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.
But for-profits have been ultimately taking advantage of this growing
population of students, as you can see through their enrollment numbers, which
have increased by 225 percent. Now a lot of people didn’t see this upcoming
exponential growth, except for one entrepreneur named Michael Clifford.
Clifford is the guy who 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 when in reality they only accept 10 percent of their applying
students. 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 ole 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.” 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. Carey thinks that for-profit colleges
shouldn’t promise to help these students after they graduate when they are
clearly inept to paying off their default loans for their education. 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. 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. They do this by
stating that for-profits make more money than they are supposed to, by claiming
one hundred percent of the money form default loans that students fail to pay. 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.
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 put their name
out. They are giving students alternative
opportunities that traditional universities cannot, and community colleges lack
the money to. 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. This I something that goes unnoticed according to Carey,
when he predicates, “Accreditation has become like a taxicab medallion,
available for bidding on the open market. That’s why people like Clifford are
investing in this so-called “business.” 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
challenges 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 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
Michael was a former employer at these for-profit colleges, his overall argument
contradicts that of Carey’s view that for-profits have lots of benefits, and
possess qualities that traditional universities don’t have. Michael believes that for-profit colleges
contain more flaws and negative aspects than positive ass 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
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. 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. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment