ITT Technical Institutes Shuts Down, Leaving a Hefty Bill

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Willtell

My daughter took a three month course in phlebotomy, cost three thousand, she can't find work and they keep pumping the students out.

It usually takes a lot more than a 3 month class in order to find work.

When it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
People complaining about not having jobs after graduating.... There's a lot more to it than that let me assure you. For instance I know there was a nursing program that was 18mo, sure you could cheat through school but if you didn't pass the test at the end that was like a state or federal test you have a worthless degree... Guess what that's ANY school you go to. Are all situations like that, no.

Again, I mean no offense but if the students are cheating their way through the classes, it's up to the teachers to enforce some academic integrity and make the students learn it on their own. By your own admission, you're not doing them any favors if you let them skate through the material.

originally posted by: greencmp
It's not the school which guaranteed the loan though, it's the federal government and you cannot default. There is no way out of federal loans and offering one would open the floodgates anyway.

Federal loans are forgiven (in fact, you can even be reimbursed) if the school you're attending loses accreditation or is forced to close while you're attending. It's been this way for a long time. Depending on the size of the school closing (ITT is pretty big) you might not get 100% reimbursement but it will be close. The feds in turn will get their money back from the sale of the school.

originally posted by: greencmp
That makes sense, I gathered that my perspective is atypical.

Being that there aren't any valid degrees for software development, I never found it helpful to include it. Now that HR people are beginning to understand that, they seem to have switched over to the certification circus.

I'm in software development as well. Listing a degree on your resume will never hurt you (unless you run into one of those crazy people that think degrees are a negative). At worst it's neutral, but even then it's a positive because the automated filters HR uses look for education, and then the HR people who aren't professionals look for it too.

Certifications for software are pretty useless, aside from a few boot camps, but even those are questionable.

What I've found in software is that what matters above all else is what you've done and what you know how to do. Degree's really only come into that if they taught what the employer is looking for. Anything else is for HR.

It's such a varied field though that it can be tough to sum things up in a 1 page resume if you've got some diverse experience.

yea, we got one of them schools in north carolina called new horizons. $18,000 for a curriculum that teaches A+ certification and thats just for the ground floor. If you want the pent house, you gotta dig DEEEP.

a reply to: Aazadan

By them cheating, it was an example. Not that they were allowed to cheat. Not door they ever in my class.

Its an example that shows it can happen anywhere at and school. By getting good grades, they meant nothing to a nursing program (I'm in drafting) because they had to take a state test.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
It's not the school which guaranteed the loan though, it's the federal government and you cannot default. There is no way out of federal loans and offering one would open the floodgates anyway.

Federal loans are forgiven (in fact, you can even be reimbursed) if the school you're attending loses accreditation or is forced to close while you're attending. It's been this way for a long time. Depending on the size of the school closing (ITT is pretty big) you might not get 100% reimbursement but it will be close. The feds in turn will get their money back from the sale of the school.

Even assuming that they were able to recover the initial investment, when would they return the money us? You are forgetting where the capital came from and the consequences of its confiscation.

Subsidy is a known tool that always produces the same side effects, increased price and decreased quality, even if it is simply charitable giving. When we allow individuals to choose how much to give and to whom, we avoid systemic corruption and institutionalized cultural malaise. Those voluntary donors are more plentiful and generous as well. All of the activists could donate taxation level mounds of cash to whatever association they please.

State welfare is harmful to all parties, albeit at different scales.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
That makes sense, I gathered that my perspective is atypical.

Being that there aren't any valid degrees for software development, I never found it helpful to include it. Now that HR people are beginning to understand that, they seem to have switched over to the certification circus.

I'm in software development as well. Listing a degree on your resume will never hurt you (unless you run into one of those crazy people that think degrees are a negative). At worst it's neutral, but even then it's a positive because the automated filters HR uses look for education, and then the HR people who aren't professionals look for it too.

Certifications for software are pretty useless, aside from a few boot camps, but even those are questionable.

What I've found in software is that what matters above all else is what you've done and what you know how to do. Degree's really only come into that if they taught what the employer is looking for. Anything else is for HR.

It's such a varied field though that it can be tough to sum things up in a 1 page resume if you've got some diverse experience.

Maybe as club I can see how it could be an asset to have, especially if you know the employer is partial to Harvard, MIT, etc. or you are just getting started. I have heard stories from people who drop their credentials specifically because it identifies them as high salary candidates too.

The certification scam is a good case study on the ineffectiveness of uniform indoctrination. Bureaucracies are where ideas go to die.

I would agree that some of the engineers of yesterday are now finding their way into management positions where non-technical skills take precedent. Those cases will certainly benefit.

a reply to: greencmp

Yes, ITT seems like a scam to me but then, so does UMASS. What are the chances of that being targeted?

All the money the govy gave to ITT, and they did not fix anything, like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning...
What they should have done, was focused on what their students needed to be able to hit the ground running when they were ready to enter the job market. You cannot compare this negligence with how UMASS runs it's campuses.

a reply to: charlyv

I assume by "they", you mean ITT. The government could only do one thing, subsidize, and subsidize they did, with our money.

The effect that subsidy had on ITT was a boon in students funded by government guaranteed (taxpayer guaranteed) loans. They simply responded to the increased demand in a completely natural and predictable manner.

And I was simply pointing out that no state college is ever held to comparable private standards.

I have a 2 year degree from ITT.

I'm an enterprise IT architect in a Fortune 50 company.

I have about 9k left on my 40k worth of original loans.

Just sayin...

originally posted by: greencmp
Even assuming that they were able to recover the initial investment, when would they return the money us? You are forgetting where the capital came from and the consequences of its confiscation.

Open to being wrong on this, but I was under the impression student loans are created the same way banks create loans, they simply leverage an initial pool of money and treat it like an investment. That pool is managed through the repayment of loans. It's not funded through taxes other than the initial outlay.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: charlyv

I assume by "they", you mean ITT. The government could only do one thing, subsidize, and subsidize they did, with our money.

The effect that subsidy had on ITT was a boon in students funded by government guaranteed (taxpayer guaranteed) loans. They simply responded to the increased demand in a completely natural and predictable manner.

And I was simply pointing out that no state college is ever held to comparable private standards.

In order to get that money, the government should have insisted that their curriculum was geared at putting people in the workplace. If you go to a technical school and find that your credits are most likely not transferable, there is a problem and employers were cognizant of that as well.

Most kids want to be web developers, gaming/graphics engineers and mobile wizards. That is fine, but a solid foundation in Windows/Linux systems and network administration and VMWare, will almost always get you in the door. To me, that should have been a mainstream requirement, as you really need that foundation to go further. All of that other good stuff is indeed good stuff, but understanding the technology is paramount in the eyes of business.

originally posted by: charlyv
In order to get that money, the government should have insisted that their curriculum was geared at putting people in the workplace. If you go to a technical school and find that your credits are most likely not transferable, there is a problem and employers were cognizant of that as well.

Most kids want to be web developers, gaming/graphics engineers and mobile wizards. That is fine, but a solid foundation in Windows/Linux systems and network administration and VMWare, will almost always get you in the door. To me, that should have been a mainstream requirement, as you really need that foundation to go further. All of that other good stuff is indeed good stuff, but understanding the technology is paramount in the eyes of business.

The problem is that the government usually doesn't know what is needed in the work place, because so many schools in this category focus on local employment. Lets take your examples, as chance would have it I have degrees in Web Programming, Computer Graphics, and am a senior in a Game Engineering program so I have a lot of experience with 3 out of your 4 examples.

Starting with Web Development, most web jobs don't need to know VMWare or Network Admin, those jobs are for IT not programmers. Most web stuff is Javascript based front end work. only 10-20% of the jobs are back end work, and only a fraction of those are involving things like making VM's to run several servers on one machine. Knowing some Linux in web dev is always nice but again may not even be used depending on the stack your company is using. I wouldn't call it a sure fire foot in the door.

Next comes graphics. Graphics actually falls into two categories, there's the art side where you need to know Maya, 3dsMax, Blender, Photoshop, and maybe some Python for some advanced Maya features. That's the art side, the other side is the programming side where you're writing graphics engines. These jobs are quite lucrative but they're few and far between. They also require a substantial amount of portfolio work and are quite critical on education. If you want to get started here you need to have memorized the book Game Engine Architecture, and have a solid foundation of 3d math. Additionally, you need to know OpenGL, DirectX, C++, and C. VMWare and network admin doesn't come into it at all.

Last is Game Engineering. Again, you don't need (or want) VMWare/Networking. Here you want to know Java, C++, and Python, have a passing knowledge of 3d math, know either OpenGL or DirectX, be familiar with Unity, Unreal, and Lumberyard, and just have a good mix of high and low level abilities in addition to knowing everything you'll find in a typical Computer Science program.

The base you speak of in most CS fields (which I consider all of that other than the artistic graphics), wants to be doing actual CS roles... getting shuffled off into IT is usually the death of your career because companies put you on a totally different trajectory and it's tough to break back in without a large body of work to show off.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
Even assuming that they were able to recover the initial investment, when would they return the money us? You are forgetting where the capital came from and the consequences of its confiscation.

Open to being wrong on this, but I was under the impression student loans are created the same way banks create loans, they simply leverage an initial pool of money and treat it like an investment. That pool is managed through the repayment of loans. It's not funded through taxes other than the initial outlay.

I'll see if I can summarize it, it's a good exercise for me actually.

Ordinarily, absent any interventionism, a bank would collect deposits. Those deposits would be cash assets to the bank and, consequently, a liability. The business model calls for the sound investment of that 'saved' capital into demonstrably competent enterprises thus producing growth. This also means that not all of the capital is actually in liquid form at the bank and available for withdrawal therefore, a fractional reserve.

The question is what fraction is appropriate. The free market says it is up to you, you can play and win but, you're on your own if you overreach.

Now, enter the federal government to bring 'socio-economic justice' into the equation.

Rather than collect savings and lend a portion out, the government mandates the lending without consideration of competence, supply or demand. This introduces a market distortion which will wreak havoc.

The question is no longer about what percentage of savings to invest and there is a much greater likelihood that there would be no return on that investment, it is capital consumption. All newly created currency simply adds to inflation further reducing buying power across the economy.

There's more to it of course.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: charlyv

I assume by "they", you mean ITT. The government could only do one thing, subsidize, and subsidize they did, with our money.

The effect that subsidy had on ITT was a boon in students funded by government guaranteed (taxpayer guaranteed) loans. They simply responded to the increased demand in a completely natural and predictable manner.

And I was simply pointing out that no state college is ever held to comparable private standards.

In order to get that money, the government should have insisted that their curriculum was geared at putting people in the workplace. If you go to a technical school and find that your credits are most likely not transferable, there is a problem and employers were cognizant of that as well.

Most kids want to be web developers, gaming/graphics engineers and mobile wizards. That is fine, but a solid foundation in Windows/Linux systems and network administration and VMWare, will almost always get you in the door. To me, that should have been a mainstream requirement, as you really need that foundation to go further. All of that other good stuff is indeed good stuff, but understanding the technology is paramount in the eyes of business.

I'm saying the government shouldn't be handing out our money at all, we can do that ourselves.

The big problem wit ITT was they had too many 'flavor of the month' degrees.
You can't get a job with a degree in criminal justice.