Lawrence Besong
Professor Christopher Werry
RWS 100
27 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. In his article for Forbes Magazine, Robert Farrington
states, “for-profit colleges are schools that are in business to make money off
students and tuition” (Farrington). As
with any other business, the main goal is to earn revenue. Forbes magazine advises students to check the
Better Business Bureau on reviews on for-profit colleges. The National Association for College
Admission Counseling provides information on the various college categories, such
as private non-profit, public non-profit and for-profit colleges. They describe for-profit schools as
proprietary institutions and “companies that operate under the demands of
investors and stockholders” (NACAC). 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 “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 and 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 and argue the unwarranted popularity of these
proprietary schools.
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. Carey explains that “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 long 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. The authors state “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). Traditional nonprofit schools may require a
high school diploma, passing test scores and prerequisite classes. Students who choose to attend for-profit
colleges may not meet the criteria of traditional school. This may push them toward enrolling in a
for-profit school. Also, 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 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. For-profit
schools use this optimism to their advantage.
According to Carey, traditional schools often ignore these types of students. They will jump at any opportunity that allows
them to gain the same education that a nonprofit college would provide them. “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 without proper consideration of the negative effects it
could possibly have. 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 provided insight as to why for-profit school enrollment is
prevalent within this group. Businesses,
which nonprofit schools are considered, always 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 schools
deliberately leave out this type of information, which definitely would not
appeal to any student, regardless of educational or socioeconomic background.
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. This connects to Carey’s argument that “without
oversight, the combination of government subsidies and financially
unsophisticated consumers guarantees outright fraud or programs that, while
technically legitimate, are so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy
has no meaning” (Carey). Although they
make millions of dollars from the federal government and through student loans,
for-profit colleges do not use a majority that money toward the education of
their students. Not only do they commit
fraud financially, but it also transfers to the illegitimacy of their
educational programs.
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. In the
article Subprime Students: For-profit Universities Make a Killing
from Poor and Minority Students, Taylor and Appel reveal that, “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 they provide quick
and career-based programs that will help its graduates find employment soon
after completion. More often than not,
these 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 also 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. This
is the type of situation that many of the graduates find themselves in upon
graduation from a for-profit college.
They are unable to find employment, even though they may have a degree
and certificate specific to a certain profession. Taylor and Appel also state that “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. As Carey mentioned, students
from for-profit colleges are left with a large amount of debt. This debt accumulates over time, and eventually
defaults, due to the fact that they are unable to make payments with their low earning
income.
Although
Carey seems to remain neutral in his article, I feel that the undertone brings
more focus to the negative aspects of for-profit colleges. Carey’s claims provide information that
others use to connect and prove that for-profits deceive, manipulate and take
advantage of their students, leaving them with nothing to show for their hard
work and money spent. These business-like,
proprietary schools target low-income customers, manipulate them for their own
gain, and making promises that they cannot keep. As Deming, Golding and Katz point out,
for-profit schools spend a large amount of money to market themselves to optimistic
students. These businesses care more
about maximizing profit than providing an exceptional education to its
students. They are willing to lie in
order to gain as much revenue as possible through federal grants and loans, as
mentioned by Schade. All of these
behaviors lead to low-value degrees, unemployment, low-paying jobs and an
extraordinary amount of debt. Taylor and
Appel reference specific graduates that are suffering who are having trouble
seeking employment and have been forced to default on their loans. 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.
Farrington, Robert. “Be Selective In Choosing A For-Profit
College.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 10
Sept. 2014. Web. 24 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.
“The Low-Down on For-Profit Colleges.” The Low-Down on For-Profit Colleges.
National Association for College Admission Counseling, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
“Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Def. 14. Dictionary.com,
Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment