Hundreds of private colleges and universities have opened in China in the past decade in response to soaring demand for higher education in the world’s most populous nation.
Representative Tom Sannicandro joined his House colleagues Wednesday in passing a bill that protects students who enroll in for-profit occupational schools by expanding oversight of the industry, which has seen exponential growth in enrollment and profits in the last several years.
Sen. Dick Durbin [D-Ill.] recently proposed a bill that would dramatically change the way federal money can be allocated to for-profit colleges. Currently, for-profits are bound by what’s known as the “90-10 rule,” which says that 10 percent of for-profit college and universities’ revenues must come from sources outside of federal student aid. But G.I. Bill benefits can be counted towards the 10 percent, making them a lucrative source of revenue for the for-profits.
A little-known California law has dealt a blow to nearly half of the for-profit college campuses in the state, barring them from offering students a coveted Cal Grant this year.
Hundreds of private colleges and universities have opened in China in the past decade in response to soaring demand for higher education in the world’s most populous nation.
With education sector requiring an investment of over $150 billion in the next 10 years, the government has proposed new private partnership models for expansion of higher education sector in the country. The government has proposed setting up of large education hubs in different parts of the country anchored by large public/private sector enterprises funded through their allocations for corporate social responsibility.
US traditional public and non-profit private tertiary institutions have frequently criticised their for-profit competitors for failing to ‘be like us’. The latter’s business plan does not complement the former’s self-anointed purity. If for-profits pursue an operating surplus or profit for their owners, it must be at the expense of academic quality, they surmise.
In past decades higher education in Slovenia has been characterised by increasing globalisation, market-orientation and the privatisation of public and growth of private institutions. But the difference between the public and private sectors is not as obvious as one might think, with the former looking increasingly like the latter.
According to a report from a policy thinktank, private higher education colleges in the UK face being “devastated” by last year’s government clampdown on overseas students.
It hasn’t gotten much attention on the campaign trail, but President Obama and Republican front-runner Mitt Romney are sharply divided over one of the most controversial issues in higher education today — the growth of for-profit colleges.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg are to abandon radical plans to reform Britain’s university system that would have seen more private firms competing to educate students, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The establishment of five private universities here is helping to transform the work force in this part of Cambodia, one of Asia’s poorest countries and a society still living in the shadow of the genocidal rule of the Khmer Rouge.
A national convention on Higher Education on Monday denounced the three bills introduced by the government for the control of private institutions and universities, as “draconian.”
The British government's apparent move to suspend the higher education bill will not automatically derail the expansion of private provision, according to government critics and leading private institutions.
J. Gelissen, W. van Oorschot, and E. Finsveen. European Societies, 14 (3):
416-440(2012)http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.676660. (Eurobarometer).
C. Rudisill, J. Costa-Font, and E. Mossialos. Social Science & Medicine, 75 (8):
1362-1371(2012)First published online: July 2, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.005. (Eurobarometer).
T. Kuhn. European Union Politics, 13 (1):
94-117(2012)First published online: November 23, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1465116511418016. (Eurobarometer).
S. Mau, and J. Mewes. European Societies, 14 (1):
7-34(2012)First published online: December 7, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2011.638083. (Eurobarometer).
L. Toma, A. Stott, C. Revoredo-Giha, and B. Kupiec-Teahan. Appetite, 58 (2):
597-607(2012)First published online: November 19, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015. (Eurobarometer).
I. Verheul, R. Thurik, I. Grilo, and P. van der Zwan. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33 (2):
325-341(2012)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.02.009. (Eurobarometer).
M. Busemeyer, and C. Jensen. Socio-Economic Review, 10 (3):
525-547(2012)First published online: April 11, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ser/mws002. (Eurobarometer).
J. Legge, and R. Durant. Public Organization Review, 12 (2):
191-207(2012)First published online: April 26, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115-012-0175-x(Eurobarometer).
S. Kumlin, and P. Esaiasson. British Journal of Political Science, 42 (2):
263–282(April 2012)http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000712341100024X. (Eurobarometer).
P. Balestrini. Comparative European Politics, 10 (4):
449-475(2012)First published online: July 25, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/cep.2011.20. (Eurobarometer).