Mark Kuperberg:	Okay. I'll start with a standard disclaimer. Prediction is very difficult, especially if it involves the future. That's been attributed to Yogi Berra and about 20 other people. Okay. I thought there's a lot of doom and gloom discussion about colleges and elite colleges and the future of higher education, so I thought I would organize this in terms of Steven Colbert's Threat Down and the difference will be, though, that I'm going to start with the biggest threat and go to the smallest threat as opposed to the way he does it, which is the smallest threat to the biggest threat.
	Threat number one, tuition is too damn high and so that's also the name of a ten-part series on Want Blog, which I highly recommend, by Dylan Matthews, so we're going to go take a look at that. This is from the New York Times, Catherine Rampell, who's usually a reliable journalist. What it shows is, if you think medical costs have been increasing, college tuition is increasing way faster than that. Here's medical care costs. Here's gasoline. That's gone down a bit. Here's consumer items and here's college tuition. I think that's the type of picture that most people have in their minds. Catherine probably shouldn't have put it up.
	New York Times, two years later, made amends. They had an article by David Leonhardt, who's their main econ upshot report, where he looked at Amherst College and he compared the list price, so that would have been the college tuition and fees in this picture, list price to the average net price. As he says, "Amherst is a good case study because it highlights how the sticker price, that's the list price, of college tends to warp our impressions, as I discussed in my column last week, but I don't want to suggest that Amherst is typical," and this is most public colleges, I'll talk about it in a minute. Actually Amherst is completely typical. This is from the College Boards, all four year institutions, private institutions. The blue line is the sticker price, the published tuition and fees, the red line is net tuition after you deduct financial aid, and the green line is net tuition in real terms, after you control for inflation. You can see that, by the time you get down to the green line, there's basically been no increase in college tuition in real terms, net tuition. This is a story like nobody knows
	Public colleges are a little different because states have increasingly, the United States, withdrawn from subsidizing public colleges, and so the sticker price of public colleges, it's way low, all right, so the average sticker price for a public four-year institution is $9,000. Back here we're starting in 1990-91 at over $10,000. While the actual total price is relatively low in comparison to private institutions, the increase, which you can see here, is bigger. Once again, you have the sticker price, which is basically [inaudible 00:03:18] up, you have the net tuition with financial aid, and then you have the real net tuition, which is higher than it used to be, which is a little different than the private schools
	What that means is that, if you create a ratio of the private net tuition to public net tuition, Swarthmore College, an elite institution, and private colleges in general were in the worst situation around 2000 where their ratio was the highest in comparison to public institutions. Because public institutions are now getting less and less money from the state and therefore having to raise their tuition, the competitive position of private institutions has improved. In fact, it's the best it's been. Down here is good for private institutions, up is bad for public institutions ... Up is good for public institutions. It's private institutions are as competitive as they've ever been because, not because they're doing anything necessarily wonderful, but simply because public institutions are getting more expensive.
	People should stop me if I put up a graph here. I know the standard thing is questions at the end, but I don't go for that so you should just raise your hand if I put up a graph that looks freakish. 
	Whether it's worthwhile to go to college or not is not simply a function of what it costs to go to college, it's the return on going to college because college is not free. The first graph here, which is also in the New York times, shows the ratio of hourly pay for someone who has a college degree to someone who just has a high school degree. What you can see is this whole like, "Should I go to college?" You see articles like this all the time, "Does it pay to go to college?" That might have been an argument that people could have had in 1980, over here, when the ratio of college wages to high school wages was as low as it ever has been in modern times United States, but it's not a kind of a conversation to have now when, instead of being 1.4 times, the average college graduate earning 1.4 times the amount of a high school graduate, it's now over 1.8 times. Yeah.
Speaker 2:	This could wait til later, but actually this is something I wonder about sometimes. What if that average hides a big range?
Mark Kuperberg:	Sure, that could easily be true.
Speaker 2:	What if for half ... What if the top 10% is doing so well, that it complete accounts for that, and for the other 90%, actually they're not any better off financially going to college than if they hadn't?
Mark Kuperberg:	Right. Median would be a better number and I think this is the mean. The median would look less good than this, but I do think it would look good. The only argument, I would say the only argument for not going to college is that you might not graduate. Right? We're, the real ... Less than worrying about the mean and the median is worrying about the fact that this is people actually graduated. You know, just enrolling as a freshman, you know here, doesn't guarantee you're going to graduate so if you calculate that, and a high percentage of people that enter college don't graduate, then you're paying a bunch of money up front and you're still a high school graduate at the end of the story. Yeah, Lynn?
Lynn:	Is that potential wages or is that actual wages?
Mark Kuperberg:	This is actual wages that we're calculating.
Lynn:	Is that including people who are unemployed?
Mark Kuperberg:	Should. If you included people unemployed ... Well, English. The short answer is I don't know. The second answer is, if you included people who are unemployed the graph would be even more up because college graduates have much lower unemployment rates than high school graduates. This either does include it, in which case this is the story, or if it doesn't, it's even more favorable to college. 
Speaker 4:	Sorry to go back a couple slides, but when you calculated the real ... Yeah, like this one for example. Is that divided per just scholarships or is that ...?
Mark Kuperberg:	You mean why is it doing this quirky, squiggly thing?
Speaker 4:	Actually, so it's lowest, is it including [crosstalk 00:07:23]?
Mark Kuperberg:	No, no, no, just grants.
Speaker 4:	So different.
Mark Kuperberg:	Yeah, yeah, loans are ... My view on loans is you're paying for that.
Speaker 4:	It kind of doesn't include interest from the loans, does it?
Mark Kuperberg:	It's not including loans at all. This is ... Okay, if you had to ... Let's just, $10,000 tuition, you get $4,000 of grants, you're allowed to take out $4,000 of loans or something, I call that you paying $6,000, which is what this does. Yep?
Speaker 5:	Can we posit that those who go to college are smarter than those who don't go to college? I mean like they'd be earning more because they're smarter and not because they went to college.
Mark Kuperberg:	Yes. We have a name for that, it's called ability bias and that's certainly true and I'll give you a rate of return in a minute, and then I'll tell you the other rate of return.
Speaker 6:	What about people going to trades and tech schools?
Mark Kuperberg:	Yeah. Are they four year or two year?
Speaker 6:	Because there's some really highly paid people in trade school.
Mark Kuperberg:	Right. Are those four year colleges or two year colleges?
Speaker 6:	I think a lot of them are two years. 
Mark Kuperberg:	Yeah, this is just, I'm only looking at four year now. My bottom line here, again ... Yeah?
Speaker 7:	I might be reading this wrong, but it looks like cost is going down after [inaudible 00:08:41].
Mark Kuperberg:	Yeah, yeah. What happened here is the stimulus package. The College Board includes all, which they probably shouldn't have done it, but they include all of the tax benefits that you're eligible, your parents are eligible for when you go to college. Okay? The Affordable Care Act, I mean not ... The Affordable College Act, which was the Obama stimulus package, had extra benefits that ultimately were unwound when the stimulus package ended. That's in there and that's what's causing this down. Because you can see the actual sticker prices are not going down, so it's just this temporary tax benefit. Okay, once again, I would say private institutions, through no great thing of their own, nevertheless are in a better competitive position than they've ever been. Here's the value of degree, that's where we were. This shows you the lifetime earnings of people who go to college, that's red. People who have a high school degree, that's blue. It's true over your entire life, basically as soon as you enter the labor force. Yeah?
Speaker 8:	If I could, is student loan debt an issue for this kind of comparison?
Mark Kuperberg:	Well it's an issue for this kind of comparison if you look at Catherine Rampell's graph. That is not in any of my numbers. I consider that just if you paid it straight out. That is right economically. In present value terms, that's the right way to do it. If a college gave you the right to take out loans, that's just if they gave you nothing in these charts. Now, is it the case that psychologically people take the view or the ... Is it the case that psychologically this sort of thing in the atmosphere that college is super expensive and maybe it doesn't really pay to go to college, does that inhibit people from taking out loans, absolutely. Is that what you mean?
Speaker 8:	No, I was thinking about it, you know, 20 years later, if you're still paying down your debt, does that have any effect on your income and stuff like that.
Mark Kuperberg:	Well this is your wages independent of what you're doing with your money. 
Speaker 8:	You still have debt. I guess, wealth is a deciding factor.
Mark Kuperberg:	I mean yeah, if you have debt, you're not ... Someone without debt who's a college person is going to be able to consume a lot more of that red than someone who has debt. But I don't know that ... I think, I've seen no study that compares, that says the lifetime trajectory ... That doesn't mean there is no study, but I have seen no study. We have the lifetime trajectory of people who take out debt in college, their earnings are somehow different than the people who don't take out. Okay.
Speaker 9:	I'm just curious that chart that you just had up. I noticed that salaries decrease as we become older. Is that because you graduated later?
Mark Kuperberg:	You mean this part here?
Speaker 9:	Well, yeah.
Mark Kuperberg:	That's because people retire. This too ...
Speaker 9:	[crosstalk 00:11:38] people are 64.
Mark Kuperberg:	Well some people retire, you know, 63 is increasingly when odd people retire.
Speaker 9:	I'm just curious what [crosstalk 00:11:48]
Mark Kuperberg:	But also, people, especially for the high school graduates ... I'm actually surprised when I see this graph, the blue line, the high school graduates, it tilts down also, but a lot of high school graduates have very manual jobs and they can't do them into their 60s and their 70s, and so it is kind of surprising, in part because the college graduates start so high up, how steep that down line is as they get older, in comparison to the high school graduates. But the high school graduates didn't have that much room to fall.
Speaker 9:	Right. [inaudible 00:12:21].
Mark Kuperberg:	It is, I think, surprising, how quickly the college graduate line goes down. I'm actually a little surprised by that. Okay. This is the rate of return. This gets to one of these questions that the rate of return, which is you had to pay a bunch of money up front, you got wages later, you didn't go to, if it was a four year college, you weren't able to be in the labor market for four years, how does that all play out? This does that calculation and, by a Swarthmore graduate, by the way, Michael Greenstone, and so associate's degree, two year colleges, they have the highest return, 20% return. Four year colleges have a 15% return. The reason for that is because you don't have to pay a lot to get an associate's. The return is going to be what you put in, in like the denominator, versus how much you get out in present value terms, and so since you don't have to pay that much for a community college degree, the returns pretty high, but the actual dollar values are not quite as high.
	No back to your question, the ability bias. This gives you a 15% return, I would say that's an overestimate because of the ability bias, that this is just saying a bunch of people went to college, they paid a bunch of money for college, what was their rate of return. You do the math and it's 15% on average, but maybe, yeah Bill Gates is the poster child, right? He didn't graduate from college. He earned more than 15%. What do we do about that? The answer is there are controlled experiments ... Well, we're not allowed to experiment on people. You know, it's like it's a bummer for the social sciences, but sometimes the world did an experiment, like the Vietnam War.
	In the Vietnam War what happened was, if you were still in college you were deferred. Okay, well guys didn't take very long for males to figure this out. A lot more males went to college in the Vietnam War than right after the war. You can kind of calculate what the rate of return was based on that as almost like a natural experiment. Those numbers come out to about 7, 7.5%. It is less than the 15%. That is because they were random, because whether you decided to go to college or not depended a lot on your lottery number, which was random. It's a kind of the people who continued in college versus the people, or the people who chose to go to college to avoid the draft versus people who didn't in other years, that was random.
	All right. What is the value of an educational investment, from the same article? You can see, bachelor's degree is like over a million dollars over your life. Now the rate of return was lower than an associate's degree because you had to pay more to get the million dollars. My view on this, on all the charts I've showed you is this whole sort of rhetoric that, you know, college is something maybe you shouldn't go to is a form of child abuse. That advice is just really bad advice. Okay. 
	Second threat, MOOCs. They're massive, open, online courses, so open means free, massive means anybody can take it on the internet, and they're online, that's the internet. Or, as college professors think about it, massive, online, job killing machines, because we're all worried these MOOCs are going to put us out of business. I'm going to try to convince you otherwise. Here's this article, I found this to be a super interesting article. One of the most interesting articles I've seen in a long time, by researcher Carolyn Hocksby which is about MOOCs, but it's not really ... The interesting part is not about MOOCs. The interesting part is what it says about us, what it says about elite colleges and that's the part I'm going to concentrate on, so what she calls highly selective education.
	It turns out, first, that about 25% of all colleges are completely unselective, they're completely open admissions. You know, we live in this little bubble, right and it looks in a certain way, we think, kind of extrapolate, other colleges must be like this or to a lesser degree. Yes that's true, but there's 25% of them, a quarter of them, have absolutely no standards. Okay. We're going to compare them to the elite guys Here's selective colleges and non-selective colleges. I'm going to look at only one difference between these two kinds of schools and then, following Hocksby, I'm going to derive a ton of conclusions. I don't think what I'm going to talk about is the only thing that's going on, but I would like to impress upon people the fact that we're only going to look at one aspect as to how these schools differ and it's going to be kind of amazing how many conclusions fall out and how much if we just sit around and introspect about what we actually do here relates to what I'm about to talk about.
	For selective colleges, students pay a fraction of the cost of the education. For non-selective colleges, students pay the full cost of their education at the time that they go to college. Now that may be take out loans, that's still paying it because they take out a loan to pay the institution. What are the implications? For Swarthmore, students are paying 42% of the entire education. For private, non-selectives, 94% of the education is paid for at the time they take it. For public institutions, if you count the net tuition and the state subsidy, it's 97%. 97% of the total cost of the institution is sort of recouped in that year. For Swarthmore the endowment pays 49%, for non-selective colleges, 1%.
	Schools, this is Hocksby idea, schools are human capital venture capitalists. What do I mean by that? Human capital is economist jargon for people so when we think about investing in people, we're kind of crass and we think about it just like firms would invest in a machine and so we call that human capital. What we do here, economists would call human capital development. What do I mean by saying that they're venture capitalists? What it is is that, in this way of looking at colleges, which I agree is only one way, but it's pretty interesting. In this one way of looking at colleges, the colleges are laying out a ton of money up front, they're only getting a part of it back upfront. They're, in essence, speculating on their students to earn enough money going forward to, as it were, pay them back. That's the full ... That's the idea behind the fact, just deriving from students pay a fraction of the cost of their education. Okay.
	Over the very, very long run they need to recoup the costs. They cannot be indifferent as to whether students succeed. Whereas in non-selective colleges, in an economic sense, it's irrelevant whether students succeed because they've gotten their money up front. 94% graduate in five years. 7% graduate in five years. Hocksby says selective colleges have no choice but to be selective. We have to be selective because we have to, as it were, get the students who we have some confidence can pay us back in the long run. We don't ... It's not just the choice we have, as she says, it's not just the choice we have to be selective, which before I read the article I thought, "Oh yeah, that's a choice we have. We can choose not to be selective." The kind of, the implication of students paying only a fraction of the cost up front means we have to be choosy. Whereas, for the non-selective colleges, they'll take anyone who can pay.
	Okay. How else are we different? We need to be loved because there isn't an actual contract with the students to pay us back after they graduate. The sound is not required for ... How does that play out? Student-faculty interaction, 90%, in selective colleges, 90% meet with an academic advisor, 89% meet informally with a faculty member. In non-selective, 57% meet with an advisor, 29% meet informally with a faculty member. Student to student interaction, 85% meet in study groups. You walk around here at night, it's all study groups. Well, that's our view anyway. We're assuming they're studying. Student to student interaction, 29% meet in study groups. You know because we have the Quaker matchbox, both figuratively and now literally to create love and nostalgia. Create class consciousness, by this I mean, not that you're going to be upper middle class, I mean that you're going to be the class of 2015. Okay? Only 10% attend more than one college, including summer school, and remember there's a 97% graduation rate. There's no class solidarity in the non-selective colleges. 52% attend more than one college and only 7% graduate in five years so this whole idea, why do we do that, because people get a feeling of, "Oh my class, my fellow classmates." There's no analog warm feeling in the non-selective colleges.
	The other thing, it's wasteful for us to drop students, to have students drop courses, because we put a lot of resources into the students, remember we're putting a lot more in than what they pay, and we put a lot of resources in them in the hope that they will ultimately succeed and, as it were, pay us back. Almost no students, .7% of students drop courses in selective colleges, but dropping courses is how kids shop at non-selective colleges. They drop 13% of all the courses they're enrolled in. Then what Hocksby ...
Lynn:	Mark do you mean like courses, you mean course of study?
Mark Kuperberg:	I mean, no, I mean I sign up for your course and I drop it.
Lynn:	But not during shopping period, like after the semester ...
Mark Kuperberg:	After, yeah, right, right, right. Shopping period is free, right. Their shopping period goes on the whole semester.
Speaker 5:	They don't have a shopping period.
Mark Kuperberg:	Right. Okay. Got some more actually. Selective colleges, I'm going to have to move faster, have a non-standard, fairly complex curriculum. Non-selective colleges have a standard, relatively simple curriculum. For example, high school algebra is 6% of all courses taken in non-selective colleges. 100% of students write term papers graded by professor. 5% of students write term papers graded by a professor. 25% of the courses have multiple choice exams. 70%, I'm surprised 70's so low. 70% of the choices have multiple choice exams. What's that number? 76% of professors have PhDs and 58% from selective graduate programs. Here 13% of the professors have PhDs and 6% are from highly selective programs. Okay.
	What Hocksby then says ... Whoops, get it to work. What Hocksby then says is that the selective colleges are really not in the same market as the MOOCs. The MOOCs are more like the non-selective colleges so if the MOOCs are going to drive anybody out of business, it's going to be the non-selective colleges. I'll go one step further than that. Harvard and MIT have this thing called EdX and, from my, from an economics perception ... A lot of people go, "Why are the doing that?" And I don't actually know why they're doing and I'm pretty sure they may not even know why they're doing that, but it has an interesting implication which is that they've basically destroyed the market for the other schools because they're producing the highest quality courses and giving them away for free. You can't compete on quality and you can't compete on price with them. You can't be lower than zero and you can't be higher quality than Harvard and MIT. There's really a limited range for these MOOCs to sort of compete.
	So highly motivated students can learn in a MOOC environment and they're relatively cheap to educate because they'll do it on their own, kind of. The thing is that less motivated students require more far more resources. The highly motivated students are in the selective colleges and, in fact, the people who successfully complete MOOCs tend to be highly motivated people who already have a college degree who are trying to pick up a little extra knowledge on the side, because they can actually succeed in the MOOC environment. The less-selective students are going to have trouble in the MOOC environment unless a lot more resources are put into the MOOCs, but then the question becomes whether you can educate less motivated students, whether that money can be recouped in an online environment. I'll just call it the iTunes effect. In other words, what Apple discovered is people are willing to pay 99 cents for something they can steal, but they're not willing to pay more than 99 cents for something they can steal. Once somethings on an online environment, some clever person is going to figure out how you ... Now you don't have to steal the Harvard and MIT courses because they're being given away for free, but once somebody starts to seriously charge for this stuff, they're going to have to be really careful to prevent pirating. So far the online industry has not been able to successfully do that.
	Threat three, pre-professionalism. Here's a graph. I think this is a serious issue for liberal arts colleges, although not necessarily for elite colleges. What this is is a graph that lists the earnings of students by various, by what your major was and it was designed to talk about the recession so it both gives you the earnings in normal times and the earnings as a result of the recession relative to the average, which is zero. The only thing I'll say is the image of the philosophy major serving coffee at Starbucks, no offense guys, is true. I mean, you could be a stereotype, but it's still going to be true. They had the lowest. They had the ... Religion I guess is not so good either. Anyway, they had the lowest earnings and then the recession drove them even lower. That's the red. Whereas our heroes, the economics department ... There's nothing we can do, right? This is all self selection. I sent this graph to my colleagues and I said this is nothing to really be proud of. Okay. Here's economics, and we were the highest, really quite more than finance, kind of amazing. The recession, relatively speaking, everybody got hurt, but the people on this side of the line did better relative to the average after because of the aftermath of the great recession than during normal times before the great recession. I guess you could take that.
	That is, I think a danger to liberal arts colleges that, you know, they end in the liberal arts, the more practical degrees earn a lot more money.
Speaker 9:	Mark there's no science.
Mark Kuperberg:	What do you mean no science?
Speaker 9:	No natural science.
Mark Kuperberg:	They divided it. There's like civil engineering, computer programming ...
Speaker 9:	No biology and chemistry [crosstalk 00:27:28].
Mark Kuperberg:	Yeah, I don't know. Okay. I'll send you the paper by these guys who do it divide it up into, I guess, a lot of, some more categories than this. 
Speaker 10:	Is there an explanation for the increase in earnings?
Mark Kuperberg:	This is not an increase. It's an increase relative to the average. Okay? It's not an increase. It's just that you're relatively better off than you were. Threat four is research universities. Here's kind of the same, Greg Mancue. Who's Greg Mancue other than JimBob's brother separated from birth? He's the chairman of the Harvard Economics department. He's also the editor, the author of, I think, the best selling Intro to Economics textbook on the planet. He has a blog. What happened during the Occupy Wall Street movement was that some Harvard students boycotted his class. That became a big hoopla thing that he put on his blog and he cited a bunch of things, but the point I want to point out is that a student came to his aid, wrote an op-ed in the Crimson defending Mancue. This is the whole thing, but here's the part I'm interested in. This occurred in about in the middle of November, the Occupy, the boycott. To date Professor Mancue has given three lectures in Ec10. This is meant to be a defense of Mancue, because ... The students boycotted him without really giving him a chance because they'd only had three lectures so far. Okay? It turns out, by November 2, the same exact date in Introductory Economics here at Swarthmore, the professors had given 24 lectures. 
	Here's the second thing. Once again, Greg Mancue's blog, "Best Job Opportunity Ever." He says, "The Harvard economics department is now recruiting teaching fellows for it's popular undergraduate principles course, Ec10," that's the course that got boycotted, "for the next academic year. If you're a Boston area graduate student with a solid background in economics, please consider interviewing." The point of the story is, even Harvard graduate students, don't teach the Harvard undergraduate. Harvard has to get other graduate students to teach the Harvard undergraduates. I actually think that we have a comparative advantage to ... If you think about MOOCs, colleges and universities are going to have to provide services that MOOCs can't provide. A bit part of that is like being almost like a personal trainer. Personal trainers are not going to go out of business. The internet is not going to drive personal trainers out of business. This idea of having a close relationship with your students, that will survive the internet, but the research universities don't do that. They don't teach a lot. Whereas we're almost in a sense more ... Because we actually do sing for our supper, we're in a better position, I think, to absorb this MOOC revolution than the research universities are because we provide a service that can't be mechanicalized. That would be my point.
	Okay, threat five, for profit colleges. First off, what is the difference between non-profit and for-profit institutions? The first point is less than you think. That non-profit institutions can still earn a profit. Here's a question, my only question. In 2012-13, which is the latest numbers from the financial reports that are on the web, what do you think Swarthmore college's profits were if we treated it like a for-profit institution? Okay, so that's an unfair question because I didn't give you context. 
Speaker 4:	Are you including the endowment on that?
Mark Kuperberg:	It turns out that the operating expenses for 2012-13 were 128 million dollars, so that's what it cost to run the whole college. Now what do you think our profits were?
Speaker 9:	[inaudible 00:31:28]
Mark Kuperberg:	163 million dollars.
Speaker 4:	Because you're including the return on the endowment.
Mark Kuperberg:	Because I'm including the return on the endowment, which, if we were Goldman Sachs we earned capital gains on the assets we were holding, would certainly count as our profits. Okay? But there is a key difference and that difference is the board of managers can't take the money home. The profits have to remain in the institution and that really is a very, very big difference and that is fundamentally what distinguishes non-profit colleges and universities from for-profit colleges and universities. The fact that the board of managers can't take the money home means they have to seriously be worried about the institution and the education it provides. That is not true in the private for-profit sector. Here's Steve Eisman, who was the hero of The Big Short, if you've read that book by Michael Lewis. He became a hero by shorting the entire sub-prime mortgage market and making a fortune. He gave an address called Sub-Prime Goes to College and here's what he said, "Until recently I thought there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the sub-prime mortgage industry. I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task.
	Then just a half hour, today, this is Memorial Day, I mean this is Veteran's Day, and just a half hour before I came here, it was this article in the New York Times. It was because it's Veteran's day it was about GIs and the for-profit college industry. Here's what it says, "Perhaps the most troubling," most troubling is more than like post-traumatic syndrome okay. "Perhaps the most troubling phenomenon returning veterans face right now is this: predatory for-profit schools that exploit the GI funding and orphan them and tax payers very little in return. The schools in question are eager to access our veterans' grants and loans, but they employ deceptive recruiting practices and achieve low graduation rates. For-profit schools have receive over four billion, over one third of all the GI benefits, even though they educate only one quarter of the veterans and even though the graduation rate is less than the graduation rate for non-profit schools. For-profits are also responsible for about half of all student loan debt bankruptcies." If you ask me what is the future for the executives of the for-profit college industry, it's that. Thank you.