Lawrence
Besong
Professor
Christopher Werry
RWS 100
20
October 2014
Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Many people may have heard the
popular idiom, “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
The meaning of this idiom is a person or thing that disguises its evil
nature or intentions beneath a kind or innocent exterior. For-profit colleges can be compared to wolves
in sheep’s clothing. For-profit schools
are owned by private organizations or corporations, and tend to operate in such
a way. Beneath their promises of a quality
education remain deception, dishonesty, and defeat. In “Why Do You Think They’re Called
For-Profit Colleges?,” a 2010 commentary published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey claims that problems
and abuses exist in the for-profit sector, and these institutions are refusing
to accept responsibility for them. For-profit
colleges have been becoming more prevalent across the United States, with the
popularity of schools such as the University of Phoenix. These schools market themselves to students
from a “moderate- and low-income backgrounds” (Carey). Knowing the population of their students, for-profits
still typically charge a higher tuition than public colleges and
universities. In order for these
students to attend and pay their tuition, they are encouraged to take out
student loans. Operators of these
colleges refuse to see acknowledge that their high tuition results in student
loan defaults. For-profits receive
enormous amounts of money, “most of that money comes from the federal
government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized loans” (Carey). Upon
graduating from a for-profit college, students are having difficulty paying
back their loans, because “large debt plus small income equals high risk of
default” (Carey). Although the article
discusses negative aspects of for-profit colleges, he does mention some
positive qualities that these colleges may have when compared to public non-profit
higher education schools. I feel that
these positive qualities are only mentioned in order to mask the true nature of
these for-profit schools. In my analysis
of Carey’s text, I will examine the deceit and dishonesty of for-profit
colleges and the negative effects that the students and graduates of these
establishments endure.
For-profit colleges market their
brand to appeal to students from low- to moderate-income backgrounds. Running just as a business would, these
colleges market themselves in order to gain the most profit. “For-profits exist in large part to fix
educational market failures left by traditional institutions, and they profit
by serving students that public and private nonprofit institutions too often
ignore” (Carey). The author is saying
that for-profit colleges provide an education to the under-privileged, giving
them the opportunity to obtain a higher education. The University of Phoenix strategically
builds their campuses near freeway exits.
This appealed to students who attended night classes and had to quickly
get to school after a day of working.
Online courses allow students to stay home and earn a degree at the same
time. Students can work and complete
their schoolwork at their own convenience.
Students with families or children can stay home while learning, without
the need of hiring a babysitter or nanny.
Carey is explaining the appeal that for-profit colleges have to the under-privileged,
while Deming, Golding and Katz provide a more in-depth analysis at what
attracts these types of students to these schools. “For-Profit Colleges” describes the majority
of the students enrolled in for-profit schools.
“During the past fifteen years, youth from minority and disadvantaged
background and those ill-prepared for college increasingly and
disproportionately have enrolled in programs at for-profit colleges. These programs promise much, are often open to
those who do not meet traditional college-entry requirements” (Deming, Goldin
and Katz 138). Many career-based
programs are offered and can be completed in a shorter period of time compared
to traditional nonprofit colleges.
Certifications and degrees seem easily attainable by the way they are
marketed to those interested in entering a specific career. “Many for-profit colleges devote considerable
resources to advertising, sales, and marketing” (Deming, Goldin and Katz
149). For-profit colleges set aside
money from their earnings in order to advertise their schools and programs in
order to increase student enrollment. These
ads include: billboards, television and radio commercials, and posters on
public transportation. The deliberate
placing of these ads can help attract students with a lower income, providing
them with the optimism of gaining a postsecondary education. “When such institutional incentives are
combined with outreach to low-income, first-generation college students who may
be financially unsophisticated, the worry is that students may have overly
optimistic views of the expected benefits and not fully understand the costs of
the educational decisions they are making” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 149). Relying on the inexperience and hopefulness
of this group of people, for-profit colleges are able to influence their
decisions to enroll. Upon graduating,
these students are often left with a great amount of debt and low-paying
jobs. Just as Carey pointed out that
for-profit schools appeal to people with the moderate- to low-income
backgrounds, Deming, Golding and Katz brought insight as to why they do
so. Businesses market themselves to
appeal to those who can be easily persuaded.
Like candy advertisements are geared toward children, the promise of a
quick certification or degree appeals to those who are in desperate need of
money and a job. Although it may seem
like a good decision on the surface, graduates from for-profits have been shown
to have a higher rate of unemployment and have lower paying jobs, on top of
their greater amount of debt.
For-profit colleges gain a
significant amount of their profit through the federal government. As Carey pointed out, they get their money
from Pell Grants and subsidized loans, which are both student financial aids
that help low-income students obtain a post-secondary education. Due to the fact that this is how they make
their revenue, for-profit schools will do anything to “help” their students obtain
these loans, including fraudulent behavior.
The introduction of “Reining in the Predatory Nature of For-Profit
Colleges” tells the story of a fourteen-year-old boy named Bobby Ruffin
Jr. He was searching the Internet for
college funding. He clicked on a link,
which was disguised, that led to a for-profit school. Soon after, a recruiter from Ashford
University contacted Ruffin. This
recruiter promised Ruffin that he would “be working toward a degree as a
medical doctor, so when [he does] graduate high school, [he will be] almost
there” (Schade 318). The recruiter
advised Ruffin not to even discuss the matter with his parents. The naïve high school student did as he was
told. Ashford University requires a high
school diploma for admission, and Ruffin was still only in eighth grade. The Ashford recruiter told Ruffin to state
that he already graduated on his financial aid forms. Even though he left it blank, Ashford
University filled in the form with a false graduation date in order receive the
federal student loan money. By retelling this story, Schade shows how the
recruiter manipulated a young boy and forged federal government forms in order
to receive money for revenue. Unfortunately,
behavior like this is common within the for-profit sector. “Critics of for-profit colleges, who often
refer to such institutions as “predatory lender,” condemn them for unethical
recruiting tactics, false promises of high-salary jobs, inaccurately
representing institutional information, and charging vastly higher tuition in
comparison to public universities” (Schade 321). Lying and deceit seems to be morally
acceptable to these institutions, just as long as they make a profit. Although they will not admit that is what
they are doing, essentially they are committing fraud. Schade provided a great example of the
dishonest behavior of the for-profit colleges that leads to the ability to gain
profit from the federal government, through Pell Grants and subsidized loans.
Statistics show that graduates from
a for-profit college, compared to those from a four-year public institution,
have a higher rate of unemployment, have lower-paying jobs, are hired less
often, and have a large amount of debt. Carey
states that “student-debt payments after graduation exceed a certain percentage
of the graduates’ income” (Carey) and that these graduates are more likely to
default on their loan. That is just one
negative aspect of graduating from a for-profit college. “Graduates of for-profit schools generally do
not fare well. Indeed, they rarely find
themselves in the kind of work they were promised when they enrolled, the kind
of work that might enable them to repay their debts, let alone purchase the
commodity-cornerstones of the American dream like a car or a home” (Taylor and
Appel). For-profit colleges claim
provide quick and career-based programs that will help its graduates find
employment soon after completion. More
often than not, theses students find themselves struggling to find a job, while
paying off their student loans and debt.
In the example of Nathan Hornes, who graduated from Everest College in
2014, one can see that a 3.9 GPA and a Business Management degree has not
proved to beneficial to him. Not only
does he owe $65,000, but he was not able to find employment, which was promised
to him by Everest. Now he is forced to
work two fast-food jobs in order to begin to pay off his debt. “For-profit graduates fare little better on
the job market than job seekers with high school degrees; their diplomas, that
is, are a net loss, offering essentially the same grim job prospects as if they
had never gone to college, plus a lifetime debt sentence” (Taylor and
Appel). Employers almost equate a high
school diploma to a degree from a for-profit college. This kind of comparison makes it difficult
for for-profit graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs, finding themselves
in competition with high school graduates.
Yet, they are still left with twice as much debt as a graduate from a
traditional school.
For-profit schools target low-income
customers, manipulate them for their own gain, and making promises that they
cannot keep. All of these behaviors lead
to low-value degrees, unemployment, low-paying jobs and an extraordinary amount
of debt. These businesses care more
about maximizing profit than providing an exceptional education to its
students. Schools are meant to educate,
providing the student with the knowledge and tools to succeed. In the case of for-profit colleges, they take
from its students more than they provide.
They achieve this in a deceitful way, just like a wolf in sheep’s
clothing.
Works Cited
Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're
Called For-Profit Colleges?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 July 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Deming, David, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence
Katz. “For-Profit Colleges.” The Future
of Children 23.1 (2013): 137-163. Harvard
University. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Schade, Sarah A. “Reining in the Predatory
Nature of For-Profit Colleges.” Arizona
Law Review 56:317 (n.d.): 317-340. Arizona
Law Review. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Taylor, Astra and Hannah Appel. “Subprime
Students: For-profit Universities Make a Killing from Poor and Minority
Students.” Mother Jones. Mother
Jones, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
“Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Def. 14. Dictionary.com,
Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment