact figure on how much they actually spend on teacher's salaries and the education itself due to their right to privacy. This kind of secrecy also raises concern, because it shows their lack of public accountability to the public.
            Even with all these concerns being raised by the media and the public, the for profit sector of higher education is booming. In the past 30 years, enrollment rates for these schools have on average increased about 7% each year, while traditional public schools have averaged only about a 1-2% increase in enrollment (College Inc). For profit universities brought in a staggering $26 billion dollars into the economy last year (Wilson par. 16), meanwhile about 50-60% of the students who graduate from these universities end up defaulting on their student loans, which often go into the triple digit ranges, with $100,000-$200,000 worth of student loan debt (College Inc). This is the paradox of this capitalist version of education. It is benefitting those at the top while the ones who actually provide the monetary gains for these corporations are actually being scammed. This is a tool of oppression, as these students are often hustled into getting loans, either through the school or some form of financial aid, only to find out their diploma is worth less than the paper it is printed on. They end up becoming beholden to the loan industry and the school, while the C.E.Os at the top are profiting from the system. Often the recruiters at these schools are enrolling students who are not ready for college or do not meet college criteria, just to boost their own profits.
            This hierarchical system imposed on higher education is exactly what Paulo Friere talks about in his essay "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". He talks about how students in general are being oppressed by the education system in ways unseen by most people. He talks about the conditioning done on a mass scale, to train a work force of people who are indebted to the corporations and entities that aim to oppress the public for their own self interests (Freire). The same can be said about the for profit system of education, as we see those who run this system convolute the message to seem as if they are acting in the interest of the students, the same ones who end up getting the short end of the stick in this system of education in exchange for dollars and dimes. Paulo Freire says
            "Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in 'changing the consciousness of the
            oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them,' (1) for the more the oppressed can
            be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this
            the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic
            social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of
            'welfare recipients'. They are treated as individual cases, as marginal persons who
            deviate from the general configuration of a 'good, organized and just' society. The
            oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy society which must therefore
            adjust these 'incompetent and lazy' folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality.
            These marginals need to be 'integrated', 'incorporated' into the healthy society that they
            have 'forsaken'." (Freire par. 11).
Freire is saying that the goals of these for profit institutions are manipulated by those who state them to seem almost paternalistic and self sacrificing for the interests of the student. It's sort of ironic for these businessmen and entrepreneurs to sit back and say they are doing this for the good of everybody else, when it is very clear the only thing this system is good for is for the pockets of those claiming benevolence.
            On top of it, those that do graduate with accredited degrees from these universities often lack the hands on experience or connections needed to obtain a job. In the documentary College Inc, Frontline tells the story of three women who attended Everest College. They claimed that Everest College promised to give them a licensed degree in nursing and right after college they would be immediately eligible for practically any job in the field of nursing (College Inc.). A 12 month program and $28,000 later, the three women could not obtain any legitimate job due to their lack of experience in the field, whether it was interning at hospitals or any sort of firsthand experience (College Inc.). The women claimed that the only hands on experience working in the field of nursing while attending Everest College was their psychiatric rotation held at a museum of scientology, and their pediatric rotation at a local day care (College Inc.). This shows the school's lack of emphasis on educating the students and the actual priorities of these for profit institutions. It's not the quality of the education, it's the quantity. The more students who enroll, the money in the pockets of the C.E.Os, the more shareholders invest, the better the company does. These three women and many others who attended this college remain unemployed, as prospective employers claim the student didn't receive the proper training required to obtain a position in their staff. These three women and 10 others in their class are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Everest College for fraudulent claims posed by the university that they would provide the students with the training necessary to start a career in nursing (College Inc.).
            These examples and more show the problems that such a system of privatized for profit education perpetuates. When money is thrown into an institution that is traditionally nonprofit, it perverts the ways in which the system was originally designed. It seems that certain sectors of society just aren't meant to be made profitable. Education is a primary service that is necessary to further the progress of our country. With massive student loan debts, predatory recruitment practices, and unaccredited universities claiming fraudulent credentials, we see a system that breeds corruption and injustice, ultimately undermining our higher education system. As long as we live in a society that values free market and capitalist values, we'll see almost any institution be made into a business. Whether or not these institutions will thrive is a question of whether or not those who run the system operate it ethically. It seems clear that the way for profit education is currently being ran is certainly not ethical, and definitely crosses the legal boundaries necessary to be deemed a valid alternative to traditional methods of education. Until this system is either adjusted or abolished, we'll see more and more students fall prey to the vultures of capitalist businessmen, looking to further their own interests while simultaneously selling to us that it is in our interest as well.







Signing out- John Thomas








 


Works Cited

College Inc., Frontline. PBS, 4 May 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/

Defusco, Mark. Interview with Frontline. PBS, 16 February 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/interviews/defusco.html#ixzz1L7pIPu2X

Lewin, Tamar. "Presidents’ Pay Rises Faster at Public Universities Than Private Ones, Survey Finds", New York Times. New York Times, 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/education/17college.html
Paulo, Freire. Pedadogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, 1993. 
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html
Wilson, Robin. "For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education's Landscape", The Chronicle on Higher Education (2010) Web. 25 April. 2011
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/

Burma; A Country Forgotten

"The value systems of those with access to power and of those far removed from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of the privileged is unlike that of the underprivileged"- Aung San Suu Kyi

            When one is asked 'what are the worst dictatorships in the world currently?', most would give the usual answers; North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and others alike. Rarely do we hear about the country of Burma. Burma is a country roughly the size of California and holds about 55 million people. It's people have lived under the harsh and oppressive rule of the military junta since 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup against the Democratic government under U Thant. The goal of the military was to lead Burma onto a path of socialism, leading to the nationalization of almost all industries from business, to media, to production. This ushered in an era of untold pain, as millions were left in poverty, political rights were suppressed, and more suffered from terrifying living conditions.

Auun San Suu Kyi addressing a large crowd in 1988

              It wasn't until 1988 that a large scale protest shook the country, led by the charismatic and widely popular leader of the National League of Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, that many of the authoritarian government's crimes came to light. Thousands were reported to have been killed, as government thugs and security forces fired tear gas, bullets and applied other forms of deadly force to subdue the protesters. For the first time this country was thrown into the international spotlight, as people around the world denounced the government under the military junta, and much needed international aid was cut off to Burma, only worsening the quality of life for the citizens of Burma.

             Shortly after this protest, Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest, and has remained there ever since. Her party, the National League of Democracy had won the election held in 1990, but never received the right to govern from the military junta. International election monitors objected to the results, but little to no action was taken against the government. This has disenfranchised those who aspire to dispose of the military junta, as the government has shown that it has no plans of relinquishing power anytime soon.

             While millions in Burma starve, lack adequate shelter, and are stripped of their rights, the military junta under the current leader Than Shwe live in luxury, with huge palaces and mansions, making the life of a common person in Burma seem like the life of a common rodent. The military is so disconnected from it's people, that when a huge cyclone devastated the country a few years ago, Than Shwe actually halted aid to regions that were known to be anti government, leaving countless numbers of people to be left for dead.

Than Shwe being honored by the military junta

           The most recent attempt by the people to stage a revolution came 20 years after the 1988 revolution, which led millions of people into the streets. It all started when the highly admired class of monks in the country began to look at the conditions of their country and began to speak out. Burma is a country that has a high number of devout Buddhists. The monks are seen in an almost god like way, as they are the most highly respected members of Burmese society. What makes the monks speaking out against the government so important is the fact that monks typically are forbidden by their religion to be politically active in anyway. A virtue of monks around the world is to not get into the politics of their country, so when they started speaking out, it was evident that there were clear abuses of human rights and widespread humanitarian problems that the monks could no longer ignore. As one monk says in the documentary "Burma VJ", "It is not in our interest to get involved in the affairs of the government, but once injustices such as widespread disease, poverty, starvation and direct violence are pressed upon our people, it is our job as virtuous and moral members to speak out against such tragedy. We have vowed to follow this path of righteousness, and it is our duty to aid our common man as monks".

Monks flood the streets, inciting mass protests across Burma

              It is estimated that within the first week of the protests, over 2 million people joined the monks, and almost 400,000 of them were the monks themselves. Quickly the government came into suppress the riots, sending out the army to detain, injure and kill protesters marching through the streets. The monks sought to protect the people, using themselves as human shields to ensure the army wouldn't fire. Because monks are so widely respected, if the army were to injure or kill one of the monks, the country's reaction would be one of utter shock and disgust, making matters only worse. On top of this, even though the soldiers themselves are sworn to uphold the government (and are paid quite lavishly to do so, and if not they are intimidated through threats of death to them or their families), many of them themselves are buddhists, and see shooting or hurting a monk as blasphemous.

Security forces approaching protesters in the 2008 uprising

              The country went into lock down, as strict martial law was enacted, and groups of more than 3 people on the streets was deemed illegal. A curfew was set, and people could not be out on the streets past 7 pm. Despite all these threats and the mounting violence, people still protested and the numbers grew to millions. Three weeks into the protests, the military junta had finally had enough. At the end of a long day of protests, the government, which has posted large megaphones and speakers on each street corner, ominously sent out threats of violence against the protesters if they were to come out the next day and protest. 
              In defiance the protesters still came out in just as large of numbers and this was when it all fell apart. The army led a full assault on protesters, and it is said over 2000 people died in that single day. With the relentless assault, people were forced to flee for cover, and the military seemed to have won the battle, but the war was not over. The military wanted to send a message to the protesters as to the extremes it would go to ensure their grip on power, and to portray their complete disregard for the lives of their citizens.

An amateur journalist lies shot as other protesters run from advancing forces

               Earlier during the first week and a half of protests, about 140 monks had gone missing from a monastery said to have housed many of the dissident monks. Surely enough, the bodies of the monks eerily began showing up one by one, day after day along one of the large rivers that run through Burma. This was done by the government to show their viciousness and their contempt, as even the most highly respected members of society, the holiest and most virtuous of men would not receive mercy from the brutal rule of Than Shwe and the military.      

                While this event was covered, it is not seen with the amount of importance as an uprising in let's say Iran or Egypt has been seen. Burma, a country that has long been isolated from the international community, is not viewed as being a country of strategic importance to the west and other nations. It's lack of resources, unappealing geographic position, and inability to offer anything worth of value to the modern world, leaves the dilemma of Burma's harsh military rule ignored. It's a tragic story of the inability for us in the west to see the importance of protecting human dignity, fighting against tyranny, and upholding a sense of humility, even if there is no profit for us in the end. 

                 Why is it that everything we do must be profitable? Is it not profitable enough to say that we fought the good fight and that we freed a country of impoverished people from a brutal dictator? Or is it that it's value can't be measured on some company's spreadsheet that hinders us from intervening? These are all moral questions we should ask ourselves as we look to fight against the injustices of the world. What needs to be happen for us to see Burma as a country that is in need of not dire assistance, but dire intervention? Maybe the Burmese should find some oil somewhere.

Signing out- John Thomas

Sleeping With The Devil; How We're Led To Believe Their Wealth Benefits Us (The Rich's Riches Make the Poor Poorer)

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country" - Thomas Jefferson 

           As we enter this new era filled with challenges to the middle class such as declining wages, limited resources and widening wealth disparity, few in Washington are actually fighting to fix what is actually causing these social problems. With movements like the Tea Party that call for reductions in the size of the government, and the Republicans espouse their purely anti poor, pro-corporation standpoint, there is only so much the Democrats and pragmatic idealists can do to battle such a wave of amoral and corrupt values. We live in a country where the wages of middle class families have actually declined over the past 10 years, while the top 1% in fiscal terms have actually increased their riches by one quarter of a million dollars per year. I don't know about you, but this seems a lot less like a government of the people, for the people, and more like for the wealthy, and by the wealthy.

           It's a known fact that there is such a disparity in wealth between the what was middle class and the now glutton filled upper class but it seems like nobody is fighting the good fight. While there are many campaigns to fight against this sort of injustice, why is it that republicans still somehow, whether effectively or not, are able to eclipse the public debate by crying the old "socialism", "class warfare", "free market" sentiments, while simultaneously pretending to be working for the interest of everybody. Last time I checked, the bottom 99% seems a lot more like everybody and the top 1% seems more like, well, the top 1%.
          Trickle down economics as former president Ronald Reagan called it was a complete and utter fabrication, a promotion of free market and capitalist ideals while merely being just a facade to give to the rich and steal from the poor. The only thing that is quote unquote "trickled down" to the bottom 95% of us is the regurgitated and hardly digested goods the rich accidentally spill, and even then they still get to decide what we should or shouldn't have.

            In Wisconsin, republican Governor Walker and his team of anti-union, anti-worker staffers are working tirelessly at silencing mass organization and collective bargaining by effectively putting us back into the age of monopolistic and authoritative industries. These industries gave absolutely no rights or fair working conditions to their employees in the first decade of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt led the fight against these corporations as to not let them sway the government and eventually struck down corporation's right in favor of the people. This is the kind of leadership we need, not the kind that merely seeks to enhance it's own political agenda and fortunes by enriching the rich and taking from the poor.

            Look at the graph to the left. The share of capital income earned by the top 1% since the 1980's has gone up about 20%, while the bottom 80% of American's wealth have actually gone down about 15%. This is the reality of today's America. We live in a society in which people are so manipulated by these economic conservatives that they actually believe that those looking to destroy the middle and lower class are actually trying to help the lower and middle class. If the dollar bills these republicans and tea partiers were receiving could be marked based on income, you'd see that most of these bills are probably stamped with some corporation's logo on the back.

           And the age old cry of class warfare? That must be a joke. The only war being waged is against the impoverished masses, whether it's congressman Paul Ryan's incessant attacks on Medicaid, the number 1 provider of health care for the poor, or the idea that giving tax breaks to corporations and billionaires will actually produce wealth, is a prime example of the paradox Americans live in. How is it, that Paul Ryan, can say "We should cut $800,000,000,000 from Medicaid", a service that cures and prevents illnesses for the poor, but then say "We should give $800,000,000,000 to the top 2% because they are our 'economic engines of growth'". I'm sorry, but this is deplorable, and if you are any bit a decent person, you would understand that this type of behavior is just not acceptable. It's a value that is hardly a value, and is more of a dogmatic attack on the government for his own political gain, while simultaneously pushing down the poor and lifting the rich even higher. It's the ironic sentiment that we as Americans can't afford health care, we can't afford to fix infrastructure, we can't afford to send our children to school, yet we can afford to give billions in tax breaks to corporations and individuals. These entities end up using their high priced lawyers to figure out the best tax loopholes, making the taxes that they are already supposed to be paying avoidable.
          Just the issue alone that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations rights to 'freedom of speech' by allowing them to donate to political campaigns without disclosure is a testament to the unlimited power of the rich. The fact that in some statesm union organizations, the groups that lobby for the average worker in America aren't allowed to donate money to political campaigns, yet corporations filled with billionaire C.E.O's are allowed to donate not only unlimited funds, but don't even have to disclose the amount or to whom they donate to is in it's own right class warfare. It's the average American who is scammed out of his political voice in favor of the richest American. This way the corporations and the rich can move their money overseas, sell off America jobs to foreign countries, evade taxes, and on top of it, elect whichever politician they deem desirable by funding that candidate endlessly. Money is what wins in this country, not democracy, or liberty, or justice, just money.

          This is not an issue of the cleverly coined term 'class warfare', it is more of an issue of fairness. We all have to make sacrifices and give a little bit to get this country back on track, and we shouldn't be starting from the bottom up. It doesn't make any sense to attack the bottom rung of the ladder if you want to solve the problems we face today. Every single one of us collectively, whether you are Donald Trump or Joe Schmoe, we all have to give a little bit. Whether or not Donald pays more or Schmoe pays more is purely trivial. I know one thing for sure, Donald should definitely not be receiving any breaks before Schmoe should. 
          Our priorities and our values have been left in the hands of the wealthy who can afford the lobbyists and the face time needed with the politicians that are sworn to serve the people. We need to understand that if we want to move forward, we cannot put the weight of our budget problems on the backs of the poor. We can't put it on the backs of those who barely have legs to stand on. We have to start with those who can afford it, or at least make it that all who live in this country pitch in their part to get our country moving forward. I'm sorry Paul Ryan, this is 2011, not 1911; monopolies and Mr. Money bags aren't what need to be defended; it's the struggling mother of three who can't afford her mortgage because some C.E.O. has decided to cut costs by laying off his workers, or the financier at Wall Street who decided to sell off her mortgage in a risky investment. It's time to work towards a stronger middle class and not a stronger corporate state. This is more like the United Corporations of America than it is the United States of America. 
          Until we understand that this country's economic backbone is us, the struggling mother, the hard working college student, the back breaking laborer and not the playboy billionaire, we'll be left to be subjugated by the aristocracy that we have been led to believe is actually good for us. If we're going to say that these tax breaks and loopholes are actually beneficial, then I say Phillip Morris should go back to saying their product is beneficial for us too. I mean, both don't look too bad in the short term, right? But it's the cancer that will eventually kill us, maybe not today, but one day. Let's bring back the middle class the way we've brought up the upper class and let's do it in the right way this time. 

Signing Out- John Thomas