The Full Wiki

For-profit school: Wikis

Advertisements
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For-profit schools are educational institutions that are run by private, profit-seeking companies or organizations.[1]

There are two major types of for-profit schools. The first type operates as a business, receiving fees from each student it enrolls. The second type is known as an educational management organization, or EMO. EMOs work with school districts or charter schools, using public funds to finance operations. The majority of for-profit schools in the K-12 sector in America function as EMOs, and have grown in number in recent years.

EMOs function differently from charter schools created in order to carry out a particular teaching pedagogy; most charter schools are mission-oriented, while EMOs and other for-profit institutions are market-oriented. While supporters argue that the profit motive encourages efficiency it has also drawn controversy and criticism.

In the 1990s, the for-profit college and university sector boomed, particularly in the United States.

Contents

Growth of for-profit schools

Although for-profit schools still make up only a small percentage of America's educational institutions, in just a few years their numbers have grown dramatically. In February, 2000, there were hundreds of thousands of students being taught at 200 for-profit facilities, with approximately six percent of students nationally enrolled at a for-profit institution [2] Eduventures, Inc, a Boston research firm, states that nine percent of all U.S. college and graduate students attend for-profit institutions.[3]

Between 1998 and 2000 a Boston-based company named Advantage Schools saw its revenue increase from $4 million to approximately $60 million.[4] Between 1995 and 2000 the Edison Schools' yearly revenues grew from $12 million to $217 million. In 2000 Edison Schools projected that by 2006 it would manage about 423 schools with 260,000 students, giving it revenue of $1.8 billion.[4]

Potential benefits

Supporters claim that for-profit school operate more efficiently,[5][6] and that these increases in efficiency can lead to lower fees.[7] Moreover, they argue that financial competition encourages the schools to seek out better qualified teachers.

Supporters argue that for-profit schools rely on attracting students rather than compelling attendance and therefore tend to be more responsive to parents' wishes, and are especially flexible and responsive to the needs of adult learners[8], and that they also encourage policies that address bottom-line academic performance allowing them to focus on what consumers (students) want—if parents or students do not like the service being offered, they are able to take their business elsewhere.[9] Supporters also argue that the schools' drive to attract new customers pushes them to innovate and improve at a faster rate than traditional public schools.

Proponents of for-profit schools claim that market operations governing the school promote effective decision- and policy-making. By their example, for-profit schools have the potential to encourage reform in public institutions. Thus, for-profit schools theoretically benefit children, parents, investors, and those who rely on public education.

Potential drawbacks

One problem with for-profit schools is that, being quite new, there have been few systematic examinations of them. The few existing reports show mixed results.[5] This is not unexpected in an emerging market where competition has not yet determined the most successful system.

Opponents say that the fundamental purpose of an educational institution should be to educate, not to turn a profit. In 2000, Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association, stated: "Educating children is very different from producing a product."[10]

Others claim that because for-profit schools have never been a mainstream idea, no complete blueprint for running a for-profit institution really exists, which could lead school administration to make costly errors.[5] For example, in order to maximize profit, valuable services and activities are often eliminated. Extracurricular activities such as sports teams or volunteer clubs are left with little or no budgeting in order to keep costs low. This loss of non-academic activities might hurt a child's ability to enroll in some colleges or universities later on. The two largest EMOs in operation today, Edison and Advantage, claimed to have high school juniors completing college-level coursework, but recent studies have shown that many of these students are performing at or below the 11th-grade level.[4]

According to James G. Andrews in the AAUP article ["How We Can Resist Corporatization,"][1] corporate models of education harm the mission of education.

Transfer-of-credit issues affecting for-profit higher education institutions

Many for-profit institutions of higher education have national accreditation rather than regional accreditation. Regionally accredited schools are predominantly academically oriented, non-profit institutions.[11][12] Nationally accredited schools are predominantly for-profit and offer vocational, career, or technical programs.[11][12] Many regionally accredited schools will not accept transfer credits earned at a nationally accredited school.[11][12][13][14]

In the 2005 Congressional discussions concerning reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and in the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, there have been proposals to mandate that regional accrediting agencies bar the schools they accredit from basing decisions on whether or not to accept credits for transfer solely on the accreditation of the "sending" school.[13][14] They could still reject the credits, but they would have to have additional reasons.

The American Commission Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT) wholly supports the proposed rule.[15] In fact, it and other nationally accrediting institutions and have been lobbying for it for some time.[13][14] The ACCSCT claims regionally accredited schools will not accept nationally accredited schools credits for purely arbitrary, prejudicial and/or anti-competitive reasons.[15] It further states that, since the Department of Education recognizes both national and regional accreditation, there is no reason for regionals to differentiate between the two and to do so amounts to an unwarranted denial of access.[13][14][15]

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officials (AACRAO), which sides with the regional accreditors, claims that national accrediting standards are not as rigorous and, though they might be well-suited for vocational and career education, they are ill-suited for academic institutions.[2] AACRAO alleges that this proposed rule is unnecessary and unjustified, could threaten the autonomy and potentially lower the standards of regionally accredited schools, and drive up their costs.[2] Furthermore, it states the proposed rule is an attempt by the for-profits' "well-funded lobbyists" to obscure the difference between for-profits' "lax academic criteria for accreditation" and non-profits' higher standards.[2] AACRAO claims only six percent of American students attend for-profits and only four percent attempt to transfer to non-profits.[2] Eduventures, Inc, a Boston research firm, states that nine percent of all U.S. college and graduate students attend for-profit institutions.[3]

Admission representatives at Crown College (Tacoma) and Florida Metropolitan University allegedly made various misrepresentations concerning the transferability of their credits to entice students to enroll in those schools.[3]

Several of the larger for-profit schools have sought and received regional accreditation, including Capella University, Art Institute of Atlanta, Art Institute of Pittsburgh, University of Phoenix, DeVry University, Strayer University, Miami International University of Art and Design, Kaplan University, Walden University, and American InterContinental University, among others.

There have been some spectacular failures of for-profit schools, including Business Computer Technology Institute (BCTI)[16][17] and Court Reporting Institute (CRI)[18][19][20]. These two schools allegedly violated numerous federal statutes, were funded mainly from federal and state loans and grants given to attending students, and then closed, abandoning many of their students.[16][17][18][20]

See also

References

  1. ^ For-Profit vs. Nonprofit Online Schools
  2. ^ a b c d e Federalized Transfer of Academic Credit, Proposed Mandate Would Hurt Students AACRAO website
  3. ^ a b c A Battle Over Standards At For-Profit Colleges, Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2005 by John Hechinger
  4. ^ a b c For Profit Schools, They're Spreading Fast. Can Private Companies do a better job of educating America's Kids?, BusinessWeek Online, February 7, 2000, by William C. Symonds
  5. ^ a b c Reference Article : For-Profit Schools
  6. ^ For-Profit Schools
  7. ^ Opinions & Essays, 8/1993 - For Profit vs. Non-Profit Schools and Programs
  8. ^ Types of Online Education Providers - eLearners.com
  9. ^ For Profit vs Not for Profit Schools - Private School Review
  10. ^ William C Symonds (2000-02-07). "For-Profit Schools". BusinessWeek. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-26.  
  11. ^ a b c Types of Accreditation, Education USA website
  12. ^ a b c What is the Difference Between Regional and National Accreditation, Yahoo! Education website
  13. ^ a b c d Jaschik, Scott (2005-10-19). Demanding Credit, Inside Higher Education website, dated October 19, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/19/transfer.
  14. ^ a b c d Tussling Over Transfer of Credit, Inside Higher Education website, February 26, 2007 by Doug Lederman
  15. ^ a b c Transfer of Credit A Policy Agenda, ACCSCT website
  16. ^ a b A Special Report - A Troubled Legacy, Tacoma News Tribune, December 11, 2006, by David Wickert
  17. ^ a b Hundreds of Students Left in Cold as BCTI Closes Up Shop, Seattle Times, March 14, 2005 by Connie Thompson
  18. ^ a b Is This School Cheating Students?, Seattle Times, March 29, 2006, by Emily Heffter
  19. ^ Troubled Court Reporting School Says Its Closing, Seattle Times, August 29, 2006, by Emily Heffter
  20. ^ a b Local Court Reporting School Founders, The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 7, 2007, by Helen Gao

Bibliography

  • Brown, H.; Henig, J.; Holyoke, T.; Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2004). "Scale of Operations and Locus of Control in Market- Versus Mission-Oriented Charter Schools" Social Science Quarterly; 85 (5) Special Issue Dec, 2004. pp. 1035-1077
  • Levin, H. (2001). "Thoughts on For-Profit Schools" [2]
  • Symonds, W. (2000). "For Profit Schools" BusinessWeek. February 7, 2000.

External links

Advertisements

Opinions of for-profit schools

  • Common Wealth Institute [3] -- Notable For-Profit Education Opponent
  • Education Next [4] -- Detailed Forum on For-Profit Education

For-profit schools are educational institutions that are run by private, profit-seeking companies or organizations.[1]

There are two major types of for-profit schools. One type is known as an educational management organization, or EMO, and these are primary and secondary educational institutions. EMOs work with school districts or charter schools, using public funds to finance operations. The majority of for-profit schools in the K-12 sector in America function as EMOs, and have grown in number in recent years.[citation needed] The other category of for-profit schools are post-secondary institutions which operate as businesses, receiving fees from each student they enroll.

EMOs function differently from charter schools created in order to carry out a particular teaching pedagogy; most charter schools are mission-oriented, while EMOs and other for-profit institutions are market-oriented. While supporters argue that the profit motive encourages efficiency it has also drawn controversy and criticism.[2]

In the 1990s, the for-profit college and university sector boomed, particularly in the United States.[citation needed]

Contents

Growth

Although for-profit schools still make up only a small percentage of America's educational institutions, in just a few years their numbers have grown dramatically. In February, 2000, there were hundreds of thousands of students being taught at 200 for-profit postsecondary facilities, with approximately six percent of students nationally enrolled at a for-profit institution [3] Eduventures, a higher education research and consulting firm, states that nine percent of all U.S. college and graduate students attend for-profit institutions.[4]

Between 1998 and 2000 a Boston-based company named Advantage Schools (since taken over by Mosaica Education saw its revenue increase from $4 million to approximately $60 million.[5] Between 1995 and 2000 the Edison Schools' yearly revenues grew from $12 million to $217 million. In 2000 Edison Schools projected that by 2006 it would manage about 423 schools with 260,000 students, giving it revenue of $1.8 billion.[5]

Potential benefits

Supporters claim that for-profit school operate more efficiently,[6][7] and that these increases in efficiency can lead to lower fees.[8] Moreover, they argue that financial competition encourages the schools to seek out better qualified teachers.[citation needed]

Supporters argue that for-profit schools rely on attracting students rather than compelling attendance and therefore tend to be more responsive to parents' wishes, and are especially flexible and responsive to the needs of adult learners[9], and that they also encourage policies that address bottom-line academic performance allowing them to focus on what consumers (students) want—if parents or students do not like the service being offered, they are able to take their business elsewhere.[10] Supporters also argue that the schools' drive to attract new customers pushes them to innovate and improve at a faster rate than traditional public schools.[citation needed]

Proponents of for-profit schools claim that market operations governing the school promote effective decision- and policy-making.[citation needed] By their example, for-profit schools have the potential to encourage reform in public institutions. Thus, for-profit schools theoretically benefit children, parents, investors, and those who rely on public education.

Potential drawbacks

One problem with for-profit schools is that, being quite new, there have been few systematic examinations of them. The few existing reports show mixed results.[6]

Opponents say that the fundamental purpose of an educational institution should be to educate, not to turn a profit. In 2000, Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association, stated: "Educating children is very different from producing a product."[11]

Others claim that because for-profit schools have never been a mainstream idea, no complete blueprint for running a for-profit institution really exists, which could lead school administration to make costly errors.[6] For example, in order to maximize profit, valuable services and activities are often eliminated. Extracurricular activities such as sports teams or volunteer clubs are left with little or no budgeting in order to keep costs low. This loss of non-academic activities might hurt a child's ability to enroll in some colleges or universities later on. The two largest EMOs in operation today, Edison and Advantage, claimed to have high school juniors completing college-level coursework, but recent studies have shown that many of these students are performing at or below the 11th-grade level.[5]

According to James G. Andrews in the AAUP article ["How We Can Resist Corporatization,"][6] corporate models of education harm the mission of education.

Transfer-of-credit issues

Many for-profit institutions of higher education have national accreditation rather than regional accreditation. Regionally accredited schools are predominantly academically oriented, non-profit institutions.[12][13] Nationally accredited schools are predominantly for-profit and offer vocational, career, or technical programs.[12][13] Many regionally accredited schools will not accept transfer credits earned at a nationally accredited school.[12][13][14][15]

In the 2005 Congressional discussions concerning reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and in the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, there have been proposals to mandate that regional accrediting agencies bar the schools they accredit from basing decisions on whether or not to accept credits for transfer solely on the accreditation of the "sending" school.[14][15] They could still reject the credits, but they would have to have additional reasons.[citation needed]

The American Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), a nonprofit organization created for the purpose of accrediting for-profit schools, supports the proposed rule.[16] It and other nationally accrediting institutions and have been lobbying for it for some time.[14][15] The ACCSC claims regionally accredited schools will not accept nationally accredited schools credits for purely arbitrary, prejudicial and/or anti-competitive reasons.[16] It further states that, since the Department of Education recognizes both national and regional accreditation, there is no reason for regionals to differentiate between the two and to do so amounts to an unwarranted denial of access.[14][15][16]

The American Association of Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officials (AACRAO), which sides with the regional accreditors, claims that national accrediting standards are not as rigorous and, though they might be well-suited for vocational and career education, they are ill-suited for academic institutions.[3] AACRAO alleges that this proposed rule is unnecessary and unjustified, could threaten the autonomy and potentially lower the standards of regionally accredited schools, and drive up their costs.[3] Furthermore, it states the proposed rule is an attempt by the for-profits' "well-funded lobbyists" to obscure the difference between for-profits' "lax academic criteria for accreditation" and non-profits' higher standards.[3] AACRAO claims only six percent of American students attend for-profits and only four percent attempt to transfer to non-profits.[3] Eduventures, Inc, a Boston research firm, states that nine percent of all U.S. college and graduate students attend for-profit institutions.[4]

Admission representatives at Crown College (Tacoma) and Florida Metropolitan University allegedly made various misrepresentations concerning the transferability of their credits to entice students to enroll in those schools.[4]

Several of the larger for-profit schools have sought and received regional accreditation, including the following:

Business practices

For-profit higher education in the U.S. has been the focus of concern regarding business practices. In August 2010, the Government Accountability Office reported on an investigation of the student-recruiting practices of several for-profit institutions. Investigators who posed as prospective students documented deceptive recruiting practices, including misleading information about costs and potential future earnings. They also reported that some recruiters had urged them to provide false information on applications for financial aid.[17]

There have been some spectacular failures of for-profit schools, including Business Computer Technology Institute (BCTI)[18][19] and Court Reporting Institute (CRI).[20][21][22] These two schools allegedly violated numerous federal statutes, were funded mainly from federal and state loans and grants given to attending students, and then closed, abandoning many of their students.[18][19][20][22]

2010 Pell Grant fraud controversy

For-Profit institutions were randomly sampled by Government Accountability Office undercover investigators in mid 2010; Out of the 15 sampled, all of the institutions were found to have been engaging in deceptive practices, promising unrealistically high pay for graduating students and four were engaging in outright fraud, per a GAO report released on the August 4, 2010 Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. Examples of misconduct include:

  • offering commissions to admissions officers,
  • employing deceptive marketing tactics by refusing to disclose total tuition cost to prospective students before signing a binding agreement,
  • lying about accreditation,
  • encouraging outright fraud by enticing students to take out student loans even when the applicant had $250,000 in savings,
  • promising extravagant, unlikely high pay to students,
  • failing to disclose graduation rate, and
  • offering tuition cost equivalent to 9 months of credit hours per year, when total program length was 12 months.

The four for-profit colleges found to be engaging in fradulent practices were:

  1. Westech, California, encouraging undercover applicant with falsified $250,000 in savings to falsely increase the number of dependents in the household in order to qualify for a Pell Grant, as well as take out the maximum amount in student loans;
  2. Medvance Institute in Miami, Florida: A financial aid representative tells an applicant not to report $250,000 in savings, comparing student loans to a car payment in that, "no one will come after you if you don’t pay.” In fact, a student loan default may remain in the debtor's credit history, prevent them from taking out a car loan, mortgage or rent, and may have their pay garnished up to 15%, until the student loan is paid in full. Another admissions officer at Kaplan College in Pembroke Pines, Florida,[23] alluded to fraudulent behaviour stating to the applicant when inquiring about the repayment of loans, "You gotta look at it...I owe $85,000 to the University of Florida. Will I pay it back? Probably not...I look at life as tomorrows never promised... Education is an investment, you’re going to get paid back ten-fold, no matter what.";
  3. Anthem Institute in Springfield, Pennsylvania, financial aid representative editing applicant's FAFSA form by omitting $250,000 in savings;
  4. Westwood College in Dallas, Texas, admissions representative telling applicant to falsely add dependents to qualify for Pell Grants, assuring the applicant that the dependents would not be verified through previous income tax returns nor Social Security numbers, and financial aid representative encouraging applicant not to report the $250,000 in savings, stating that "it was not the government’s business how much money the undercover applicant had in a bank account.", when the Department of Education requires students to report such assets, along with income, to determine how much and what type of financial aid will be awarded.

It was found that 14 out of 15 times, the tuition at a for-profit sample was more expensive than its public counterpart, and 11 out of 15 times, it was more expensive than the private counterpart. Examples of the disparity in full tuition per program include: $14,000 for a certificate at the for-profit institution, when the same diploma cost $500 at a public college; $38,000 for an Associate's at the for-profit institution, when the comparable program at the public college cost $5,000; $61,000 for a Bachelor's at the for-profit institution, compared to $36,000 for the same degree at the public college.[24]

This is counter to International Education Corporation CEO Fardad Fateri's claims of the lack of use of unorthodox recruiting practices and a for-profit's "value" in an IEC open letter to Congress,[25][citation needed] the tuition cost of certificates and Associate's degrees being 28 and 6 times more than at a public college, respectively; Fateri writes, "Credit should be given to non-profit universities that have been able to convince students and their sophisticated parents to pay approximately $400,000.00 for an undergraduate degree that will seldom lead to an academically-related career." However, the most expensive college in the U.S., Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y., had a tuition cost of $41,040 for 2009 fiscal year[26][27], bringing the tuition of a four-year Bachelor's degree to just above $160,000.

The institutions identified in the Committee hearing in respect to the GAO report numeration were:

  1. University of Phoenix - Phoenix, Arizona[28]
  2. Everest Institute - Mesa, Arizona[29]
  3. Westech College - Victorville, Ontario, Moreno Valley, California[30]
  4. Kaplan - Riverside, California[31]
  5. Potomac College - Washington D.C.
  6. Bennett Career Institute - Washington D.C.
  7. Kaplan - Pembroke Pines, Florida[32]
  8. College of Office Technology - Chicago, Illinois[33]
  9. Argosy University - Chicago, Illinois[34]
  10. University of Phoenix - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[29]
  11. Anthem Institute - Springfield, Pennsylvania[35]
  12. Westwood College - Dallas, Texas[35]
  13. Everest Institute - Dallas, Texas[36]
  14. ATI Career Training - Dallas, Texas[37]

Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults.[38][39] University of Phoenix tops this list with Pell Grant revenue of $656.9 million with second and third place held by Everest Colleges at $256.6 million and Kaplan College at $202.1 million for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, respectively.[40] In 2003, a Government Accountability Office report estimated that overpayments of Pell Grants were running at about 3% annually, amounting to around $300 million per year.[41] Some of the universities that are top recipients of Pell Grants have low graduation rates, leaving students degreeless, and graduating alumni may find it excessively difficult to find work[42][43] with their degrees, leading some former students to accuse recruiters of being "duplicitous", and bringing into serious question the effectiveness of awarding Pell Grants and other Title IV funds to for-profit colleges.[44][45] University of Phoenix's graduation rate is 15%.[46][47] Strayer University, which reports its loan repayment rate to be 55.4%, only has a repayment rate of roughly 25%[48], according to data released by the U.S. Department of Education on August 13, 2010.[49] The low repayment rate makes Strayer ineligible for receiving further Title IV funds in accordance with new "Gainful employment" regulations brought forth by the Department of Education, which are to take effect on July 2011.[50] If passed, the minimum loan repayment requirement for any institution receiving Title IV funds, subject to suspension and expulsion if not compliant, will be 45%.[51]

For-profits top the Department of Education's list for the 2005-2007 cohort default rates, with campuses at ATI and Kaplan reporting default rates far above 20%: Most of the for-profits' expansion has been in the states of California, Arizona, Texas and Florida, with the metro areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas and Miami-West Palm Beach being epicenters of their growth.[52][53][28][54][55] For comparison, in Miami, Everest Institute reports a default rate for two of its campuses to be 18.1% and 20%; Miami Dade College, the district's community college, which serves as a primary channel for local beginning students, reports a default rate of roughly 10%; Florida International University, a public university serving the Miami metropolitan area, reports approximately 5%.[56]

chart, encouraging strong sales tactics]] In an August 4, 2010 Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, Gregory Kutz of the GAO stated that the fraudulent practices may be widespread in the For-Profit industry, noting a University of Phoenix executive chart that encouraged deceptive practices.[57]  Joshua Pruyn, a former admissions representative, disclosed to the committee hearing several internal emails distributed among admissions officers in March 2008 which encouraged applications and enrollments through the use of a commissions reward system.[58] Chairman of the committee Senator Thomas Harkin noted the conflict of interest due to the ACCSC, a national accrediting agency that accredits many for-profit colleges nationwide,[59] receiving compensation directly from the institutions to which it awards accreditation. The Inspector General issued an assessment in late 2009 recommending the limiting and possible suspension or expulsion of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools due to conflicts in the manner in which the accrediting agency reviews credit hours and program length for online-colleges, specifically American InterContinental University, a For-Profit college.[60] The NCA HLC accredits the University of Phoenix and Everest in Phoenix, Arizona. The Department of Education Inspector General is currently reviewing the GAO's documents and report on for-profit colleges dated August 4, 2010.

See also

References

  1. ^ For-Profit vs. Nonprofit Online Schools
  2. ^ Kozol, Jonathan. The Shame of the Nation. Three Rivers Press, 2005. See chapter 4 "Preparing Minds for Markets" and others
  3. ^ a b c d e Federalized Transfer of Academic Credit, Proposed Mandate Would Hurt Students AACRAO website
  4. ^ a b c A Battle Over Standards At For-Profit Colleges, Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2005 by John Hechinger
  5. ^ a b c For Profit Schools, They're Spreading Fast. Can Private Companies do a better job of educating America's Kids?, BusinessWeek Online, February 7, 2000, by William C. Symonds
  6. ^ a b c Reference Article : For-Profit Schools
  7. ^ For-Profit Schools
  8. ^ Opinions & Essays, 8/1993 - For Profit vs. Non-Profit Schools and Programs
  9. ^ Types of Online Education Providers - eLearners.com
  10. ^ For Profit vs Not for Profit Schools - Private School Review
  11. ^ William C Symonds (2000-02-07). "For-Profit Schools". BusinessWeek. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_06/b3667001.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-26. 
  12. ^ a b c Types of Accreditation, Education USA website
  13. ^ a b c What is the Difference Between Regional and National Accreditation, Yahoo! Education website
  14. ^ a b c d Jaschik, Scott (2005-10-19). Demanding Credit, Inside Higher Education website, dated October 19, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/19/transfer.
  15. ^ a b c d Tussling Over Transfer of Credit, Inside Higher Education website, February 26, 2007 by Doug Lederman
  16. ^ a b c Transfer of Credit A Policy Agenda, ACCSC website
  17. ^ Daniel de Vise and Paul Kane, GAO: 15 for-profit colleges used deceptive recruiting tactics, The Washington Post, August 5, 2010
  18. ^ a b A Special Report - A Troubled Legacy, Tacoma News Tribune, December 11, 2006, by David Wickert
  19. ^ a b Hundreds of Students Left in Cold as BCTI Closes Up Shop, Seattle Times, March 14, 2005 by Connie Thompson
  20. ^ a b "Is This School Cheating Students?" Seattle Times, March 29, 2006, by Emily Heffter
  21. ^ "Troubled Court Reporting School Says It's Closing," Seattle Times, August 29, 2006, by Emily Heffter
  22. ^ a b "Local Court Reporting School Founders," The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 7, 2007, by Helen Gao
  23. ^ http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-08-05/news/fl-kaplan-for-profit-investigation-20100805_1_kaplan-college-for-profit-enrollment
  24. ^ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf
  25. ^ http://www.iecglobal.com/Aug2710.asp
  26. ^ http://www.cnbc.com/id/33380153/?slide=11
  27. ^ http://www.campusgrotto.com/most-expensive-colleges-for-2009-2010.html
  28. ^ a b http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/for-profit-colleges-boiler-room-recruiting-described-at-senate-hearing.html
  29. ^ a b Bloomberg August 4, 2010 article
  30. ^ [1]
  31. ^ [2]
  32. ^ Sun-Sentinel August 5, 2010 local article
  33. ^ There is only one main campus in Illinois, in Chicago
  34. ^ [3]
  35. ^ a b The Quick and the ED August 4, 2010 article
  36. ^ http://www.liquida.com/page/9509207/
  37. ^ Liquida August 4, 2010 article
  38. ^ http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473
  39. ^ http://www.trends-collegeboard.com/student_aid/pdf/2009_Trends_Student_Aid.pdf
  40. ^ For-Profit Colleges Capitalize on Pell Grant Revenue, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 4, 2010.
  41. ^ "TAXPAYER INFORMATION: Increased Sharing and Verifying of Information Could Improve Education's Award Decisions". Government Accountability Office. July 2003. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03821.pdf. 
  42. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/degreed-and-jobless-for-p_n_673053.html
  43. ^ http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295688
  44. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-05/for-profit-n-j-college-halts-recruiting-of-homeless-update1-.html
  45. ^ Fed Up at the University of Phoenix, Higher Ed Watch, February 27, 2007.
  46. ^ http://www.phoenix.edu/content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/University-of-Phoenix-Consumer-Information-Guide-2009-2010.pdf
  47. ^ Dillon, Sam (February 11, 2007). "Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/education/11phoenix.html. 
  48. ^ http://archival.malformedxmlelement.com/For-Profit%20Colleges/Strayer%20ge-cumulative-rates.xls
  49. ^ http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/ge-cumulative-rates.xls
  50. ^ http://www.insidehighered.com/content/download/357892/4393975/file/Gainful%20Employment%20NPRM.pdf
  51. ^ Lewin, Tamar (August 13, 2010). "Data Show Low Loan Repayment at For-Profit Schools". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/education/14college.html. 
  52. ^ http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/04/1809205/for-profit-schools-grow-as-do.html
  53. ^ Gentile, Carmen (March 4, 2010). "School Is Linked To Visa Fraud". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/us/05fraud.html. 
  54. ^ http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/higher-education/private-for-profit-colleges-under-the-microscope/
  55. ^ http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/whistleblower-lawsuit-against-profit-education-company-unsealed
  56. ^ http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/peps300.zip
  57. ^ http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294901-1
  58. ^ help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruyn%20Attachments.pdf
  59. ^ [4]
  60. ^ [5]

Bibliography

  • Brown, H.; Henig, J.; Holyoke, T.; Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2004). "Scale of Operations and Locus of Control in Market- Versus Mission-Oriented Charter Schools" Social Science Quarterly; 85 (5) Special Issue Dec, 2004. pp. 1035–1077
  • Levin, H. (2001). "Thoughts on For-Profit Schools" [7]
  • Symonds, W. (2000). "For Profit Schools" BusinessWeek. February 7, 2000.

Further reading

Berkeley, California, December 15, 2009

  • "It is set up like a call center": former employee of Ashford University describes unethical telemarketing techniques employed to increase enrollment.
  • [8]:Op-Ed articles on for-profit colleges and universities.

External links

Documentaries

  • "College, Inc.", PBS FRONTLINE documentary, May 4, 2010, describing controversies and failures of post secondary for-profit institutions.

Opinions of for-profit schools


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message