In the end, all new schools, public or private, snobby or not, add value to the education market, making it bigger and more efficient, in the same way that Zuckerberg added wealth to the economy even for non-Facebook fans.
I have observed private and proprietary colleges, like the University of Phoenix, and the market they serve. And I found it intriguing the way in which they are trying to deliver the product, with more accountability, for a price.
Textbook publishers don't even bother to advertise at their conventions.
Early in my publishing career, someone told me I'd need to have five books in print before I could quit my job as a journalist. Turns out it was closer to 10 books. It also turns out that while it's great to see my titles on bookstore shelves, my best customers are schools and libraries.
Before all else, the modern university is a business selling a product.
I think it's pretty well established that great schools are predicated on great faculty. That is not a Wisconsin market; that is a worldwide market.
If you could replace high-school yearbooks, that could be a lot of money. It's so clearly waiting for someone to come along.
The real fight is about what should be in the marketplace and what should not. Should education be a marketable commodity? Should healthcare?
Tutoring follows the lucrative philosophy of advertising: if you can manufacture a need, people with disposable resources will find ways to fill it.
Equity is compromised due to the privatisation of education. Education has become a commodity. Those who can afford to buy it, buy it, and those who can sell it make money out of it
The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task.
