ETS raised the price!

[JerryLandis]

Why would it be unfair to make the actual test more expensive? If it costs ETS $200 to administer the test, shouldn't people taking the test pay $200 instead of making those who choose to apply to more places have to shoulder the burden? Why should one person have to cover the costs of someone else's test?

[liszt85]

Why would it be unfair to make the actual test more expensive? If it costs ETS $200 to administer the test, shouldn't people taking the test pay $200 instead of making those who choose to apply to more places have to shoulder the burden? Why should one person have to cover the costs of someone else's test?

Valid point but think about this: if you choose to apply to more places, it probably suggests that you have the means to do so. Why would somebody not apply to 20 different places while you do? So this could be seen as a concerted effort (by both ETS and the universities/govt(?)) to level the playing field (financially). So if a person with limited means chooses to apply to the 4 universities (that ETS would send the scores to for free) and if another person chooses to apply to 13 universities regardless of the expenses, it probably means that the former person should not have to take the burden of additional costs because you're talking about a chance at education here.. there are more important social factors to consider here than just black/white equal responsibility of test takers. But yes, you raise a valid point but this is how I'd argue against it.

[asha]

I stopped reading before the end of this thread because it got too off topic, so I am sorry if this has been covered. I understand the necessity for a standardized test due to differences in grading, both in the US and abroad. I understand that it is probably best if it is administered by a monopoly for logistical reasons. I don't mind the employees getting paid fair wages. What I do mind is the fact that ETS is a non-profit organization, which means they don't pay federal taxes (on most of their profits). They were granted this status because they are supposed to be serving higher education. Surely this includes the students in the system? Yet, they made $94 million in profits in 2007. I think that is excessive. I don't know if the $23 fee is excessive, or if the test fee is excessive, or if the profit isn't tied to the GRE at all. We probably never will know because they don't have to disclose anything. I understand that they need to keep investing money into the system, but there is no way that they need $94 million a year on top of their operating costs. It is more likely that they will use that money to expand into other markets, such as NCLB testing. Like I said, I don't mind paying for a service. I do mind excessive profits from a company that is supposed to be serving the educational system.

I got all my information from here.

[JerryLandis]

So that makes it okay?

Why should I have to cover the cost of someone else's test (as you insist I should with inflated score report prices) when the company is swimming in profits? I think it has been established quite clearly by the post above that the costs of ETS's services are not necessary for the satisfactory management and performance of the company.

Using the example of a health insurance company to justify something just shows how weak your point is.

[asha]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Now we are debating the merits of capitalism on here? What?

People see $94 million dollars in profit and freak the f out. What is an appropriate profit level? $1 million? $2 million? $10 million? Why do you see "$94 million" and immediately make the assumption that it is too much? Just because an organization is classified as "not-for-profit" doesn't mean that it can't be profitable.

Since we seem to be getting so off-topic as it is, consider that Wellpoint, the health care insurance firm, made a record $4.7 BILLION dollars in profit last year. BILLION. One of a sea of heath care insurance companies made 50x more than the largest monopolistic testing agency in the world. So what, exactly, is "too much"?

Sorry, but this is the reality of capitalism today. We have the ETS. We have Wellpoint. We have a lot of companies, actually. Maybe the real problem isn't the ETS, but the system in which we do business. Unless the system changes, this is what we are stuck with.

I wasn't debating anything about capitalism's merits. Actually, ETS is a non-profit monopoly, so it has nothing to do with capitalism. I fail to see why you're comparing it to a publicly traded health care company which has shareholders, pays taxes, is subject to scrutiny by outsiders and is in competition with other companies ... it virtually has nothing to do with anything I said about ETS. I never said for-profit publicly traded companies shouldn't make profits, so bringing up Wellpoint is pretty silly and distracting.

I think that $94 million in profits is excessive for a company that has been granted non-profit status based on their mandate to serve the education system. You can think differently; it is subjective.

[liszt85]

I wasn't debating anything about capitalism's merits. Actually, ETS is a non-profit monopoly, so it has nothing to do with capitalism. I fail to see why you're comparing it to a publicly traded health care company which has shareholders, pays taxes, is subject to scrutiny by outsiders and is in competition with other companies ... it virtually has nothing to do with anything I said about ETS. I never said for-profit publicly traded companies shouldn't make profits, so bringing up Wellpoint is pretty silly and distracting.

I think that $94 million in profits is excessive for a company that has been granted non-profit status based on their mandate to serve the education system. You can think differently; it is subjective.

While I agree you have reason to say this, from the site that you referenced: Revenue of $879.7 million; Expenses of $785.6 million.

Now I would expect a profit/loss of $94million just by random error of calculating expenses looking at the total expenses! Don't you think that's reasonable? No company is going to calculate conservatively its estimated expenses (which they use to decide on prices of services). That would be the end of the establishment. It would be good to look at what ETS used its profits for. Did it all go to the CEO? In any case, like I said, 94m when total expenses = 800m is to be expected out of any non-profit organization which does not want to go bankrupt.

[asha]

While I agree you have reason to say this, from the site that you referenced: Revenue of $879.7 million; Expenses of $785.6 million.

Now I would expect a profit/loss of $94million just by random error of calculating expenses looking at the total expenses! Don't you think that's reasonable? No company is going to calculate conservatively its estimated expenses (which they use to decide on prices of services). That would be the end of the establishment. It would be good to look at what ETS used its profits for. Did it all go to the CEO? In any case, like I said, 94m when total expenses = 800m is to be expected out of any non-profit organization which does not want to go bankrupt.

No, I don't think it's reasonable. If you compare it to other nonprofits http://aetr.org/big-profits.php, it seems high to me. The profits don't go to the CEO, the CEO receives a very large salary that is not included in the profits. Anyhow, we can all look at the numbers and think what we want.

[asha]

LOL Asha, do you need to take Business 101 as well?

I think you are getting distracted by my analogy to Wellpoint. I was merely trying to show that $94 million in profits is subjectively large, small, or in between. You look at $94 million like it is this giant, astronomical number when you have no idea what would constitute an appropriate profit level.

Just because an organization is "non-profit" does not mean that they report exactly $0 in profit at the end of the year. The fact that the ETS is in the black simply means that they are running at sustainable levels. Those profits are then reinvested into the organization for things like researching the new exam they are bringing out in a year.

I'm glad to see, though, that you so fiercely defend the profits of an insurance company who, because they are not non-profit, are open to make as many billions of dollars in profit as they possibly can at all costs. Yay!

Seadub, thanks for the suggestion, but I am pretty sure I do not need a business 101 class. Might I suggest Manners 101 to you, since we are making suggestions to each other?

Research is part of there operating costs, it is something they plan for. Profits are in excess of their operating costs. See, don't need business 101.

I didn't actually give my opinion on health insurance companies' profits one way or the other. I said that you are comparing apples and oranges. It isn't relevant to this discussion. The end.

[asha]

Asha, you are basing the entirety of your argument off of information derived from a shoddy website completely devoted to trashing testing agencies and whose agenda is to reform testing agencies. If you want to be convincing, you need to make sure your sources are objective and unbiased.

Do you get all your info on homosexuals from Focus on the Family's website too? Or gun info from the NRA website? I mean, it is people like you who seemingly believe everything you read and are entirely convinced by meticulously selected bits of data that allow agenda-based organizations to easily attract followers with catchy slogans and ideological BS. I would be more careful if I were you.

So your argument about my business knowledge crumbles hilariously since you're the one who doesn't understand the basic premise of what profits are, and you move on to more hyperbolic personal attacks?

The information was taken from ETS's 2007 tax return, the only one that they have divulged. There is nothing wrong with asking questions about a monopolistic non-profit when it has next to zero transparency and a mandate to serve the community. There is nothing "shoddy" going on on that website, it has fair comparisons with other non-profits. So, it's nice that you're concerned with my being more careful, but once again, your unasked for advice falls flat. Not even going to respond to the rest of the garbage you posted.

[asha]

LOL.

Again you fail to realize that "non-profit" organizations can be profitable. I am not the only one laughing at your incompetence. Did you not read Liszt's rebuttal to your argument as well? Maybe you have a problem with how I am "wording" my argument, but I am certainly not the only one poking holes in your logic.

You failed to address the fact that the entirety of your argument is based off of a website devoted to reforming educational testing services. OF COURSE you are going to come to the conclusion that the ETS is this big, evil scary monster out to get you. Anyone idiot can pick through a set of data and spin it however he/she wants. I bet if all your knowledge of black people stemmed from the KKK's website, you would come to the wrong conclusion there as well!

It is sad when people like you believe everything you read (on the internet, no less!) You only believe what you want to believe. You read spin and you go with it because it supports your position. You are a politician's dream.

You're just repeating things I already shot down, only adding even more ridiculous nonsensical hyperbole. It is sad when people like you can't hold a civilized discussion, internet anonymity or no. I think the KKK is close enough to Godwin's Law for me, so congrats, you've won the internets! Enjoy grad school.

[jlloyd87]

Is it really so hard to just get along? Sure you are going to read some posts by some really ignorant people, but just ignore them. Believe it or not, your opinion doesn't mean anymore than anybody else's if all you are trying to do is start/continue problems.

[JerryLandis]

Yeah, my church makes profits of $94 million. What of it?

There's a big difference between $0 and $94 million.

Edited February 20, 2010 by JerryLandis

[jlloyd87]

Non-profit doesn't necessarily mean that they don't make any profit. It is what they with that profit that can give them non-profit status. Churches that make $94 are supposed to use that money for the right reasons.

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit)[1] is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.[2] Examples of NPOs include charities (i.e. charitable organizations), trade unions, and public arts organizations. Most governments and government agencies meet this definition, but in most countries they are considered a separate type of organization and not counted as NPOs.

[JerryLandis]

My parents demolished our sandbox (and the backyard with it) to build an addition on the house c.1993. I'd give anything to go back and play in it, but sadly I can't.

[natsteel]

Having a single testing service is absolutely the most fair, straight-forward, and cost-effective means of conducting a general graduate admissions test. Unless you want Uncle Sam to start administering the GRE, these services will remain in the hands of privatized monopolies like the ETS. Deal with it.

Most "fair" and "straight-forward..." Yes. But competition would surely be more cost-effective for the consumer, i.e. "us." I mean, $23/per school is a ridiculous price just to send scores. I have to send to 6-8 extra schools which means my cost for reporting scores will likely be higher than the cost of taking the test.

Edited August 23, 2010 by natsteel

[tskinner]

Most "fair" and "straight-forward..." Yes. But competition would surely be more cost-effective for the consumer, i.e. "us." I mean, $23/per school is a ridiculous price just to send scores. I have to send to 6-8 extra schools which means my cost for reporting scores will likely be higher than the cost of taking the test.

This is what always bugs me: the cost of score reports. The marginal cost to THEM to send your score is less than a penny (how ever much it takes to pay someone for the second it takes to check a box), because they send these schools CDs of scores of THOUSANDS of students at once. It's not like they send a letter for every student who takes the test. This is where they make their most money, eaisly.