HW OCT 31 Carr

Carr's argument in his text, discusses how the internet negatively affects the way we read, write, and even think today. The text argues that we have a hard time reading long texts because of the internet, we lack effort in finding sources or information because of the easy use of Google, and also how our brains/minds are negatively altered.

Evidence
- Outside sources
- Expert/Authority statements
- Other people's opinions/experiences
- Data or studies from schools or scientists

Strategies
- Logos
- Ethos
- Identification
- Comparison
- Exemplification

HW OCT 29 Response

In Vince Parry's "Branding a Condition," he uses a strategy that engages with the audience. Parry lists 5 questions that the reader can answer to and then gives the audience the answer to his own question. This allows the readers to critically think about problems and concepts. 

In Jeremy Rifkin's "A Change of Heart About Animals," divides and organizes his text in an interesting way. He breaks up his text by dividing a paragraphs that discuss a topic/problem independently. <-- if that was confusing, here is an example: In his first 2 paragraphs, he mainly introduces the topic. In the next 2, he discusses on animal treatment and how it affects their behavior. In paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8 the body of text focuses animal behavior by providing evidence or information. He organizes his paper so well, it sort of creates an easy way for the reader to get a better understanding on his text.

FINAL DRAFT OCT 27 Carey

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

27 Oct. 2014

Bank Of America

            How bad do you want yourself or your kids to receive an education that will allow you to succeed? Young adults in America thrive to succeed. To reach success in today's world, education is pretty much mandatory. In "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges," a 2010 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey argues that although the higher level education institutions, such as for-profit schools, are here to stay, they have major flaws in their system. Carey is a writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses the negatives of for-profits in America and also the way these schools benefit education.  Carey defends the for-profits although the system of the way it is ran, is a huge fraud and have victimized college students. These For-Profit schools have been accused with a flawed recruiting process, leaving students with huge amounts of debt, or even leaving them unemployed with a degree in their hand. For-Profit schools such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan College, Corinthian College, Grand Canyon University, etc are now ran like a business with the main goal of gaining profit instead of giving students quality education for the price they paid for. With For-Profit schools having 90% of the revenue coming from federal government assistance, rewarded Pell Grants and loans taken out from students are used to pay off their tuition is. Many of the students have taken out loans from the government with the kind help of the school itself. Schools target young adults who have the strong desire to receive a higher education, even with the possibility that they are not suited to receive it. College acceptant rates at For-Profit universities are almost at 100% with the schools not even bothering to ask for students' high school transcripts. Many of the students that are enrolled come from a low-income family, but that does not stop them from targeting them for loans. For-Profits are out to look for themselves, even with faulty recruiting tactics. Never the less to say, even with problems with the creditability or quality of education they provide, the treatment of students, and the profit first mentality, For-Profits are here to stay. Carey believes that the schools are here now and that the fact of the matter is that there needs to be acceptance of it. For-Profit does indeed give students another option to receive a higher level of education and also does give them a more specific career path to fulfill after high school. For-Profit schools play a big role in providing students alternatives. They are here to help fix failures left by traditional public or private college/universities, such as not providing certain courses due to expenses. This helps students consider in enrolling into a For-Profit institution that does have benefits that traditional schools don't. Although Carey defends for-profit schools by arguing that they are here to stay, the flaws of the institution seem to outweigh the positive insight Carey has.  In this paper I will analyze Carey's text by  illustrating, extending, and complicating his claims by bringing in several outside sources that will support my analysis.

            Although, Carey claims that we "do not have the credibility to determine if the quality of education given by For-Profit schools are less than traditional institutions" (14-16),  excerpts from a government accountability report on For-Profit universities, published in the full article, "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices," obtains several pieces of evidence that complicates his claim.  It is argued that finding employment after graduation of a college is in the sole responsibility of the individual, but several For-Profit schools deceived possible recruitments in order to gain their interest. In an undercover study/experiment, an applicant was told "deceiving or questionable information on about employment and prospective salaries after graduation by 5 different For-Profit schools. One small for-profit school that specializes in beauty told the applicant that barbers can earn up to $150,000 to $250,000 a year, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10% of Barbers make more than $43,000 a year" (11).  Another For-Profit school deceived an undercover representative by telling them that instead of obtaining a criminal justice degree, they should consider a medical assisting certificate that would only take 9 months to complete at the college, earning up to $68,000 a year. With data found by the BLS, "90% of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year," (12) contradicting the deceiving information told.  It can be argued that For-Profit schools should not being responsible for finding employment for individuals after their graduation or obtainment of degree . But the schools do indeed make several guarantees or false information to possible future For-Profit students in the recruiting process. Allowing individuals to question the quality or credibility of the degree they earned at the For-Profit institution they attended. The GAO reports provides evidence that shows us that students were promised employment and outstanding salaries after graduation. This also exposes how the quality of degree the for-profit schools does not help post grads actually find employment. If for-profs are promising successful results by attending the schools, students should either be employed or make the expected salary the schools promised them. Instead they were told false information and were left with a questionable degree, if they are unemployed.

            Recruitment of students not only affects the outcome of revenue of the for-profit, but also the outcome of the students future. Questionable recruiting tactics have been taken into initiative by for-profit "advisors" that present students with a deception of hope. The main goal for for-profit schools is to obtain as many students as they can for profit. Giving for-profit schools the label of "for profit." The tactics of the recruitment process are almost ruthless. For-profits will do almost anything to meet their own goals. Carey claims that of "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters" (8). The recruitment process of such schools seem to be flawed. By comparing a traditional institution, San Diego State University, and a for-profit school, American Public University System, data from collegeresults.org, extends Carey's claim by showing that the average high school GPA of college freshmen was at a 3.6 while there was no average GPA recorded for the for-profit school. Data also shows that there was no SAT or other test scores recorded. With an 100% acceptance rate, the American Public University System admitted students without the requirements of a high school transcript with a recorded GPA nor any test scores. If schools are accepting anyone from anywhere regardless of their educational or income background, they are aware of the possibility of either drop outs and unpaid loans. Although that is a possibility, schools do not care as they nonchalantly recruit an individual regardless of the circumstances, keeping their goal in tact of gaining profit. Some for-profit institutions will find a loop hole in order to fulfill their goal of recruiting and profit. In the article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” by Holly Petreaus, examples of the recruitment process of military veterans also extends on Carey's claim. With having "a strong incentive to enroll service members and veterans, in large part because of the '90-10 rule', created by the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act," (5), they are able to gain more revenue legally through a loop hole. The 90-10 rule states that "a for-profit college must obtain at least 10 percent of its revenue from a source other than Title IV education funds, the primary source of federal student aid"..."Funds from Tuition Assistance and the G.I. Bill are not defined as Title IV funds, so they count toward the 10 percent requirement, just like private sources of financing" (5). The for-profit institutions are not only targeting young ambitious students but also military veterans for recruitment, which does not exclude a marine with brain damages. Questionable tactics of recruitment by the schools plays a huge role in the flawed system of for-profit institutions. 

            Young students in the modern era desire higher level education after they graduate high school. Why? Competition, that is why. Finding quality employment is a difficult task, but to do so without a college degree in your hand almost makes it certain for an individual to work at a McDonalds. That is why students have ambition to receive a higher education. But there is a problem and For-Profit schools may think they have a solution. Not all students can be admitted to a 4 year university or even afford it, but with For-Profit institutions breathing on their back, students are now looking for an alternative. Blinded by tricky recruitment, For-Profit schools are able to lure students to apply and attend their institution. With tactics such as deceiving an individual with future success, they are able to have young ambitious adults to take out loans to pay for their tuition. Some may argue that some traditional institutions may be cheaper or equal to the cost of attending a For-Profit, and they may be right. But with several For-Profit institutions giving a  nicely detailed pitch to students that a career path is set up for them to follow in order to succeed, they are convinced that loans will be paid off in time of their employment. The real problem with that is now that For-Profits are rapidly becoming accused of handing out worthless degrees, students are unable to find employment. Without employment there is no revenue and without no revenue, loans cannot be paid back, leading to large student debt. Carey argues that "For-Profits won't take responsibility for the debt to income ratio they leave students with.." and that "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters and worthless degrees" (8-9).  Carey's claim can be supported and illustrated with Kai Wright's article, "Young, Black and Buried in Debt: How For-Profit Colleges Prey on African-American Ambition." Published in 2009, Kai Wright, writer for Salon News, states that " between 2004 and 2010, black enrollment in for-profit bachelor’s programs grew by a whopping 264 percent, compared to a 24 percent increase in black enrollment in public four-year programs" (7). The numbers of the statistic "mirror a simultaneous trend in eroding security among ambitious black Americans with shrinking access to middle-class jobs" (8). This helps support the argument that for-profits are seeking young ambitious students who have a desire receive a higher education in order to obtain quality employment. The results of for-profits actually fulfilling their goal to employ students after graduation says otherwise. Out of the post grad students from a for-profit school, "96% of students, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — are unemployed and leaves with debt. Debit that students cannot pay" (9). For-profit 'advisors' try their hardest to recruit any student with a pulse. Regardless of the income or educational background the individual has, as long as if the person is breathing, the school will be seeing revenue. This shows that for-profits either do not acknowledge or are unaware of students who are at high risk in leaving the school with debt because of either their educational or income background. Wright's findings does a good job of complicating or even further extending Carey's claim of for-profits leaving large amounts of debt to students they recruited themselves.

          For-profit institutions seem to carry a lot of load on themselves. And when i say load, i mean money. Because the amount of revenue that is made by for-profits are almost a gift from the government. With questionable degrees and quality of education, students are unable to find employment and are left with huge amount of debts. Victims of for-profit schools are in deep from the very beginning, starting with ruthless recruiting tactics. The GAO report and information from the comparison of SDSU and American Public University System provides statistical data that shows false information being told by for-profits to help enroll students. Students were left with the sensibility of promised success but were left with a worthless degree that allowed them to be on a long search for a job. For-profits will go out of their way in order to achieve their goal in recruitment. This goes as far as finding loop holes through the government individuals such as recruit military veterans, who can pay for any college with the help of the GI Bill. Schools also target young students who has the desire to obtain a degree in order to find a place in the work force in the future. Kai Wright and Holly Perteaus' claims help extend Carey's claim of aggressive recruitment tactics and the amount of debts students are left after graduation. It seems as if education for for-profit schools are second on their list of goals to achieve right under profit. If Carey was correct in his article about for-profit schools, along with its many flaws, being here to stay, then they will continue to generate huge amounts of money. Becoming a school that is ran like a bank in America.

Work Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?." RWS 100 Course          Reader. Ed. Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies. San Diego. Montezuma         Publishing, 2014 53-55. Print.

College Results Online. Data of the Comparison of San Diego State University and American      Public University System. collegeresults.org 2010. Web. Oct 2014.  

Government Accountability Report. "Excerpts from For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing        Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing            Practices." GAO 4 Aug 2010. 1-4. Print. Oct 2014.

Perteaus, Holly. “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s.” New York Times 11 Sept 2011. 1-2.

            Web. Oct 2014.  

Wright, Kai. "Young, black and buried in debt: How for-profit colleges prey on African    American ambition." Salon Magazine 9 June 2013. 1-6. Web. Oct 2014.

updated draft 24 OCT

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

20 Oct. 2014

Bank Of America

            How bad do you want yourself or your kids to receive an education that will allow you to succeed? Young adults in America thrive to succeed. To reach success in today's world, education is pretty much mandatory. In "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges," a 2010 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey argues that although the higher level education institutions, such as for-profit schools, are here to stay, they have major flaws in their system. Carey is a writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses the negatives of for-profits in America and also the way these schools benefit education.  Carey defends the for-profits although the system of the way it is ran, is a huge fraud and have victimized college students. These For-Profit schools have been accused with a flawed recruiting process, leaving students with huge amounts of debt, or even leaving them unemployed with a degree in their hand. For-Profit schools such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan College, Corinthian College, Grand Canyon University, etc are now ran like a business with the main goal of gaining profit instead of giving students quality education for the price they paid for. With For-Profit schools having 90% of the revenue coming from federal government assistance, rewarded Pell Grants and loans taken out from students are used to pay off their tuition is. Many of the students have taken out loans from the government with the kind help of the school itself. Schools target young adults who have the strong desire to receive a higher education, even with the possibility that they are not suited to receive it. College acceptant rates at For-Profit universities are almost at 100% with the schools not even bothering to ask for students' high school transcripts. Many of the students that are enrolled come from a low-income family, but that does not stop them from targeting them for loans. For-Profits are out to look for themselves, even with faulty recruiting tactics. Never the less to say, even with problems with the creditability or quality of education they provide, the treatment of students, and the profit first mentality, For-Profits are here to stay. Carey believes that the schools are here now and that the fact of the matter is that there needs to be acceptance of it. For-Profit does indeed give students another option to receive a higher level of education and also does give them a more specific career path to fulfill after high school. For-Profit schools play a big role in providing students alternatives. They are here to help fix failures left by traditional public or private college/universities, such as not providing certain courses due to expenses. This helps students consider in enrolling into a For-Profit institution that does have benefits that traditional schools don't. Although Carey defends for-profit schools by arguing that they are here to stay, the flaws of the institution seem to outweigh the positive insight Carey has.  In this paper I will analyze Carey's text by  illustrating, extending, and complicating his claims by bringing in several outside sources that will support my analysis.

            Although, Carey claims that we "do not have the credibility to determine if the quality of education given by For-Profit schools are less than traditional institutions" (14-16),  excerpts from a government accountability report on For-Profit universities, published in the full article, "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices," obtains several pieces of evidence that complicates his claim.  It is argued that finding employment after graduation of a college is in the sole responsibility of the individual, but several For-Profit schools deceived possible recruitments in order to gain their interest. In an undercover study/experiment, an applicant was told "deceiving or questionable information on about employment and prospective salaries after graduation by 5 different For-Profit schools. One small for-profit school that specializes in beauty told the applicant that barbers can earn up to $150,000 to $250,000 a year, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10% of Barbers make more than $43,000 a year" (11).  Another For-Profit school deceived an undercover representative by telling them that instead of obtaining a criminal justice degree, they should consider a medical assisting certificate that would only take 9 months to complete at the college, earning up to $68,000 a year. With data found by the BLS, "90% of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year," (12) contradicting the deceiving information told.  It can be argued that For-Profit schools should not being responsible for finding employment for individuals after their graduation or obtainment of degree . But the schools do indeed make several guarantees or false information to possible future For-Profit students in the recruiting process. Allowing individuals to question the quality or credibility of the degree they earned at the For-Profit institution they attended. The GAO reports provides evidence that shows us that students were promised employment and outstanding salaries after graduation. This also exposes how the quality of degree the for-profit schools does not help post grads actually find employment. If for-profs are promising successful results by attending the schools, students should either be employed or make the expected salary the schools promised them. Instead they were told false information and were left with a questionable degree, if they are unemployed.

            Recruitment of students not only affects the outcome of revenue of the for-profit, but also the outcome of the students future. Questionable recruiting tactics have been taken into initiative by for-profit "advisors" that present students with a deception of hope. The main goal for for-profit schools is to obtain as many students as they can for profit. Giving for-profit schools the label of "for profit." The tactics of the recruitment process are almost ruthless. For-profits will do almost anything to meet their own goals. Carey claims that of "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters" (8). The recruitment process of such schools seem to be flawed. By comparing a traditional institution, San Diego State University, and a for-profit school, American Public University System, data from collegeresults.org, extends Carey's claim by showing that the average high school GPA of college freshmen was at a 3.6 while there was no average GPA recorded for the for-profit school. Data also shows that there was no SAT or other test scores recorded. With an 100% acceptance rate, the American Public University System admitted students without the requirements of a high school transcript with a recorded GPA nor any test scores. If schools are accepting anyone from anywhere regardless of their educational or income background, they are aware of the possibility of either drop outs and unpaid loans. Although that is a possibility, schools do not care as they nonchalantly recruit an individual regardless of the circumstances, keeping their goal in tact of gaining profit. Some for-profit institutions will find a loop hole in order to fulfill their goal of recruiting and profit. In the article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” by Holly Petreaus, examples of the recruitment process of military veterans also extends on Carey's claim. With having "a strong incentive to enroll service members and veterans, in large part because of the '90-10 rule', created by the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act," (5), they are able to gain more revenue legally through a loop hole. The 90-10 rule states that "a for-profit college must obtain at least 10 percent of its revenue from a source other than Title IV education funds, the primary source of federal student aid"..."Funds from Tuition Assistance and the G.I. Bill are not defined as Title IV funds, so they count toward the 10 percent requirement, just like private sources of financing" (5). The for-profit institutions are not only targeting young ambitious students but also military veterans for recruitment, which does not exclude a marine with brain damages. Questionable tactics of recruitment by the schools plays a huge role in the flawed system of for-profit institutions. 

            Young students in the modern era desire higher level education after they graduate high school. Why? Competition, that is why. Finding quality employment is a difficult task, but to do so without a college degree in your hand almost makes it certain for an individual to work at a McDonalds. That is why students have ambition to receive a higher education. But there is a problem and For-Profit schools may think they have a solution. Not all students can be admitted to a 4 year university or even afford it, but with For-Profit institutions breathing on their back, students are now looking for an alternative. Blinded by tricky recruitment, For-Profit schools are able to lure students to apply and attend their institution. With tactics such as deceiving an individual with future success, they are able to have young ambitious adults to take out loans to pay for their tuition. Some may argue that some traditional institutions may be cheaper or equal to the cost of attending a For-Profit, and they may be right. But with several For-Profit institutions giving a  nicely detailed pitch to students that a career path is set up for them to follow in order to succeed, they are convinced that loans will be paid off in time of their employment. The real problem with that is now that For-Profits are rapidly becoming accused of handing out worthless degrees, students are unable to find employment. Without employment there is no revenue and without no revenue, loans cannot be paid back, leading to large student debt. Carey argues that "For-Profits won't take responsibility for the debt to income ratio they leave students with.." and that "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters and worthless degrees" (8-9).  Carey's claim can be supported and illustrated with Kai Wright's article, "Young, Black and Buried in Debt: How For-Profit Colleges Prey on African-American Ambition." Published in 2009, Kai Wright, writer for Salon News, states that " between 2004 and 2010, black enrollment in for-profit bachelor’s programs grew by a whopping 264 percent, compared to a 24 percent increase in black enrollment in public four-year programs" (7). The numbers of the statistic "mirror a simultaneous trend in eroding security among ambitious black Americans with shrinking access to middle-class jobs" (8). This helps support the argument that for-profits are seeking young ambitious students who have a desire receive a higher education in order to obtain quality employment. The results of for-profits actually fulfilling their goal to employ students after graduation says otherwise. Out of the post grad students from a for-profit school, "96% of students, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — are unemployed and leaves with debt. Debit that students cannot pay" (9). For-profit 'advisors' try their hardest to recruit any student with a pulse. Regardless of the income or educational background the individual has, as long as if the person is breathing, the school will be seeing revenue. This shows that for-profits either do not acknowledge or are unaware of students who are at high risk in leaving the school with debt because of either their educational or income background. Wright's findings does a good job of complicating or even further extending Carey's claim of for-profits leaving large amounts of debt to students they recruited themselves.

          For-profit institutions seem to carry a lot of load on themselves. And when i say load, i mean money. Because the amount of revenue that is made by for-profits are almost a gift from the government. With questionable degrees and quality of education, students are unable to find employment and are left with huge amount of debts. Victims of for-profit schools are in deep from the very beginning, starting with ruthless recruiting tactics. The GAO report and information from the comparison of SDSU and American Public University System provides statistical data that shows false information being told by for-profits to help enroll students. Students were left with the sensibility of promised success but were left with a worthless degree that allowed them to be on a long search for a job. For-profits will go out of their way in order to achieve their goal in recruitment. This goes as far as finding loop holes through the government individuals such as recruit military veterans, who can pay for any college with the help of the GI Bill. Schools also target young students who has the desire to obtain a degree in order to find a place in the work force in the future. Kai Wright and Holly Perteaus' claims help extend Carey's claim of aggressive recruitment tactics and the amount of debts students are left after graduation. It seems as if education for for-profit schools are second on their list of goals to achieve right under profit. If Carey was correct in his article about for-profit schools, along with its many flaws, being here to stay, then they will continue to generate huge amounts of money. Becoming a school that is ran like a bank in America.

Work Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?." RWS 100 Course          Reader. Ed. Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies. San Diego. Montezuma         Publishing, 2014 53-55. Print.

College Results Online. Data of the Comparison of San Diego State University and American      Public University System. collegeresults.org 2010. Web. Oct 2014.   

Government Accountability Report. "Excerpts from For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing        Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing            Practices." GAO 4 Aug 2010. 1-4. Print. Oct 2014.

Perteaus, Holly. “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s.” New York Times 11 Sept 2011. 1-2.

            Web. Oct 2014.   

Wright, Kai. "Young, black and buried in debt: How for-profit colleges prey on African    American ambition." Salon Magazine 9 June 2013. 1-6. Web. Oct 2014.

UPDATED ROUGH DRAFT (no conclusion) OCT 20/21

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

20 Oct. 2014

Bank Of America

            In "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges," a 2010 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey argues that although For-Profit colleges have major flaws in their system, the higher level education is here to stay. It is claimed that For-Profit school systems are a huge fraud and have victimized college students. These For-Profit schools have been accused with a flawed recruiting process, leaving students with huge amounts of debt, or even leaving them unemployed with a degree in their hand. For-Profit schools such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan College, Corinthian College, Grand Canyon University, etc are now ran like a business with the main goal of gaining profit instead of giving students quality education for the price they paid for. With For-Profit schools having 90% of the revenue coming from federal government assistance, rewarded Pell Grants and loans taken out from students are used to pay off their tuition is. Many of the students have taken out loans from the government with the kind help of the school itself. Schools target young adults who have the strong desire to receive a higher education, even with the possibility that they are not suited to receive it. College acceptant rates at For-Profit universities are almost at 100% with the schools not even bothering to ask for students' high school transcripts. Many of the students that are enrolled come from a low-income family, but that does not stop them from targeting them for loans. For-Profits are out to look for themselves, even with faulty recruiting tactics. Never the less to say, even with problems with the creditability or quality of education they provide, the treatment of students, and the profit first mentality, For-Profits are here to stay. Carey believes that the schools are here now and that the fact of the matter is that there needs to be acceptance of it. For-Profit does indeed give students another option to receive a higher level of education and also does give them a more specific career path to fulfill. For-Profit schools play a big role in the technology and organizational innovation. They are here to help fix failures left by traditional public or private college/universities, which baits students into consider in enrolling in a For-Profit institution. In this paper I will analyze Carey's text by either illustrating, extending, or complicating his claims by bringing in several outside sources that will support my analysis.

            Excerpts from a government accountability report on For-Profit universities, published in the full article, "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices," obtains several pieces of evidence that complicates Carey's claim of us "not having the credibility to determine if the quality of education given by For-Profit schools are less than traditional institutions" (14-16). It is argued that finding employment after graduation of a college is in the sole responsibility of the individual, but several For-Profit schools deceived possible recruitments in order to gain their interest. In an undercover study/experiment, an applicant was told "deceiving or questionable information on about employment and prospective salaries after graduation by 5 different For-Profit schools. One small for-profit school that specializes in beauty told the applicant that barbers can earn up to $150,000 to $250,000 a year, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10% of Barbers make more than $43,000 a year" (11).  Another For-Profit school deceived an undercover representative by telling them that instead of obtaining a criminal justice degree, they should consider a medical assisting certificate that would only take 9 months to complete at the college, earning up to $68,000 a year. With data found by the BLS, "90% of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year," (12) contradicting the deceiving information told.  Carey does make a point of For-Profit schools not being responsible for finding employment for individuals after their graduation or obtainment of degree. But the schools do indeed make several guarantees or false information to possible future For-Profit students in the recruiting process. Allowing individuals to question the quality or credibility of the degree they earned at the For-Profit institution they attended.

            Recruitment of students not only affects the outcome of revenue of the for-profit, but also the outcome of the students future. Questionable recruiting tactics have been taken into initiative by for-profit "advisors" that present students with a deception of hope. The main goal for for-profit schools is to obtain as many students as they can for profit. Giving for-profit schools the label of "for profit." The tactics of the recruitment process are almost ruthless. For-profits will do almost anything to meet their own goals. Carey claims that of "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters" (8). The recruitment process of such schools seem to be flawed. By comparing a traditional institution, San Diego State University, and a for-profit school, American Public University System, data from collegeresults.org, extends Carey's claim by showing that the average high school GPA of college freshmen was at a 3.6 while there was no average GPA recorded for the for-profit school. Data also shows that there was no SAT or other test scores recorded. With an 100% acceptance rate, the American Public University System admitted students without the requirements of a high school transcript with a recorded GPA nor any test scores. If schools are accepting anyone from anywhere regardless of their educational or income background, they are aware of the possibility of either drop outs and unpaid loans. Although that is a possibility, schools do not care as they nonchalantly recruit an individual regardless of the circumstances, keeping their goal in tact of gaining profit. Some for-profit institutions will find a loop hole in order to fulfill their goal of recruiting and profit. In the article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” by Holly Petreaus, examples of the recruitment process of military veterans also extends on Carey's claim. With having "a strong incentive to enroll service members and veterans, in large part because of the '90-10 rule', created by the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act," (5), they are able to gain more revenue legally through a loop hole. The 90-10 rule states that "a for-profit college must obtain at least 10 percent of its revenue from a source other than Title IV education funds, the primary source of federal student aid"..."Funds from Tuition Assistance and the G.I. Bill are not defined as Title IV funds, so they count toward the 10 percent requirement, just like private sources of financing" (5). The for-profit institutions are not only targeting young ambitious students but also military veterans for recruitment, which does not exclude a marine with brain damages. Questionable tactics of recruitment by the schools plays a huge role in the flawed system of for-profit institutions.  

            Young students in the modern era desire higher level education after they graduate high school. Why? Competition, that is why. Finding quality employment is a difficult task, but to do so without a college degree in your hand almost makes it certain for an individual to work at a McDonalds. That is why students have ambition to receive a higher education. But there is a problem and For-Profit schools may think they have a solution. Not all students can be admitted to a 4 year university or even afford it, but with For-Profit institutions breathing on their back, students are now looking for an alternative. Blinded by tricky recruitment, For-Profit schools are able to lure students to apply and attend their institution. With tactics such as deceiving an individual with future success, they are able to have young ambitious adults to take out loans to pay for their tuition. Some may argue that some traditional institutions may be cheaper or equal to the cost of attending a For-Profit, and they may be right. But with several For-Profit institutions giving a  nicely detailed pitch to students that a career path is set up for them to follow in order to succeed, they are convinced that loans will be paid off in time of their employment. The real problem with that is now that For-Profits are rapidly becoming accused of handing out worthless degrees, students are unable to find employment. Without employment there is no revenue and without no revenue, loans cannot be paid back, leading to large student debt. Carey argues that "For-Profits won't take responsibility for the debt to income ratio they leave students with.." and that "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters and worthless degrees" (8-9).  Carey's claim can be supported and illustrated with Kai Wright's article, "Young, Black and Buried in Debt: How For-Profit Colleges Prey on African-American Ambition." Published in 2009, Kai Wright, writer for Salon News, states that " between 2004 and 2010, black enrollment in for-profit bachelor’s programs grew by a whopping 264 percent, compared to a 24 percent increase in black enrollment in public four-year programs" (7). The numbers of the statistic "mirror a simultaneous trend in eroding security among ambitious black Americans with shrinking access to middle-class jobs" (8). This helps support the argument that for-profits are seeking young ambitious students who have a desire receive a higher education in order to obtain quality employment. The results of for-profits actually fulfilling their goal to employ students after graduation says otherwise. Out of the post grad students from a for-profit school, "96% of students, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — are unemployed and leaves with debt. Debit that students cannot pay" (9). Wright's findings does a good job of illustrating or even further extending Carey's claim of for-profits leaving large amounts of debt to students they recruited themselves.

part of my draft (unfinished) (20 OCT)

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

20 Oct. 2014

For-Profit Schools

            In "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges," a 2010 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey argues that although For-Profit colleges have major flaws in their system, the higher level education is here to stay. It is claimed that For-Profit school systems are a huge fraud and have victimized college students. These For-Profit schools have been accused with a flawed recruiting process, leaving students with huge amounts of debt, or even leaving them unemployed with a degree in their hand. For-Profit schools such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan College, Corinthian College, Grand Canyon University, etc are now ran like a business with the main goal of gaining profit instead of giving students quality education for the price they paid for. With For-Profit schools having 90% of the revenue coming from federal government assistance, rewarded Pell Grants and loans taken out from students are used to pay off their tuition is. Many of the students have taken out loans from the government with the kind help of the school itself. Schools target young adults who have the strong desire to receive a higher education, even with the possibility that they are not suited to receive it. College acceptant rates at For-Profit universities are almost at 100% with the schools not even bothering to ask for students' high school transcripts. Many of the students that are enrolled come from a low-income family, but that does not stop them from targeting them for loans. For-Profits are out to look for themselves, even with faulty recruiting tactics. Never the less to say, even with problems with the creditability or quality of education they provide, the treatment of students, and the profit first mentality, For-Profits are here to stay. Carey believes that the schools are here now and that the fact of the matter is that there needs to be acceptance of it. For-Profit does indeed give students another option to receive a higher level of education and also does give them a more specific career path to fulfill. For-Profit schools play a big role in the technology and organizational innovation. They are here to help fix failures left by traditional public or private college/universities, which baits students into consider in enrolling in a For-Profit institution. In this paper I will analyze Carey's text by either illustrating, extending, or complicating his claims by bringing in several outside sources that will support my analysis.

            Excerpts from a government accountability report on For-Profit universities, published in the full article, "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices," obtains several pieces of evidence that complicates Carey's claim of us not having the credibility to determine if the quality of education given by For-Profit schools are less than traditional institutions. It is argued that finding employment after graduation of a college is in the sole responsibility of the individual, but several For-Profit schools deceived possible recruitments in order to gain their interest. In an undercover study/experiment, an applicant was told deceiving or questionable information on about employment and prospective salaries after graduation by 5 different For-Profit schools. One small for-profit school that specializes in beauty told the applicant that barbers can earn up to $150,000 to $250,000 a year, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10% of Barbers make more than $43,000 a year. Another For-Profit school deceived an undercover representative by telling them that instead of obtaining a criminal justice degree, they should consider a medical assisting certificate that would only take 9 months to complete at the college, earning up to $68,000 a year. With data found by the BLS, 90% of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year, contradicting the deceiving information told.  Carey does make a point of For-Profit schools not being responsible for finding employment for individuals after their graduation or obtainment of degree. But the schools do indeed make several guarantees or false information to possible future For-Profit students in the recruiting process. Allowing individuals to question the quality or credibility of the degree they earned at the For-Profit institution they attended. 

OCT 15 HW

Young, Black, and Buried in Debt: How For Profit Colleges Prey on African American Ambition

1. Author: Kai Wright

    Publication: Article for The Investigative Fund at The National Institute

    Year: 2010

    Pages: 6

2. Carey's Claim: Problems and Abuses exist in FP sector, and many operators refuse to admit this "Large numbers of graduates of FP are having trouble paying back loans; aggressive recruiters; huge loan/debts; worthless degrees; stories from the news; obama administration propsal; congressional hearings"

3. ". Nearly every single graduate of a for-profit school — 96 percent, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — leaves with debt."

"They’ve [african-americans] landed, disproportionately, at for-profit schools, rather than at far less expensive public community colleges, or at public universities. And that means they’ve found themselves loaded with unimaginable debt, with little to show for it, while a small group of financial players have made a great deal of easy money"

4. This source extends Carey's argument of FP schools targeting certain individuals who would be a great candidate to be admitted to the school. The source discusses the loan debts a student endures and also questions the value of the degree they received attending the FP school.

 Excerpts from Government Accountability Report on For-Profit Universities

1. Full report: 'For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices.'

   Year: Aug 4, 2010

    Pages: 4

2. Carey's Claim: Increased oversight and regulation is warranted in order to stop abuses  "Abuses in industry. Clifford's abstract concession P8"

3. "Admissions representatives at four colleges either misidentified or failed to identify their colleges' accrediting organizations. While all the for-profit colleges we visited were accredited according to information available from Education, federal regulations state that institutions may not provide students with false, erroneous, or misleading statements concerning the particular type, specific source, or the nature and extent of its accreditation"

" representatives at two colleges told our undercover applicants that they were guaranteed or virtually guaranteed employment upon completion of the program. At five colleges, our undercover applicants were given potentially deceptive information about prospective salaries."

4. This source illustrates/extends Carey's argument of FP schools running like a scam/fraud with their sketchy recruiting techniques. This source also supports the argument of students graduating from FP schools having a hard time finding employment.

 “For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect,”

1. Author: Michael Seiden

    Publication: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 55, Issue 41

    Pages: 3

2. Carey's claim: Criticisms of the FPs by non profit colleges are flawed and hypocritcial. They are wrong to think FPs are going away.

3. "Enrollment in for-profit colleges, while still a relatively small share of the higher-education market, has grown more than tenfold over the past decade. For-profit education companies are now in high demand among venture capitalists and investment bankers, and the industry is one of the rare ones that is faring well in this economy"

" There have unquestionably been abuses in some for-profit education institutions, but the same can be said about private and public traditional institutions as well. Perhaps it’s time to evaluate institutions on their own merits, rather than classify them by stereotypical categories." 

4. This source supports carey's argument of FP schools being here to stay. This source also discusses how FP deserve more respect than they actually receive; helping students receive a higher education.