The Student Room Group

Education for profit. Good or bad? Why?

Many people dislike the idea of education-for-profit and think that it is wrong for people to profit from providing education. Within that group, virtually nobody thinks it is wrong to profit from providing food-for-profit, transport-for-profit or books-for-profit.

What do you think? And why do you think about education this way?

Scroll to see replies

It's not really the profit aspect that is what characterises independent schooling (most of them are non-profit schools) but rather independence from the state system.
Reply 2
Avatar for T.L
T.L
OP
5
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
It's not really the profit aspect that is what characterises independent schooling (most of them are non-profit schools) but rather independence from the state system.


Actually, most independent schools are charities. What I was thinking of more is that there seems to be a strong distaste for companies making money out of education. e.g the idea of private companies operating academies, private schools or universities being run on a for-profit basis, companies like Pearson making money out of running exams etc.

I was doing some research on revision products and while looking at apps for revision was surprised to find quite widespread complaints from presumably fairly intelligent students who strongly felt that it was wrong to charge £1-2 per subject to supply revision guides / question papers etc. I thought it was pretty weird to be prepared to spend hours revising but to think that spending a few quid to help it was unreasonable.

What do you think?
Well look at it like this. If you outsource state education to private organizations they will gorge themselves since they are in the business of making money. Costs the tax payer more.
There are things like this like Caribbean MD schools. I don't see whats wrong with our current system, why fix it?
Reply 5
Avatar for T.L
T.L
OP
5
Original post by Okorange
There are things like this like Caribbean MD schools. I don't see whats wrong with our current system, why fix it?


A lot of people think there is serious inequality of opportunity for children. Some have the opportunity of an extremely good state or independent education, others seem to be stuck with no option other than a poor state education.
It's clear that the state education system provides very unequal outcomes. Evidently, the state is unable to address this problem, so what can the private sector do to provide better, or to help?
Look into the following:

University of Phoenix
ITT Tech
The rest of the ****ty for profit schools in Murica

In the UK there is the likes of LSBF...

Then tell me how "for-profit" education is a good idea.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Gott
Do people not understand that it's possible to have two motives for doing something? This is just a communist mentality you speak of OP. If you can provide good education and make money then good luck to you


Thinking that you should have a somewhat mixed economy with services such as the NHS and education not having a profit motive coexisting with capitalist markets of some sort does not make you a communists.
Reply 8
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Who is responsible for administration? That will determine if it is good or bad. I see no difficulty in making a profit, if that profit is put back into the facilities it will be useful instead of relying on government grants all of the time.
Original post by T.L
A lot of people think there is serious inequality of opportunity for children. Some have the opportunity of an extremely good state or independent education, others seem to be stuck with no option other than a poor state education.
It's clear that the state education system provides very unequal outcomes. Evidently, the state is unable to address this problem, so what can the private sector do to provide better, or to help?


Independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships. If someone really wants to go to an independent school, but doesn't have the money to pay for it, the school can pay their fees for them.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by EatAndRevise
Independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships. If someone really wants to go to an independent school, but doesn't have the money to pay for it, the school can pay their fees for them.


I doubt they would be able to cope if every kid went to an independent school.
Original post by Juichiro
I doubt they would be able to cope if every kid went to an independent school.


Obviously they wouldn't be able to cope, but at least they make their education available to people who would not normally be able to afford it.
Original post by EatAndRevise
Obviously they wouldn't be able to cope, but at least they make their education available to people who would not normally be able to afford it.


I am going to be really annoying and say that the specifically "make their education available to some people who would not normally be able to afford it" rather than "ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it". It's like university education. It only works when few do it, when everybody goes for it, it worsens. Just imagine if we had a significant East Asian population like they do in America. They would outrank most non-East Asian in a few years.
Original post by Gott
That wasn't what OP was talking about specifically. And I am in favour of health care being delivered by a mixture of the private and charitable sectors as in most other European countries, the NHS shouldn't exist


SO why did you bring it up then?

I think it;s perfectly fine, or even preferable to think schools and healthcare shouldn't have profit motives driving them. I also think that profit motive can get in the way of what you are supposed to providing.

That doesn't mean I am a communist. Whatever that is.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Juichiro
I am going to be really annoying and say that the specifically "make their education available to some people who would not normally be able to afford it" rather than "ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it". It's like university education. It only works when few do it, when everybody goes for it, it worsens. Just imagine if we had a significant East Asian population like they do in America. They would outrank most non-East Asian in a few years.


Why would you say "some people" instead of "all people"?

I'm not quite sure why you are using university education as a comparison, because everyone can afford to attend university.
I think one can object to privatising higher education on three grounds: (i) for its effect on entry; (ii) for its effect on educational focus; (iii) for its effect on education quality. The debate often begins and ends with (i), namely, that education is so important and public a good, and its limitation to the wealthy so effective in reproducing inequality, that it should be open to all meeting some minimal threshold of merit. I think (ii) is also very important. By which I mean the commercialisation of higher education. If people have to pay a great deal of money for entry, over the long run they will come to treat the experience not as one of self-enlightenment, but of investment in one's market value. Or at least the latter will increase over the former. The original idea of the modern university - of being a better, more enlightened and engaged person for it - is thusly supplanted by a terrible instrumentalism. As much is evident from these boards when people speak of an implicit course hierarchy according to average graduating salary. STEM and those courses which might provide a platform to working in financial services are now generally presumed to be 'better'. As that expectation grows, so universities cater their courses, careers services and facilities to graduate employment, and so advertisement and careers promotion grows on campuses. Perhaps (iii) partly owes itself to (ii), but I'm sure profiteering *may* encourage practices detrimental to education, certainly for those with less money, as is reason of (i). A.C. Grayling's New College of the Humanities - a private university whose entry costs £18,000 per year - is hardly a shining example, i.e. hiring big-name faculty with which to advertise itself, but who are present at the university a fortnight every year, or something of that order.

Original post by Gott
That wasn't what OP was talking about specifically. And I am in favour of health care being delivered by a mixture of the private and charitable sectors as in most other European countries, the NHS shouldn't exist


Why? It provides better healthcare per-pound than its European competitors, and its distribution is equalised such as not to peg the basis of life to one's market value.
Original post by EatAndRevise
1.Why would you say "some people" instead of "all people"?

2. I'm not quite sure why you are using university education as a comparison, because everyone can afford to attend university.


1. Because there is a difference between some and all. I highly doubt independent schools could get all kids in the UK onboard.

2. That is not exactly true. Everyone can afford to attend university as long as not everyone attends university. Too confusing? Let me put it like this: everyone in the UK can walk inside the Parliament as long as not everyone in the UK walks in the Parliament (at the same time). It makes the difference between going to uni when Stephen Fry did and with the history he had and the way current students go to uni with the history that they have.
Original post by Gott
Evidence?

That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-86890/Why-Germany-France-lead-way-health-care.html


I thought that it was common knowledge. The NHS is not perfect, but it is world-leading.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1079

commonwealth fund on national health system efficacy.jpg
Original post by Gott
Evidence?

That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-86890/Why-Germany-France-lead-way-health-care.html


I see that you have now edited your post to include a link from the DM.

If you are going to cite a study, cite the study, not what the Daily Mail chose to select from the study.
Reply 19
Avatar for panda14
panda14
3
Original post by wilson_smith
I see that you have now edited your post to include a link from the DM.

If you are going to cite a study, cite the study, not what the Daily Mail chose to select from the study.


Somewhat Offset by BMJ to be fair

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you