Government Report

HOME 2016 2015 2014 Employees 2013 2012 2011 Gov Report 2010 2009 2008 My Experience

This link points to a government report on ITT Tech:
(Excerpts from the report below)
ITT's student loan default rates are higher than most. Additionally, ITT offers some of the most expensive programs of any forprofit college, forcing many students to borrow the maximum available Federal aid and to take on additional private debt.
ITT operates two brands, ITT Technical Institute (ITT Tech), which accounts for 99 percent of the company's students, and Daniel Webster College.
the company [decided] to limit new enrollment in the criminal justice program. According to ITT's CEO, the reason for this limitation is concern regarding outcomes of criminal justice students.

ITT fired one fourth of the staff, including the school president. Interviewed in early 2012, the former president stated, ITT didn't have much interest in anything other than having acquired a regionally accredited institution and that if [he] had to do it all over again, [he]wouldn't have gone anywhere near ITT. The fundamental nature of the college has changed. He went on, ITT came in and said, 'we only want faculty to teach, we'll develop curricula in Carmel,Indiana and give them to you.

While the Federal student aid programs are intended to support educational opportunities for students, for-profit education companies direct much of the revenue derived from these programs to marketing and recruiting new students and to profit.

In 2009, ITT allocated 37.1 percent of its revenue, $489 million, to profit, and 19.1 percent, $252 million, to marketing and recruiting. ITT's 37.1 percent profit margin is the highest amongst the 30 companies the committee examined.

Executives at ITT, like most for-profit executives, are also more generously compensated than leaders of public and non-profit colleges and universities. Executive compensation across the for-profit sector drastically outpaces both compensation at public and non-profit colleges and universities, despite poor student outcomes at many for-profit institutions. In 2009, ITT CEO Kevin Modany received $7.6 million in compensation, more than 22 times as much as the president of Indiana University at Bloomington, who received $337,144 in total compensation for 2009-10. Modany's $7.6 million compensation package for 2009 is slightly above average for publicly traded higher education companies.

Compared to public colleges offering the same programs, the price of tuition is higher at ITT. Tuition for an Associate degree in business administration at ITT's Indianapolis, IN campus was $44,895. The same program at Ivy Tech Community College in Bloomington, IN costs $9,385. Tuition for a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration at ITT's Indianapolis, IN campus costs $93,624. The same program at Indiana University in Bloomington, IN, costs $43,528.

Not only does ITT cost more than their public school counterparts, it is also significantly more expensive than comparable for-profit colleges. For example, the cost of an Associate degree at ITT's Clive, IA campus is $47,928. The same degree at Kaplan University in Des Moines, IA is $30,654, and the degree costs $10,290 at the Des Moines Area Community College. ITT's Clive campus had a 54.7 percent withdrawal rate for students enrolling between 2008 and 2009.

Documents indicated that, at least during the period reviewed, ITT recruiters were trained to mislead prospective students about the cost of attending the school. ...recruiters are trained to answer with responses like: While prospective students are more likely to have difficulty obtaining a clear answer on the true cost of attending, current students can also encounter difficulty getting accurate information on price.

One pervasive sales technique employed by ITT is to manipulate a prospective student's emotions as a strategy to sell an enrollment contract. One ITT recruiting manager explained that a recruiter must dig in and get to the pain of each and every prospective student. He added, By getting to the pain, the representatives will be able to solidify the appointments and have a better show rate for the actual conducts.

ITT's training materials lays out the sales steps: Establishing Rapport, Transition into digging for the motivation, Transiting into feeling the pain [sic], and Transitioning into making the connection between the motivation and getting a degree.
To address students that sign an enrollment agreement but indicate they may not want to start school, recruiters are instructed to poke the pain a bit and remind them what things will be like if they don't continue forward and earn their degrees.

ITT, however, goes a step further with their pain-based sales techniques. The company's Pain Funnel" illustrates four levels of pain with questions corresponding to each level. ...  the "Pain Funnel" presents a number of questions that the recruiter can ask that are progressively more hurtful.

Documents also demonstrate a focus on recruiting students eligible for military benefits. ITT is the second highest recipient of post-9/11 GI bill funds, taking in $178 million between 2009 and 2011. In 2009, ITT initiated a military marketing plan with the goal of increasing military enrollments by 20 percent at 42 selected campuses.

Complaints demonstrate that pressure to recruit students resulted in the use of some misleading and deceptive tactics. One combat veteran with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder wrote to ITT saying:
The ITT Representative I met with told me that the military would pay for my schooling… Then a few months letter, I got bills from Sallie Mae saying I owe money for two loans [sic]! A federal and a private loan! What!? I was told I would never see a bill.
ITT is one of the most expensive companies examined by the committee, and it is not clear that the value of the education justifies the cost. The cost of attending ITT is so high that the company has created its own loan program to enable students to borrow money in excess of Federal lending limits.

The company makes this work by utilizing some of the most disturbing recruiting tactics among the companies examined … Meanwhile, the company devotes the largest share of revenue to profit of any company analyzed at 37 percent. Taken together, these issues cast serious doubt on the notion that ITT's students are receiving an education that affords them adequate value relative to the cost, and calls into question the $1.1 billion investment American taxpayers made in the company in 2010.

The full report on several for-profit colleges is here:

A government report on the investigation of for-profit colleges concluded:

Despite dismal outcomes and high defaults, for-profit colleges enroll between 10 and 13 percent of students but receive 25 percent of all federal financial aid dollars. In 2009-10, this amounted to 25 percent of the total Department of Education student aid program funds.
The investigation also documented that many companies recruiting tactics misled prospective students with regard to the cost of the program, the graduation rates of other students, the job placement of other students, and the transferability of the credit.