The Pros And Cons Of For-Profit Colleges

The prospect of attending college can be both exciting and disconcerting, particularly given the current cost of tuition. “Free college programs that cover students' tuition are a step toward addressing issues of the cost of higher education, but leave questions of quality unanswered” (Bayer). Which means free tuition for a student that doesn’t have financial aid assisting them. I believe college should be free within the United States. Although there are states with “free”college or some kind of program to assists students in ; I believe all the states should provide free college for students. This being said, college should be free for students; no matter their race, religion, or sex. They would only be responsible for utilities and whatever else they chose to buy. Tution would essentially be paid by taxpayers within the state. Students can’t afford tuition and expenses due to them not making enough money at their part time job while going to school full-time. Even if a student could afford the tuition they still would not have enough to cover their other expenses.

Kevin Carey takes a deep look into the controversies concerning for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges have received harsh criticism from institutions because of the way they recruit new students and use the loan system to gain even more of a profit, added on to the price of schooling. Even though only 10 percent of students get enrolled, a quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profit colleges. That seems extremely unfair. Carey begins with bringing us bad news, for-profit colleges do abuse the system of student loans, however they also bring educational opportunities for those who may have not had the option to attend college.

For-profit colleges target veterans because G.I. Bill was given to the veterans by the government, which helps veterans pay for their colleges’ tuition, up to $21000 a year. Also, veterans must be looking to seek degree and trying to get a good job after they get out from the military. So, that’s also one of the reasons for for-profit colleges to recruit them.

“At a time when American public higher education is cutting budgets, laying people off, and turning away students, the rise of for-profit universities has been meteoric.” If other colleges are turning down students how will the graduation rate increase like President Obama wants it to. We need these for-profit schools to help the economy and to get more people educated and working.“Enrollment in the country’s nearly 3,ooo career colleges has grown

As described earlier in this report, for-profit colleges are allowed access to federal financial aid only under particular circumstances. First, for-profit schools must meet a market test, demonstrating that a portion of their revenue comes from somewhere other than federal aid. Even though this requirement has serious loopholes, many for-profit colleges still come very close to transgressing the 90 percent limit on Department of Education revenue, so the

On July 21, 2015, President Obama addressed the VFW National Convention on the 70th anniversary of end of WWII, and said: “I consider it my obligation to help make sure that, even though less than one percent of Americans wear the uniform, that 100 percent of Americans honor your sacrifices and your service” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2015). In my own personal attempt to honor those who have served our country, I decided to learn more about the student veteran experience in the higher education environment. Not only am I researching student veterans because of the call from President Obama to honor their service, I’m interested in the topic from the taxpayer perspective. In November 2015, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reported that $12 billion was spent on education benefits for over one million military veterans in the fiscal year of 2014. However, graduation rates for student veterans still lag behind their civilian counterparts (McCaslin, 2013), though it’s important to note that accurate information is still hard to find due to inconsistent reporting (Cate, 2014).

College tuition has been increasing over the years and recent American college graduates have been in great debt. People have been debating over what the cause is for years, but there are two particular differing causes we’ll be focusing on. The Editorial Board is a very diverse staff of writers from USA Today who’ve had experience in journalism covering serious newsworthy topics and events and received degrees in journalism. According to the article, “Making College More Expensive”, the Editorial Board states that as a whole, American college students and graduates owe about $1.2 trillion. The democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, have plans to make college affordable and aid students with their debt by making taxpayers pay more so that the money can go into Pell grants. Barmak Nassirian thinks otherwise. Nassirian is a nationally known policy analyst at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and a federal aid expert who serves as a voice on higher education issues. In his article, “Tell States to do Their Share”, Nassirian believes that state disinvestment is the cause of college tuition increase because public colleges are becoming privatized. The Editorial Board and Nassirian use the three major appeals to persuade the audience to their reasonings for the college affordability problem. They further their purpose by trying to prove to the audience that their point is valid.

1. Matt Taibbi argues in his Rolling Stone article “Ripping Off America: The College-Loan Scandal” that the government, colleges and universities, are all perpetuating this scandal of ripping off unknowing students. He states that students have essentially been backed into a corner because any good paying job requires a 4 year degree, but the debt gathered in doing so makes life after getting a degree just as difficult. Taibbi’s first point of surprise was “In 2010, it estimated that one in five had defaulted on their loans since 1995, that 31 percent of community-college students default and that an astonishing 40 percent of students attending for-profit schools end up defaulting” (Taibbi). Pursuing a higher education is something that has been disguised as doable for everyone, but what such high defaulting percentages, the current method clearly does not support this. Furthermore, Taibbi went on to say that, “After the latest compromise, the 10-year revenue projection for the DOE 's lending programs is $184,715,000,000, or $715 million higher than the old projection - underscoring the fact that the latest deal, while perhaps rescuing students this coming year from high rates, still expects to ding them hard down the road” (Taibbi). This is surprising because it further shows that deceit is a very prominent theme when it comes to understanding and pursuing a higher education. They make it appear like they are finding a solution or trying to be fair, when their true

I am sympathetic to the instinct to ignore the question of whether a college is accountable to owners (for-profit), or, alternatively, is answerable to a financially disinterested board (nonprofit or public). While there is a higher incidence of problematic behavior at for-profit colleges, there are also nonprofit and public institutions that don’t do right by students and the public interest.

Andrew Kelly’s article “The Problem Is That Free College Isn’t Free” originally appeared in the New York Times, and due to the large audience that normally views this website and newspaper each day, there’s no doubt that he had an influence on those who read his article, particularly those in his intended audience of taxpayers and students. The author uses

Researchers of for-profit post-secondary institutions have realized that for-profit post-secondary institutions are fast growing players in the post-secondary education sector. Most researchers in the education industry come from the non-profit sector and often criticize for-profit institutions as wrong doers. Researchers hold that for-profit institutions sell degrees, misrepresent and deceive their students leading to defaulted student loans and an on-going defrauding of the federal government. Research demonstrates that the Federal government has responded to the criticism of their lack of oversight of post-secondary for-profit institutions with numerous regulations, some apply only to for-profit institutions. These regulations control everything from, the programs offered, the way admissions recruiters are compensated, limitations on default rates and limitations on the revenue a for-profit institution can derive from federal funds. However, the research around for-profit educations does not address the adequacy of the regulations in serving their underlying purpose or to address the impact, if any, on for-profit institutions.

In 1958, the National Defense Education Act provided college students up to one thousand dollars a year in loans, but the average annual loan was actually only five hundred dollars or less because students could afford the rest of tuition on their own. Interest began at three percent a year after graduation and could usually be paid off in ten years. (Good 590-591) These statistics are a far cry from today’s, with student loan debt surpassing one trillion dollars and many graduates paying off loans well into middle age. As a result of the government shelling out billions of dollars in loans and inflation, colleges have had to increase their tuitions thus creating a college “bubble”. In the past year or so many political leaders have proposed plans to pay for two years of community college, such as President Obama, or for a full four years, such as Bernie Sanders, a frontrunner for the democratic candidacy. Even states like Tennessee,

While for-profit institutions of “higher education” continue to close due to falling profits, pressure from accreditors and federal regulators, and the loss of income through federal student financial aid limitations, many observers and commentators are attentive to the consequences for those students that fall prey to these schools. Few investigate or understand those that are or were employed at such institutions. Just as the students of these institutions were deceived, as an employee of a for-profit school, I was also led astray by such machinations. This is not to say that all for-profit institutions are inherently evil, though many would not exist without preying upon student populations of undereducated adult learners of color from a low socioeconomic background. Although I am not proud of my experience of working for such a school, the experience greatly contributed towards transforming my philosophy on power, race, and class in education.

Although for-profit colleges offer higher-level education to interested students, they also operate as businesses attempting to maximize profit, which raises the question: should education be viewed as a mere product/service to be sold to those students willing to pay a designated price or an enlightening experience that is fundamental to improving oneself and society? Since for-profit colleges are able to make a profit, unlike their non-profit counterparts, they have placed a larger emphasis on maximizing revenue than providing valuable education, which has led to an increase in the recruitment of students, who are the primary sources of revenue, through methods of advertising and promotion. The usage of aggressive marketing strategies has been extremely effective in increasing student enrollment at for-profit colleges by appealing to vulnerable individuals, such as veterans or high-school dropouts, with the ability to obtain a better career and life. However, in an effort to recruit more students, the advertising and promotional tactics used by these institutions have misled students by presenting false information about tuition costs and credibility of the provided education. By doing so, students who wished to participate in higher education to improve themselves have, instead, experienced mounting student debt and an inability to find a job supportive of their degree. By belittling education into a

This issue exists in my opinion, for a couple of varied reasons. The first and likely most important reason behind this limited academic freedom has to deal with retention and attrition. Working at a for-profit higher education institution the bottom line is often what drives many of the decisions being made. The only way the school makes money is if they have a continuous stream of students enrolling every quarter to take their courses. When instructors have higher than average attrition rates and decreasing retention rates administration feels the need to step in and make changes that prevent this from occurring. Many times, students are not passing courses or leaving the school for various other reasons outside of academics, however, administration