The Obama administration is apparently plowing ahead in its effort to obliterate for-profit colleges despite strong arguments in opposition to the Education Department’s proposed “gainful employment” rules. The GE rules would elevate government product quality evaluations over those of consumers, an especially troubling development for an industry in which government also participates as a competitor. Writing in National Review, Neal McCluskey makes a number of good points in defense of the battered industry:
Public and not-for-profit private schools also produce atrocious results. This is especially true when you try to pinpoint students with demographics similar to those at for-profit schools: generally older, lower-income people who were less likely to be on a college-prep track in high school.
Consider completion rates again. When you compare for-profits with public colleges with noncompetitive admissions — the schools most likely dealing with similar types of students — for-profits equal or outperform them.
While acknowledging legitimate areas of concern with for-profit colleges – which they share with their public and not-for-profit peers – McCluskey zeroes in on the most important point:
Apparently, for-profit schools are providing something many people want, and unless you assume people are shockingly irrational, that is an important sign of relative effectiveness.
Consumers should be the final arbiters of product quality. Barring fraud or coercion, government should have little to no role in deciding which products or businesses that consumers choose.
