04-05-2022, 02:11 AM
It seems to me, from my limited knowledge, that the GIANT loophole here is that the 90/10 only applies to for-profit schools. This is likely at least part of why we're suddenly seeing all these schools (Arizona State, Purdue, UMass, USC, etc) partnering with for-profit institutions on very long-term (10-30 year) deals. From my uneducated eye, I could easily see this as a scam to end-run around the for-profit rule.
The for-profits, from what I have read and heard, are still almost 100% in the driver's seat with these new partnerships with Purdue, UMass and Arizona State). They get a huge chunk of the income, do all the marketing, assist with admissions, and even develop curricula used for many of the programs.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but to me, it looks like the rebranding of, say, Brandman as UMass Global is simply a fig leaf that evades this ruling.
Am I missing something?
The for-profits, from what I have read and heard, are still almost 100% in the driver's seat with these new partnerships with Purdue, UMass and Arizona State). They get a huge chunk of the income, do all the marketing, assist with admissions, and even develop curricula used for many of the programs.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but to me, it looks like the rebranding of, say, Brandman as UMass Global is simply a fig leaf that evades this ruling.
Am I missing something?
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)