• Friday, February 17, 2012
  • Print
  • Comment (13)

For-Profit Colleges, Growing Fast, Say They Are Key to Obama's Degree Goals

For-Profit Colleges Say They Are Key to Obama's College-Completion Goal 1

Jodi Hilton for The Chronicle

Students at the Kaplan Career Institute in Boston study medical billing in one of the for-profit college's computer labs.

With about two million students in the United States now attending for-profit colleges, a number that is expected to double by 2015, leaders of those institutions say their sector must play a key role if President Obama is to meet his goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020.

The institutions are still viewed with skepticism by some consumers and policy makers, but for-profit colleges have grown steadily. Their officials say the colleges' performance records on enrollment and graduation demonstrate the extent to which they can fulfill America's higher-education needs.

For-profit institutions, in fact, are now awarding degrees at a faster clip than their nonprofit counterparts. Between the 1996-7 and 2006-7 academic years, the number of associate, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees awarded by private, for-profit institutions rose at a faster rate than the number of those degrees conferred by public and private nonprofit colleges, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

The number of associate degrees conferred by for-profit institutions more than doubled during that 10-year span, to almost 118,000. For public institutions, the number increased by 22 percent, to 567,000, during the same period. At private, nonprofit colleges the number of associate degrees decreased by almost 11 percent, to 44,000. Associate degrees awarded by for-profit institutions made up 16 percent of all associate degrees awarded in 2006-7, up from 10 percent in 1996-7.

During the same period, the number of bachelor's degrees conferred by for-profit institutions increased even more quickly, to 71,000 from 12,000. At the same time, the number of those degrees awarded by public institutions increased by about 26 percent, to 975,000, and the number awarded by private, nonprofit colleges increased by 24 percent, to 478,000.

Students at for-profit institutions also tend to complete associate degrees faster than students at nonprofit colleges, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The average time to completion at a for-profit college is 25.4 months, compared with 32 months at a nonprofit institution.

And all that is good for the for-profit sector's bottom line, too. The sector's revenue is projected to increase by about 10 percent annually, to $41.7-billion in 2014, according to a study this year by BMO Capital Markets.

Academic rigor at for-profit colleges, though, has been a concern, and a recent government report found that, on average, students who attend proprietary institutions have higher default rates on student loans than students at nonprofit colleges. The report, by the Government Accountability Office, also uncovered instances in which officials at some for-profit colleges helped students pass basic-skills tests or obtain invalid high-school diplomas so they could be eligible for federal aid.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is revisiting rules that affect for-profit colleges, including those related to giving the basic-skills tests that determine whether someone has the ability to benefit from a college education, misrepresentation of information institutions provide to potential students, and incentive compensation for student recruiters.

Some scholars have also pointed out that for-profit colleges offer a narrow range of degree options. Nevertheless, many of those institutions are well-positioned academically to educate the nation's future workers, says Richard K. Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and a professor of economics at Ohio University. He says most of the 30 occupations projected to grow the fastest in the United States over the next decade—such as home health aides and customer-service representatives—do not require the kinds of skills associated with a traditional, four-year degree. Many jobs projected to grow by the Bureau of Labor Statistics require no more than a certificate or associate degree, which for-profit colleges offer.

Only about 8 percent of college students attend a for-profit college. But Jamie P. Merisotis, president of the Lumina Foundation for Education, stressed that even though the sector educates a small proportion of students, it has a big role to play in helping the Obama administration reach its 2020 goal.

Mr. Merisotis, whose group has focused its work on increasing college completion in the United States, says the for-profit sector educates a lot of students from low-income backgrounds who are among the first generation in their families to attend college. Almost half of students enrolled at a for-profit college are the first in their family to pursue a higher education, and the same proportion of for-profit-college students come from families with an income below $40,000, according to the Career College Association.

The for-profit sector's role in educating those students is important, Mr. Merisotis says, because improving graduation rates among those populations, which have historically struggled to complete degrees, will be essential if the nation is to meet the Obama administration's benchmark. Lumina has set a similar goal, to increase the proportion of the U.S. population with degrees or credentials to 60 percent by 2025.

"For-profits are highly focused on completion," he says. "Completion is the main way they have to attract future students."

For-profit colleges outperform community colleges on completion rates for associate degrees. Sixty percent of students seeking a two-year degree at for-profit colleges graduate, compared with 22 percent of students at public community colleges, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

However, students enrolled in four-year degree programs at for-profit colleges don't fare as well as their counterparts at nonprofit institutions. Forty-four percent of students who seek a four-year degree at a for-profit institution graduate. That compares with 54 percent of students attending a public, four-year college and 64 percent enrolled at a private, nonprofit, four-year college.

The Community-College Dilemma

To reach his goal, President Obama has proposed programs that would largely aid the nonprofit sector. He has called on community colleges to produce five million more graduates by 2020 and proposed billions of dollars to help them meet that goal. The president has also proposed a $2.5-billion College Access and Completion Fund that two-year institutions, as well as four-year nonprofit colleges, and states, could tap into to raise graduation rates and close achievement gaps.

But for-profit-college leaders say their institutions, which number more than a thousand, will also need to play a critical part, especially given the limit on community colleges' ability to expand. Those institutions are now struggling to accommodate growing numbers of students as their budgets are cut.

At the nation's largest community college, Miami Dade College, 30,000 students this fall were unable to take all the classes they needed because the institution didn't have money to hire enough faculty members and advisers. In California, community colleges plan to reduce enrollment by 250,000 students because of cuts in state aid.

Even though the Obama administration's plan would pump much-needed money into community colleges, some college leaders note that the $9-billion the plan would put toward two new grant programs to test promising programs represents less than 1 percent of community colleges' collective budgets. Most states will not have the money to augment the federal funds.

"This is not a slam on community colleges, but the reality is that they do not have the resources to do what President Obama wants them to do," said Harris N. Miller, president and chief executive of the Career College Association, which represents about 1,400 institutions, most of them operated for profit.

Diane Auer Jones, president and chief executive of the Washington Campus, a nonprofit group, agrees that community colleges face a hard task. They enroll a diverse group of students, including a significant portion who need extra academic help to prepare for college-level work. Combined with increasing budget cuts, that factor will make it difficult for community colleges to achieve the graduation rates needed to carry out President Obama's goal, said Ms. Auer Jones, who was assistant secretary for postsecondary education under President George W. Bush.

But David S. Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, says that community colleges are well positioned, even in spite of budget challenges, to meet the president's goal of having them educate five million more students by 2020.

He said two-year campuses would be aided in their efforts not just by federal money proposed by the president but also by private dollars, from groups like the Lumina and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundations, which are putting hundreds of millions of dollars toward efforts to increase the number of Americans with college degrees.

Where community colleges have an edge over for-profit institutions in helping more students get into, and through, college is on costs, says Mr. Baime.

Community colleges are generally cheaper than for-profit colleges, he said, making the two-year institutions an affordable option for more people. Tuition at for-profit colleges is, on average, six times higher than at a community college, he said, and students are more likely to graduate with debt if they attend a for-profit college than if they attend a community college.

The average annual tuition this year at a public, two-year college is $2,544, compared with $14,174 at a private, for-profit institution, according to the College Board. Forty-two percent of students who graduate with an associate degree from a for-profit college leave with more than $20,000 in debt, compared with 1 percent of those who graduate with the same degree from a community college, Mr. Baime said.

"Community colleges are absolutely the route to go through to increase higher-education output," he said. "It makes more sense as a long-term strategy given the cost of attending a proprietary school."

Robert M. Shireman, U.S. deputy under secretary of education, was asked at a forum this fall about why the for-profit sector was omitted from the administration's policy plans, given the increasing role it is playing in higher education. He fielded the question at a discussion held by Education Sector, a research group that studies higher-education policy, and Washington Monthly magazine about what President Obama's focus on higher education means for the future of American colleges.

In response, Mr. Shireman stressed that the money proposed for community colleges was direct institutional aid from the government, which doesn't fit with the federal approach to for-profit colleges.

"We provide enormous amounts of Pell Grants and [federal] loans for students to attend a for-profit institution if they so choose, but the investment in the development of programs at for-profits is done through investors," Mr. Shireman said during the September discussion.

"Institutional aid doesn't make sense for the for-profit side of things, but it does make sense for the community-college side of things, where the owners are the public," he added.

The For-Profit Role

Mr. Miller, of the Career College Association, is not too concerned that for-profit colleges have largely been left out of the Obama administration's conversations about how to meet the president's 2020 goal. The administration needs the for-profit sector in order to achieve the goal, he said, and the sector can contribute without needing to receive federal money.

Unlike community colleges, which heavily depend on state and local money, for-profit colleges instead rely on investor capital and student tuition. The capital allows the institutions to absorb the large up-front costs needed to design courses, construct facilities, and develop sophisticated Web-based systems of distance education. That gives for-profit colleges the ability to grow quickly and add programs to respond to changing market demands, their advocates say.

For-profit colleges, which have primarily educated adults, plan to expand the kinds of students they serve, Mr. Miller said, with an emphasis on recruiting more recent high-school graduates, veterans, and Hispanic people.

Mr. Miller said a rebirth of career and technical educational at high schools is opening the door for the sector among youth, and for-profit colleges are doing more to build relationships with high-school counselors and make presentations at high schools. He said the sector's focus on support services for students will help for-profit colleges enroll more of the rapidly growing Hispanic population, including many people who would be the first in their families to attend college.

For-profit-college leaders say their institutions will draw increasing numbers of students, and deliver growing numbers of graduates, in part because of their campuses' nimbleness. For-profit colleges, they say, respond to the marketplace more quickly than do nonprofit colleges, allowing proprietary campuses to start programs and offer degrees that meet changing needs of employers and students.

Jeffrey J. Conlon, chief executive of Kaplan Higher Education, says the United States will need to produce 63 million degrees to match leading nations in the percentage of adults with college degrees by 2025. At the current pace, the United States will fall short of that threshold by 16 million, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

The for-profit sector is poised to contribute significantly, he says, because institutions like Kaplan can grow in ways that nonprofit colleges can't. Kaplan Higher Education opened four campuses this year, with classes set to begin in December at the ones in Arlington, Tex., and Chula Vista, Calif. Kaplan, which serves more than 100,000 students online and at its 72 campus-based colleges, has also started more than 100 academic programs this year, including an online master's degree in accounting, an online bachelor's degree in environmental policy and management, and campus-based associate degrees in health-information technology and medical-practice management.

Mr. Conlon said Kaplan expected to open several more campuses and to continue expanding its online and campus-based program offerings.

The University of Phoenix is also growing at a rapid clip. In October, the institution announced that it had increased its enrollment by 22 percent over last year, bringing its total number of degree-seeking students to 443,000.

And the university plans to widen its marketing. William J. Pepicello, the university's president, says he wants to reach out to people who may have never thought of going to college.

"There are plenty of students out there," he said. "There are tens of millions who don't have a college degree. If we are going to fulfill the president's vision, we need to present people with a set of options."

Comments

1. 11298847 - November 10, 2009 at 11:41 am

Great article Jennifer. The propriatary institutions are clearly well positioned to have a profound impact on the degree aspirations outlined by the Obama administration.

Quick question, where did you find the NCES data on average time to completion at for-profit and not-for-profit associate degrees? I have been looking for that and haven't had much luck so far. Did you use IPEDS or something else?

2. rkitchner - November 13, 2009 at 07:25 am

I would remind Mr. Shireman, who states that ""Institutional aid doesn't make sense for the for-profit side of things, but it does make sense for the community-college side of things, where the owners are the public. . ." that, in fact, the public has a very real stake in the ownership of for-profit colleges. Not only do many individuals of modest means invest in for-profit college stocks, the retirement funds of millions of Americans have benefitted from such investments. Moreover, perhaps a more appropriate way to characterize so-called "for-profit" institutions is to refer to them as "tax-paying" institutions. The reality is that such institutions add hundreds of millions of dollars to federal and state treasuries through corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and the personal income taxes of those who invest in them. It is not unreasonable to assume that some of those tax revenues subsequently are re-packaged as financial aid for students who attend not-for-profit institutions, as well as taking the form of direct financial support to the institutions themselves. Hopefully, the American public will not lose sight of where this administration expects to get the funds necessary to advance its education agenda, because the fact is, the government is not contributing one dime of revenue that it earned;
Rather it is spending revenue that it collects from the earnings of taxpayers - both individual and corporate.

3. 11167997 - November 13, 2009 at 07:52 am

Mr. Conlon's use of hysteria and inflation in international comparisons is sadly typical of our mis-planning. You don't need more than 4th grade math to figure out a reasonable approximation of what a nation with a growing denominator (the U.S.) needs when compared with most other OECD countries with flat or declining denominators. Under such demographic dynamics, population ratio comparisons are ludicrous. It's more helpful to ask what we need (a) just to stay where we are in terms of the proportion of the the key population age group, 25-34, with real degrees (about 37 percent), and (b) what it would take to increase that proportion
by 5 percent increments. The answers are far, far lower than the 63 million/16 million Mr. Conlon offers, numbers that are so far beyond the realm of possibility that reasonable people would throw up their hands and give up. Let's get real about all of this, and ask, too, some serious questions about the quality of the additional degrees we would like to award.---Cliff Adelman,
Institute for Higher Education Policy, author of "The Spaces Between Numbers: Getting International Data on Higher Education Straight" (2009).

4. jwcarroll - November 13, 2009 at 08:29 am

The GAO report referenced in this article incorrectly grouped institutions like the Capella, Kaplan, and the University of Phoenix with cosmetology schools. Furthermore, the for-profit providers offer opportunties to students the state failed to serve.

5. 11180655 - November 13, 2009 at 09:02 am

It is stated here the community colleges are far less expensive than private career colleges. This is an inaccurate statement as you can not ignore the very significant cost to taxpayers. In fact if you examine total efficiency in terms of the stated goal of producing graduates, with private career colleges graduating srudents who declare a major with the intent of graduating (which is how the formula defines it) at nearly 3 times the rate of community colleges, you would find private career colleges are the most effective institutions at meeting Obama's goals.

6. rferrin - November 13, 2009 at 09:07 am

Students are consumers, and they are voting with their feet. Having served as VPAA and as president of four different non-profit colleges and universities over a 30-year span and now serving the past 4 years as president of a for-profit, I can tell you that accredited for-profits expend more effort in providing student services, focus more tightly on the individual student and are far more active in helping students achieve completion than non-profits, especially commuter institutions, seem to be. Even if you use a metric as simple as professionals' time-on-task, the for-profits tend to win. Why? Because they know that satisfied customers make for a successful business. Non-profits have no such bottom line.

7. intered - November 13, 2009 at 09:59 am

Having a grasp of the fundamentals of taxpayer subordination will inform this discussion.

1. When a prospective student elects to attend a state college, taxpayers underwrite that choice $7,500-$10,000 per year of attendance.

2. When a prospective student elects to attend a not-for-profit independent college, taxpayers underwrite that choice $6,500-$7,500 per year of attendance. Taxpayer support is much higher at elite private institutions, in excess of $40,000 at a few institutions.

3. When a prospective student elects to attend a for-profit college, taxpayers are receive a payment from that college. The amount of this payment varies with the profitability of the institution and other factors. Our calculations place it between $600 and $900 per student per year.

The total tax subordination margin, therefore, between public and for-profit attendance is generally above $8,000 and may be much more. These analyses include federal losses through student loan default rates differentiated by institutional type as well as all other taxation contexts for the for-profits and forgone taxation contexts for the not-for-profits. The model is exhaustive insofar as we can construct it.

Given the taxpayer subordination facts, community colleges (which generally represent an excellent bargain for the student) may or may not represent a bargain for the taxpayer.

Not-for-profit institutions are extremely inefficient. This is not to say they are undeserving. It is to say that this discussion needs to be informed by these economic realities.

Robert W. Tucker
President and CEO
InterEd, Inc.

8. willynilly - November 13, 2009 at 04:14 pm

This action on the part of the proprietaries was expected. No more than the usual weak arguements advanced for the purpose of presenting a justification to getting their hands on public money primarily intended for public community colleges. Across the board, how well did these proprietaries do in administering federal financial aid dollars, without fraud, after they knocked that barrier down? Now they want another bite at the public apple. The beat goes on.

9. akprof - November 13, 2009 at 04:27 pm

I have a relative who completed an associate degree in a health care field @ a for-profit college - he could not articulate to me - a nurse - the job for which he was qualified - but it didn't really matter because he could not find a job anyway. He is still repaying his loans. Completion is not the only criterion of success of an academic program!

10. ttuenglish - November 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm

I am struggling to grasp some of Mr Tucker's numbers. How can taxpayers underwrite $6500-$7500 a year for independent non-profit schools, when these schools do not receive a dime from the federal or state governments?

Non-profit public and private institutions return money to the social system via full-time faculty, administrators, staff, and operating physical spaces. For-profits pay for a corporate office, a bunch of adjuncts, and a web platform. Little equality in that formula.

Finally, let's add what else the taxpayer pays for in non-profits: (1) sports, while controversial, they are valuable; (2) research, which is vital to our ability to have our students and country innovate; (3) space & culture, which includes parks, campuses, museums, libraries, and activities; (4 and most vital) Soft skills. Students who attend undergrad online often fail to learn the collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and problem solving skills that come as part of full or partial F2F experience.

Sure, most for-profits listen to students. Students say I want a degree and they give it them. Non-profits have the luxury to say, "you did not earn this degree, or you did not earn this grade, or you do not have the necessary skills to be an accountant..." For-profits lose dollars by doing this. This is the root of the rigor problem.

I attended a blended PhD program at a land grant school. I have nothing against online delivery when it is done correctly. For-profits, however, tend to treat education as an end, not a means. Take these classes and get the degree. That's the ticket. Non-profits do a much better job at equipping the student with the learning skills necessary to adapt. Who cares if for-profits can produce a new degree program quickly? That job might not even be around in 10 years. Spiffy sounding degree programs are a marketing ploy, not a mandate from industry.

If for-profits want to succeed, then they need to push non-profits to produce a better product. Not simply bank more money per student because they cram students through sexy sounding programs at an accelerated rate while paying only for a web platform. Listening to students can honestly be dangerous. How much would you have learned if your faculty had heeded your requests to make tests easy, lower requirements, cancel classes, and reduce homework?

11. capellau - November 16, 2009 at 11:48 am

It is critical that for-profit universities demonstrate the value and outcomes of what they provide. A graduate of a for-profit college or university that is not prepared to succeed in his or her chosen field is of no use to America's future. Capella University, for example, has been leading the charge on a groundbreaking new accountability initiative called Transparency by Design, which has resulted in the Web site College Choices for Adults: http://www.collegechoicesforadults.org. Capella has also launched its own Web site that is dedicated to demonstrating learning and career outcomes of its students: http://www.capellaresults.com/index.asp

12. justincase - November 16, 2009 at 01:13 pm

For-profit "universities" pose a clear ethical dilemma. Since their intent is to profit maximize, they will tend to engage in the following practices-

-Treat students as customers and seek to maximize their "customer" base
regardless of customer qualifications

-Lower educational standards to minimize costs and maximize enrollment. Rigor is antithetical to this process.

-Spend an inordinate amount of "university" resources on marketing to attract more "customers"

-Seek to provide their educational services at the lowest possible cost
including unconscionably low faculty salaries, the use of rented facilities, etc.

-Leverage the value of a real university education to their benefit without providing the infrastructure of a real university

-Use federal student grant and loan programs as a stable and primary source of revenue thereby shifting default risk to the taxpayer much like the banking industry's foray into subprime mortgage lending.

-Provide excessive rewards to executives in the form of stock options.

I challenge anyone who views the student as "customer" to indicate this in YOUR vita, as in, for example, "I was a CUSTOMER at the University of Pennsylvania from 1975 to 1979." A great method for insuring the performance of for-profit educational enterprises is to have the federal government require that the organization co-sign each of their government guaranteed student loans. I wonder how many would survive if this were the case? What will happen to the value of these degrees when the "university" goes bankrupt?

One could go on forever about this, but I think that the following links tell the story of for-profit "university" education efforts in the case of the University of Phoenix, the largest player in the field. Below is a link to a recent GAO report on default problems in proprietary schools.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09600.pdf

Also, this link reveals what it's like to apply for a teaching position at UOP-

http://www.epinions.com/review/educ-Colleges_and_Universities-All-University_of_Phoenix/content_182477753988

Here's a great link containing an overview of the situation.

http://www.nextstudent.com/student-loan-blog/blogs/sample_weblog/archive/2009/10/29/24092.aspx

It appears that the University of Phoenix has the unenviable distinction of having been sued by all possible stakeholders- students, employees, investors, and the federal government.

Need anyone say more?

13. giana711 - December 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Yes, for profit institutions are generally more efficient and better at hand holding their customer through all the processes and get the student through the red tape of enrollment and registration but are they better at teaching?

Can their grads hold their own with those of community colleges?

What is the level of grade inflation and how does it affect both teaching and learning.

While sure they do a better job at customer service how does that help Obama's plan if their graduates are reading at high school level. Does it help our nation?

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.