Alex Schlack
Chris Werry
RWS100
October 17 2014
“Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”
Out
of all the immense educational opportunities after High School, why have
for-profit colleges been stirring up so much debate? For-profit colleges are
public institutions managed and operated by private, money seeking businesses
and corporations. For-profit colleges have always existed in the
past, but they were always referred to as career or trade schools that only
offered certificates and associate degrees to people who lacked the money or
couldn’t get accepted into the traditional universities. And since these huge
universities have been getting more challenging to get into due to lower
acceptance rates, and the community colleges reach or exceed their enrollment
capacities, these for-profits have been receiving loads of attention from
students whom this is their only option. You can see their mass increase their enrollment
numbers, which have increased by 225 percent. Now a lot of people didn’t see
this upcoming exponential growth except for a couple people. Some geniuses took
these once dying non-profit organizations and revolutionized them into
moneymaking machines. A lot of the money that these for-profits make
is actually from loans and grants form the government. However, people are
skeptic about the fact that these for-profit colleges are receiving such large
amounts of money for student aid. The
truth is, all this money isn’t going to a good cause. That’s why
people are questioning for-profit’s suspiciously large student debt,
recruitment tactics, and misleading information. All these viable
concerns about for-profit colleges are discussed, clarified and complicated in
Kevin Carey’s article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit
Colleges.” Carey’s overall argument states that even though there
are some problems and shady activity with for-profit colleges, they still play
an important role within our society. I will personally observe and
analyze Carey’s work and how he presents the pros and cons of For-Profit
Colleges. In his writing, Carey introduces various claims about main questions
associated with these famous for-profit colleges but there are only three main
ones that he talks about the most.
Carey
first claims that for-profits have a higher rate of default in loans than
needed, since a majority of the students are from low-income backgrounds. Carey
states in his article, “Many students come form low-income backgrounds. You
don’t need a college degree to know that large debt plus small income equals
high risk of default.” In this Carey is pointing out how obvious it is to know
that people with low-income backgrounds are not going to be able to pay of
their debt from student loans, causing high amounts of default. Carey doesn’t
consider for-profit colleges as “bad”, but he clearly implies that is wrong for
them to set up these students so that when they graduate or if they even
graduate, they will have mass amounts of student debt. Carey backs up his
argument by saying, “Even the for-profit Corinthian Colleges estimated in
official documents filed with Securities and Exchange Commission that more than
half the loans it makes to its own students will go bad. Corinthian still makes
a profit, because it gets most of its money form loans guaranteed by Uncle
Sam.” In this he gives a valid example of a for-profit college that
obtains a profit from loans of students who cant pay them off because they
don’t have the money to do so. It is sad I think that these
for-profit schools are admitting these students knowing that they will be inept
to paying off the loans in the future. In
addition to illustrating Carey’s argument, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) actually did a study and created a report on for-profit colleges that
ultimately extends Carey’s claim. The GAO is an independent agency
that provides to the United States, audit, evaluation, and investigative
services that makes reports and recommendations looking to greater economy and
efficiency. They wrote, “When students do not
make payments on their federal loans and the loans are in default, the federal
government and taxpayers assume nearly all the risk and are left with the costs. For example, in the Direct Loan program, the
federal government and taxpayers pick up 100 percent of the unpaid principal on
defaulted loans. In addition, students who default are also at risk of facing a
number of personal and financial burdens.” While Carey’s claim is
general and mainly opinionated, the GAO provides concrete detail and evidence
that builds off Carey’s viewpoint that for-profits do make tons of money by
claiming 100 percent of the student default loans. Carey knows that some students will not be
able to pay their loans due to their low-income backgrounds, that is expected. And since their debt cannot be repaid, they
become ineligible for assistance under federal loan programs and cant receive
any financial aid until the loan is repaid fully. This shows
how for-profit’s high default rates affect the students after they graduate,
and this is why lots of people doubt the purpose of these schools and question
why the government hasn’t reformed them. It also exemplifies why there is such
a high rate of default from the students as long as the consequences that come
along with it. This leads us to Carey’s second claim, in which he talks
about the benefits of for-profit colleges.
In
Carey’s second claim he talks about the pros of for-profit colleges and how
they have contributed and fulfilled needs that other traditional universities
have ignored. Carey gives various examples of for-profit colleges that have
come up with new ideas or innovations to make their reputation better. He does
this by saying, “While old-line research universities were gliding their
walled-off academic city states, the University of Phoenix was building
no-frills campuses near freeway exits so working students could take classes in
the evening.” Carey argues that that for-profits are showing efforts to make
differences that focus on public interest. Carey presents another example, “The
for-profit Kaplan University recently struck a deal with the California
community-college system to provide course that the bankrupt public colleges
cannot.” This is a prime demonstration exemplifying the little steps
these for-profit colleges are taking to better themselves and attract more
students. They are giving students
alternative opportunities that traditional universities and community colleges
aren’t. Another element that Carey
mentions is that the for-profit sector possesses regional accreditation,
meaning that their practices are ethical and acceptable, employing suitable
quality assurance. Michael J. Seiden, a former faculty member and administrator
for some of these for-profit colleges, surprisingly lists the main weaknesses
and downsides of for-profit schools that he has recognized from his personal
experience of being associated with them. Seiden both supports and contradicts Carey’s
claim when he mentions the for profit’s aggressive marketing tactics and poor
admissions criteria as well as their lack of business incorporation in
classes. He lists some benefits and some negatives of for-profits
since he actually worked for them. One
point he argues, “Some for-profit institutions have been sanctioned in the past
for overly aggressive marketing and enrollment tactics. In addition, they have
been criticized for marketing to any and all potential students, regardless of
their ability to handle college-level work.” This is a big weakness
that for profit schools seem to have; they have such weak admission policies so
they tend to take many students who aren’t ready for college courses because of
their money, which is why more academically students typically don’t
apply. Seiden also states, “For-profit universities view their
students as customers, and to attract and retain those customers, degree
programs and curricula must be market-driven. Students are motivated to earn
their degrees because they aspire to upward mobility in their
careers.” The purpose of him saying this, is to stress the
importance of professors teaching the students the right way and providing them
with the correct curricula that best supports their career needs. Because a lot
of the teachers for these for-profit colleges base most of their teaching
methods of academics rather than motivating them and preparing them for
employers demand in their field. While Seiden was a former employer
at these for-profit colleges, his overall argument agrees and contradicts that
of Carey’s view that for-profits have lots of benefits, and possess qualities
that traditional universities don’t have. Seiden believes that
for-profit colleges contain flaws and negative aspects as well as some positive
effects seen from him first hand.
As
Carey mentions in his original text, “Why Do You Think They’re Called
For-Profit Colleges,” he conveys his third claim being that one of the only
reasons for-profit schools exist is to “prevent educational market failures.”
Universities such as DeVry, Chapman, and Grand Canyon tend to serve students
that other students “ignore.” Carey supports his argument by implementing how
some of the for-profit colleges, “Provide courses that bankrupt colleges
cannot,” such as the American Public University for example, who trains
students to become Wall-Mart cashiers. Some Professors of Harvard
University published a study called, “For-Profit Colleges, The Future of Children.”
Utilizing statistic as evidence in the article written by Claudia Goldin,
Lawrence Katz, and David Demming, they wrote that, “For-Profit colleges were
responsible for 30 percent of the total growth in postsecondary enrollment and
degrees awarded in the first decade of the twentieth century.” The
professors are emphasizing how significantly for-profit colleges have grown to
the point that more than 30 percent of students who attend are graduating,
disregarding the mass decrease in state funding. The Harvard professors
also build off Carey’s claim even more when they said that for-profit colleges
“Enroll a more disadvantaged group of beginning undergraduates than do other
postsecondary schools.” These Harvard professors state the actual
numbers describing exactly how many students have been successful from the
for-profit system, extending Carey’s argument regarding how for-profits serve a
specific population of people that other communities often ignore. This
extends Carey’s claim that for-profits do in fact help prevent market failure,
because they offer courses for students in certain fields or for specific jobs
that other colleges do not. If they
didn’t exist, there would be a large enough population for the individual
market per say, and it would eventually fail because college graduates are
pursuing other careers. Carey is stressing that these schools are
preparing some of their students for maybe lower paying jobs, but are jobs that
students form other high end colleges don’t look at and that the Harvard
professors give evidence to prove. By executing
Carey’s claim making a valid connection to the views of the Harvard professors,
the evidence is factual and backed up with solid credibility. In this
article especially, it is overall assumed that these for-profits are needed in
society for they serve a certain purpose, and aren’t going anywhere.
Through
my entire analysis of Carey’s various claims, I was able to discover the
different meanings of them, and how these outside sources extended,
contradicted, challenged each of Carey’s arguments. Even though for-profit
colleges contain flaws such as misleading or unethical practices, false
advertisement, product liability, and misinterpretation of investment
opportunity, they are still needed because of role they play. These educational
systems are specialized institutions that are considered as businesses, and the
students as consumers. So these federal regulations provide
“consumer protection” to these consumers. That’s why these schools are a
crucial and key necessity to education, and the government shouldn’t make laws
that fight against them. There will always be responses concerning
the suspicious activity that for-profits undergo or fraudulent acts that they
are accused of. But people need so seek the main reason why they exist. Some of
Carey’s strengths are his position on the debate, providing opinions and views and
supports those views with evidence form opposing sides rather than just being biased.
He also did a good job of stating his claims directly about what he believes. One of the weaknesses includes not containing
enough sources. To me, the more sources and factual evidence the better, and
the more it helps convince or sway a reader a certain direction. Also Carey
should have induced someone into his writing that disagrees with him, so he can
verbally states what that person thinks and what he thinks instead of him. You
want people to know that you aren’t just
blocking other views, you want to incorporate them and then go on about how
yours differ and why. I personally agree with Carey’s second claim that there
are benefits from for-profit colleges and that they do some positive things
that other traditional universities and community colleges ignore. For-profits
could improve in some areas, but they do educate people and steer them in the
right direction of their career and get them to graduate. Although some of
Carey’s claims are contradicting, his overall argument clearly states that
despite the problems that exist, for-profits are innovative and have a special
spot in higher education assisting a specific population of students, and are
ultimately here to stay.
