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.
No comments:
Post a Comment