I really feel for all the students who are so close to graduating and not knowing if they'll have anything to show for it.. And their credits will most likely not transfer to another school because of the different accreditations.
But it also could have been that they would rather have had countable cash in hand than nebulous goodwill some time in the future. Business managers don't always make rational decisions based on what is best for the business.
Accreditation and transferability are different issues; ITT was accredited (were it not, it could not have participated in federal aid programs.)
> It seems like it would instantly increase the value of what they are selling.
Like Corinthian, what they were selling was largely fantasies, specifically targeted to demographics who were unlikely to recognize that they were fantasies. Were ITT intending to sell a legitimate education, sure, transferability would increase the value, but they were never going to sell legitimate education at the mass-market volume and premium prices they were trying to sell at.
http://suburbdad.blogspot.ca/2016/09/friday-fragments.html
Transfer of any sort tends to be tricky. You rarely get anything close to parity, particularly in core courses.
Depends on the school. I transfered from Northern Michigan University to University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. Most of my courses transferred and fulfilled most of my gen-ed requirements.
If that were the case anyone who figures out what they want to do and starts doing it in high-school would test out of a year or so worth of classes right off the bat. This would be particularly prevalent in STEM where there's a lot more test and "prove you know the material" based assessment compared to the humanities where there's more emphasis on producing a particular volume of work that meets a particular quality benchmark. Lots of STEM programs would be financially screwed if they couldn't bankroll themselves with huge freshman classes full of people who will change majors.
I got the ethics requirement for CS waved. I was a transfer student who had taken two semesters of business law, two security management courses, one class on computer and Internet specific law and crime and even then it was an uphill battle. After that they reworded the requirement to drop the "or take a series of comparable classes and obtain approval by the department" clause. My observation was that being as mostly dependent on tuition bred a "fight for every penny" attitude like you'd see in an insurance company which obviously caused a lot of inefficiency.
Which is bad for the bottom line, but would be the disruption that higher ed needs. Face it, universities' USP is now being credentialing machines, learning can be done quicker and better from internet moocs/OCW/video lectures/tutorials.
My brother got his 4 year degree from the same college, moved onto a master's at a bigger school and is doing quite well.
The idea that the ITTs of the world are more effective for vocational education than Community Colleges is a product of the massive marketing campaigns of ITT-style for-profit institutions more than any reality, as far as I can tell,
Community College.
Community college.
ITT is just the worst example of crappy education. There are plenty of schools where a crappy education is still available. Federally backed (edit: guarenteed) money for student loans intuitively seems problematic.
I'm pretty sure the ones that graduated have no chance of their credits transferring either. Only difference is they saved whatever the last couple tuition payments would have been.