For-Profit Colleges and Universities - Essay Example

For-Profit Colleges and Universities School For-Profit Colleges and Universities For-profit colleges and universities (FPCUs) are run by private entities, dissimilar to government-controlled learning organizations. Students have highly welcomed and entered into the private realm of learning in the last two decades. Figures reveal that their registry at for-profit educational organizations has increased 225 percent. As per the figures of the academic year 2010-2011, at least 12 percent of all post-secondary students got admissions in privately-run institutions, which numbered around 2.4 million. As community colleges were falling short in providing admission to all desired candidates, for-profit institutes were the second best option left for students to pursue their desired courses. For-profit institutes provide ample choices in the matter of class-timings, anytime admissions, provision of online options, small strength of class and accessible locations. For such students who are pursuing jobs, doing part-time jobs, or having children, for-profit colleges and universities seem to be the viable option (NCSL, 2013). The trend for for-profit colleges was started by John Sperling, a humanities professor at San Jose University from 1961 to 1973. He started remedial reading classes for Mexican Americans and courses in social issues for police personnel. Going against the education norms, he started similar other programs for the for-profit University of Phoenix, presently online and the largest U.S. university, with nearly 500,000 students. Sperling and his supporters changed the mom-and-pop trade school scenario into a $30 billion industry by roping in such investors as Washington Post Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. For-profit colleges give admissions to 12 percent of U.S. undergraduates and use 24 percent of U.S. Pell grants for poor students (Golden, 2010, Dec. 29). Sperling supports for-profit colleges for providing the opportunity to low-income people to attain degrees and jobs. His reaction to the administration’s “onerous” initiatives was that it “would make it impossible for the sector to offer many programs” that help students to become teachers, nurses and police officers, and “would have a devastating impact on institutions that enroll low-income students.” Thus, Sperling and his supporters have set the stage for opposing government regulation and starting a fight between the Obama administration and the rising Republicans (Golden, 2010, Dec. 29). Stakeholders of the larger society need to view the traditional economic theory, which shows that profit-making is not an evil. On the other hand, it is the propelling agent of satisfying consumers’ demands, irrespective of the field of operation. Market is controlled by the needs of the consumers for allocation of resources. Profits cannot accrue if demand is lacking. The same economic theory holds true for FPCUs; they are increasing in number because there is need felt by students to enroll in such courses that are offered by these FPCUs (Bennett et al., 2010). For-profit institutes use innovation as a tool to attract students, such as by offering weekend classes and evening classes for adult learners. In traditional universities, faculty discourages introducing innovation in curriculum to preserve their academic freedom. Facilities are not used optimally, contrary to the practice in FPCUs that adds to their competitiveness (Bennett et al., 2010). Economics of business acquisition has been at the center for promoting for-profit institutes. One such acquisition of Daniel Webster College was made by ITT Educational Services Inc. by clearing the debt of the college to the tune of $20.8 million against getting an academic certification for generating a taxpayer-funded windfall equal to $1 billion. Incidentally, ITT Educational is the U.S.’s third-largest higher education firm with a market worth of $3.8 billion. Trend is on the high for acquiring not-for-profit educational institutes on the line of the acquisition of Daniel Webster College, as confirmed by an investor, named Michael Clifford, in Del Mar, California, who has been a part of the acquisitions of four other nonprofit colleges. Government grant to the US college students has played a leading part in realizing the new revenue streams, the acquisition firms aim at (Golden, 2010, March 4). Tierney & Rodriguez (2014) review past and present trends to support for-profit colleges and universities for the competitive edge offered by them in comparison to government-run institutes. These are favoured for accommodating economic and market needs. Earlier, there had been no such change in policy to adjust to market needs in the context of traditional post-secondary education. Government-run institutes have been largely depending on past models of education. For-profit colleges, on the contrary, provide such benefits that public and not-for-profit institutes do not provide. The three leading benefits offered by for-profit institutes include: 1. Building Partnerships FPCUs lead by collaborating with employers. They stress on building relationship with businesses not just for the purpose of ensuring campus recruitment of their students, but to check and ensure that the product offered by them is in demand in the job market so that their investment on that course is secure also. Success rate in the job market and getting internships by students after passing from for-profit institutes provides a competitive edge to them, particularly when the economic environment is not encouraging (Tierney & Rodriguez, 2014). Relatively speaking, public and not-for-profit institutes lack the infrastructure to help students find jobs. The upcoming employment regulations have also encouraged for-profit institutes to remain on their toes always in providing jobs to their students after completing courses; their adaptation level has heightened with the reducing Congressional criticism of them. For-profit institutes are financially capable of looking at the interests of their students in comparison to traditional educational institutes. They want to secure and maintain their reputation for providing job offers to their graduates (Tierney & Rodriguez, 2014). 2. Flexibility in Approach For-profit colleges are not rigid in their approach when it comes to identifying future trends in the job market. They go on introducing future-oriented courses by not catering to traditional job needs only. In comparison to for-profit institutes, traditional institutions are slow in adaptation to the concurrent job needs, and continue offering such courses that have become irrelevant due to deficiency in their demand. For-profit institutes adjust seats by adding more seats in such courses that are highly in demand. They are, therefore, pro-market, producing a by-product of this adaptability to get government support if they remain ethical in business practices (Tierney & Rodriguez, 2014). 3. Knowing all about who and what Perspective of for-profit colleges is relatively larger, as they offer competency-based education. By showing a leading path through their competency-based education model, they offer a better option in relation to traditional colleges by stressing on their students’ insights, capabilities, and skills. FPCUs strive to be effective teachers in minimum class-room time. Students’ performance is not judged from their spent hours and units in a given program, but from their demonstrated hold of the subject and their acquired ability and expertise to accomplish a job (Tierney & Rodriguez, 2014). As a shift is occurring for a competency-based curriculum, it would benefit for-profit colleges in different ways. First, their study courses will finish in a given time slot. Second, their learning level will be highly measurable, enabling students to show their competence for the selected job (Tierney & Rodriguez, 2014). Conclusion For-profit colleges can remain on the forefront of education market by molding themselves to latest trends in businesses and job markets. If students do not get jobs to repay their loans, if issues pertaining to veterans are not settled, and if students fail in getting remunerative jobs, faith in the existence of for-profit institutes can shatter along with enforcement action by the government for non-compliance to regulations, reducing the FPCUs into small players in the post-secondary education arena. A lot depends on the role of FPCUs themselves. FPCUs need to ensure that students are their main stakeholders. If they do not get return on their investment of time and money, future of FPCUs may be at risk by facing opposition from various stakeholders, including government grant and the criticism of FPCUs by the Congress. References Bennett, D., Lucchesi, AR., & Vedder, RK. (2010). For-profit higher education -- growth, innovation and regulation. Center for College Affordability. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/ForProfit_HigherEd.pdf Golden, D. (2010, March 4). Your taxes support for-profits as they buy colleges (Update3). Blooomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8jjBVDqwzS0 Golden, D. (2010, Dec. 29). Plunge of for-profit college shares makes patriarch Sperling rail at Obama. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-29/plunge-of-for-profit-college-stock-makes-sperling-rail-at-obama.html NCSL. (2013). For profit colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/for-profit-colleges-and-universities.aspx Tierney, WG. (2014). Ahead of the curve: three competitive advantages of for-profit colleges. The Evollution. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/curve-competitive-advantages-for-profit-colleges/ Read More