The sentence you quoted is poorly phrased, but taken with its following sentence as a whole the meaning is still there.
"A school that has only profitability as it's goal will be outed as such in a free market, and will not be chosen by consumers that care more about their children's experience. Schools that provide the best long-term experience for the students will have the best profits, no shady practices required."
The reason why the first sentence is poorly phrased is because the second sentence says in effect "if a school really has profitability as a goal, it will naturally avoid shady practices because otherwise it will be destroyed." It's a classic example of short-term vs. long-term decision-making, and in this case suggesting that long-term profitability requires that no shady practices are used for long and will beat out short-term profitability employing shady practices.
It's not a towering argument in favor of free market education, but I'm not sure that University of Phoenix is a counterexample. Do you have more information on this? My understanding was that their main evilness is taking advantage of the public non-free-market federal student loans business to get more students and money instead of lowering their prices, which is what some say would happen if you took the government out of the equation for public and private loan backing.
My own view is that education costs are tightly tied to the school brand first (which includes the most general brand of being able to say you're college-educated anywhere, which is very important for many jobs and shouldn't be (the knowledge yes, not the "spent time at this location with these people" part)), administrators next, then professors, and the actual knowledge somewhere further down near the bottom. MIT's OCW is just one of many places showing you're not paying for the information, but for status, facilities, and someone to help you learn. So education costs aren't so much a public/private or profit/non-profit problem but a cultural one.
Comments
The sentence you quoted is poorly phrased, but taken with its following sentence as a whole the meaning is still there.
"A school that has only profitability as it's goal will be outed as such in a free market, and will not be chosen by consumers that care more about their children's experience. Schools that provide the best long-term experience for the students will have the best profits, no shady practices required."
The reason why the first sentence is poorly phrased is because the second sentence says in effect "if a school really has profitability as a goal, it will naturally avoid shady practices because otherwise it will be destroyed." It's a classic example of short-term vs. long-term decision-making, and in this case suggesting that long-term profitability requires that no shady practices are used for long and will beat out short-term profitability employing shady practices.
It's not a towering argument in favor of free market education, but I'm not sure that University of Phoenix is a counterexample. Do you have more information on this? My understanding was that their main evilness is taking advantage of the public non-free-market federal student loans business to get more students and money instead of lowering their prices, which is what some say would happen if you took the government out of the equation for public and private loan backing.
My own view is that education costs are tightly tied to the school brand first (which includes the most general brand of being able to say you're college-educated anywhere, which is very important for many jobs and shouldn't be (the knowledge yes, not the "spent time at this location with these people" part)), administrators next, then professors, and the actual knowledge somewhere further down near the bottom. MIT's OCW is just one of many places showing you're not paying for the information, but for status, facilities, and someone to help you learn. So education costs aren't so much a public/private or profit/non-profit problem but a cultural one.