Blog Post 10

The For-Profit Business Scheme: Enslavement With Education

Abstact:

For-profit universities have made millions of dollars in revenue by targeting vulnerable, low-income and minority populations. With deceptive tactics for-profit recruitment personnel pressure students into enrollment. Recruiters, however, are pressed to act ruthless by their own administrators. A hierarchy of intimidation

is created in which for-profit directors press employees to relentlessly target and take advantage of low-income and inner city students.  Low-income students are left repaying debt to the for profit companies for the rest of their lives, oppressed into a life of poverty and limited social movement.

Work Cited

Cellini, Stephanie R. "Financial Aid and For-Profit Colleges: Does Aid Encourage Entry?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29.3 (2010): 526-52. Wiley Online Library. 7 June 2010. Web.

College, Inc. FRONTLINE. PBS, 2010. Online Program.

Gibson, Robert A. "Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois: The Problem of Negro Leadership." Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute 2 (1978): n. pag. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. Web. 09 Dec. 2012. <http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1978/2/78.02.02.x.html>.

Giroux, Henry A.  "Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere." Harvard Educational Review Vol. 72 No. 4 (2002): 426-463. Print

Kinser, Kevin. "Access in U.S. Higher Education: What Does the For-Profit Sector Contribute? ." Program for Research on Private Higher Education. University at Albany, State University of New York, Mar. 2009. Web. 07 Dec. 2012.

Roderick, Melissa, Jenny Nagaoka, and Vanessa Coca. "College Readiness for All: The Challenge for Urban High Schools." Future Of Children 19.1 (2009): 185-210. Print.

Williams, Jeffrey. "Academic Freedom and Indentured Students." Academic Freedom and Indentured Students 98.1 (2012): AAUP:. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.

U.S. Congress. Government Accountability Office. Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools. (1-91) Washington: Government Printing Office, Dec. 2011.

U.S. Congress. Government Accountability Office. FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices. (1-27) Washington: Government Printing Office, Aug. 2010.

U.S. Senate. HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE.  For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (1-181). Washington: Government Printing Office, July. 2012

U.S. Senate. HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE.  For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success PART II: Profiles of 30 For-Profit Education Companies (202-720). Washington: Government Printing Office, July. 2012

Blog Post 8

            For my interview, I spoke to Associate Research Professor Roland Anglin, who is the Director  of the Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies School at the Public Affairs and Administration department of Rutgers University-Newark. Anglin recently transferred to this office form the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers-New Brunswick, where he was Executive Director of New Jersey Public Policy Research Institute. Anglin is an expert on poverty, race, urban affairs and local economic development. Anglin’s career includes more than two decades of experience working in the public, educational, and philanthropic sectors.
            I asked about the hindrances that low-income students may come across in their efforts to pursue higher education. Anglin first pointed out the inadequate  educational programs in urban communities, stating that students are "not being prepared by good schools". This leads to lower grades and higher college dropout rates for the minority population. Anglin also added that there are other "socio-cultural challenges such as [higher] crime rates". The culture that students experience is one that drives them away from the educational path, toward one that is influenced by drugs, gangs and crime. Anglin followed with noteworthy examples in which the state makes efforts to improve the situation of urban communities. The socio-cultural obstacles that low-income students face are met with "social policies that try to address this problem." These policies include, "earned income tax credit, workforce development, [job] training, and community development programs".
            I moved directly into the issue with for-profit colleges, and their alleged targeting of vulnerable populations for large revenue. Anglin said that according to congressional reports he has come across, "targeting low-income students may be what [for-profit colleges] are doing." He believed that for-profits purposely target the "people who qualify for [federal] aid." Anglin also assessed the general results of enrolling targeting these students who are not prepared for higher education.  He added "unfortunately, these are the ones that have lower graduation rates, or graduating with no real skills." He believes that although for-profit education programs are suspect in many cases, considering the negative outcomes of enrollment. Still, he said they are necessary. Not all students have access to traditional schooling.
            I chose to speak with Professor Anglin because of his decades of experience. Not only has  Anglin is renowned for his economic and community development studies of marginalized communities, he has also supervised research programs in New Jersey, exploring to the role of crime prevention and youth development. I believe that his expertise in his field has helped me to gain further insight into the socio-cultural issues that low-income college students face. Also, I believe that he has first-hand experience of these issues. He received his bachelor's degree from Brooklyn College, his master's degree from Northwestern University, and his doctoral degree from the University of Chicago. Anglin has worked  his way through areas filled with the issues that minorities face, making his experience in the effects of societal issues on urban schooling a notable one.

Roland Anglin, PhD
Associate Research Professor;
Director, Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies

47 Bleeker Street, Newark, NJ 07102
ccms@andromeda.rutgers.edu
973-353-1750


School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA)
Rutgers University-Newark

Blog Post 9: Visual

The Privatization of Higher Education

Literature Review # 5

(1)    

(2)    U.S. Senate. HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE.  For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (1-181). Washington: Government Printing Office, July. 2012

(3)     The US Senate's HELP committee researched the deceptive tactics that for-profits used during their enrollment process. Their results show that for-profits will go to extreme lengths to recruit students, including targeting the most vulnerable parts of the population.

(4)    The US HELP committee is a portion of the Senate. It handles manners concerning the health, education, and work force of the nation.

(5)   Pain Funnel - sales tactic used by for-profit recruiters that elicits pain in students, causing them to make decisions without much thought

      Objections - doubts or concerns students may have about enrollment. Recruiters used scripts or aggressive language to overcome student objections.

(6)    "After a recruiter located a prospective student’s pain point, the “pain funnel” presented a number

of questions that the recruiter can ask that are progressively more hurtful" (HELP 62).

Students are mentally backed into a corner with the pain funnel method. Then, recruiters would offer the solutions to all of the students' problems in the form of a for-profit degree.

"For instance, Vatterott’s internal “Student Profiles,” part of a manual to train recruiters, detailed the demographic subgroups that the company targets for enrollment: 'Welfare Mom w/Kids. Pregnant Ladies. Recent Divorce. Low Self-Esteem. Low Income Jobs. Experienced a Recent Death. Physically/Mentally Abused. Recent Incarceration. Drug Rehabilitation. Dead-End Jobs-No Future'"(HELP 58).

Low-income and minority populations are targeted by these companies, and recruiters are trained to find and take advantage of students who fit the description.

"An internal Concorde email indicates that company employees had visited 'welfare offices' and 'unemployment offices,' although recruiters were later told to stop visiting these offices because it may be a violation of accreditation standards" (HELP 58).

In their attempt to exploit low-income neighborhoods and find prospective students, some recruiters have been known to show up at social service organization offering for-profit education as solutions to vulnerable people.

(7)     This study explicitly shows the methods used by for-profit college in their efforts to take advantage of the low-income communities. Students are pushed to the edge, emotionally, and then offered a solution in for-profit education. If students do not comply, they are met with more aggressive methods of recruitment. 

Literature Review #4

(1)     

(2)   U.S. Congress. Government Accountability Office. FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices. (1-27) Washington: Government Printing Office, Aug. 2010.

(3)     The GAO conducts a study in which their agents visit 15 for-profit colleges in an effort to uncover the enrollment process of for-profit schooling.The study finds that for-profits use deceptive tactics to enroll students and also falsify student information to maximize their financial aid award.

(4)    The GAO is part of the legislative branch of the US government. It serves to audit, evaluate, and investigate the use of public funds. The GAO makes reports in order to maximize efficiency in public spending.

(5)     FAFSA - free application for federal student aid
Federal  student aid - helps students pay for college with free grants, work study programs, and loan programs
.

(6)     "Within a month of using the Web sites, one student interested in business management received 182 phone calls and another student also interested in business management received 179 phone calls" (14).

As soon as students sign up for websites affiliated with for-profits, they are immediately targeted, receiving calls from unrelenting recruiters. 


"Three colleges required undercover applicants to make $20–$150 monthly payments once enrolled, despite the fact that students are typically not required to repay loans until after the student finishes or drops out of the program"(13).

For-profit recruiters would use deceptive tactics to persuade students to pay fees, which sometimes did not even exist.

"At the same Florida college, multiple representatives used high pressure marketing techniques, becoming argumentative, and scolding our undercover applicants for refusing to enroll before speaking with financial aid" (12).

Students are pressured to enroll in for-profits and if they are not complying, recruiters would often become aggressive.

(7)     This study shows the harshness of the for-profit recruitment process. Students, such as those in the minority population, are easily taken advantage of by these schools. Desperate for an opportunity for schooling, students are often misled into paying more for education, enrolling into for-profit schooling without taking the time to research the educational institution.

BLOG POST #7 : Argument & Counter-Argument

In my paper, I argue that low-income students will find more benefit in enrolling in community colleges or traditional schooling, rather than enrolling in for-profit colleges. One counter-argument supports the rise of for-profit colleges and learning activities provided within the institutions. Occupational colleges focus on providing students hands-on learning classes that helps the students gain major experience in their relative field. Career services building are major offices in most for-profit schools, emphasizing the institution's desire to help their graduates, including many disadvantaged students, acquire and maintain a career.

Literature Review Blog # 3

(1)

(2) U.S. Congress. Government Accountability Office. Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools. (1-19) Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011.

(GAO) conducted two studies that assess the quality of education in proprietary colleges and traditional universities. Studies showed that for-profits schools had higher graduation rates for certificate programs, similar graduation rates for associate's degree programs, and lower graduation rates for bachelor's degree programs than students at traditional schools.

(4) The GAO is part of the legislative branch of the US government. It serves to audit, evaluate, and investigate the use of public funds. The GAO makes reports in order to maximize efficiency in public spending.

(5) "Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study" - survey of beginning students at three points in time: at the end of their first year, and then three and six years after first starting in postsecondary education.  

" Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) " -  captures detailed enrollment data from all schools participating in federal student aid programs.

(6) "An ongoing study suggests that students who started at for-profit schools had similar annual earnings, but higher rates of unemployment compared to students who started at nonprofit and public schools" (GAO 6).

Graduates of proprietary colleges seem to be less able to maintain a career in their relative majors.


"One ongoing study shows that for-profit schools had a higher proportion of students default on their student loans than 4-year nonprofit schools and 2-year nonprofit and public schools" (GAO 6-7)


The high cost of for-profit education causes more students to have trouble paying off student loans, when compared to traditional universities.


 "Available data indicate that for-profit schools enroll a higher proportion of low-income, minority, and nontraditional students who face challenges that can affect their educational outcomes. Students with 
these characteristics tend to have less positive educational outcomes than other students" (GAO 2-3).

Low-income, and minority students have lower chances of becoming successful when enrolling in for-profit education.


It seems that for-profit institutions are taking advantage of the low-income and minority population. Those that enroll in proprietary education may not be as successful as they could be. The studies show that minorities will not be able to find employment as easily, nor will they be able to relieve themselves of student debt.

BLOG POST #6 : Case Study

One important case study that I' d like to explore researches  graduation rates, employment outcomes, student loan debts, and default rates for students at for-profit schools  in comparison to those at nonprofit and public schools. For me, this was a great starting point. It was more like a large overview of the student population, instead of a more direct look at the students within inner city communities. The study, conducted by the Congress' Government Accountability Office in 2011, also explores pass rates on licensing exams for selected occupations among graduates of for-profit, nonprofit, and public schools. The study showed that students enrolled in nonprofit and public institutions were usually more successful that those enrolled in proprietary education institutions.

 U.S. Congress. Government Accountability Office. Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools. (1-19) Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011 <http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/586738.pdf>

Literature Review Blog #2

(2) Giroux, Henry A.  "Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere." Harvard Educational Review Vol. 72 No. 4 (2002): 426-463. Print

(3)  In this article, Henry Giroux describes the negative effects that privatization has on faculty and student of higher education. He argues that increased privatization will produce selfish individuals and blur people's perspective of higher education.

(4) Henry Giroux is an American cultural critic and one of the founding theorist s of critical pedagogy in the United States. Giroux has written more than 40 book, published almost 300 papers and has won many awards for his work.

(5) Neoliberalism - processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much aspects of social life as possible to maximize profit.

Consumer - person who buys products or services

(6) "Given the huge debt such students accumulate, it is reasonable to assume, as Jeff Williams points out, that loans effectively indenture students for ten to twenty years after graduation and intractably reduce their career choices" (Giroux 445).

 High loan balances will force college graduates to become employed earlier, searching for the easier career opportunities, rather than then those they are actually interested in.

"The message to students is clear: customer satisfaction is offered as a surrogate for learning, and to be a citizen is to be a consumer, and nothing more. Freedom means freedom to purchase” (Giroux 446).

Privatization in the school system make learning seems like a business to students. Outside the classroom, students are taught to buy products to gain satisfaction.

"A class-specific divide begins to appear in which poor and marginalized students will get low-cost, low-skilled knowledge and second-rate degrees from online sources, while those students being educated for leadership positions in the elite schools will be versed in personal and socially interactive pedagogies in which high-powered knowledge, ... coupled with a high-status degree" (Giroux 448).

When business values replace the importance of critical learning, those who cannot afford the best education will receive sub-par education.

(7) The more important aspects of this article pints out the influences that privatization has on student psychology. Students thought processes are being altered so that they are more likely to expect quick services for their investments, whether it be with products at a university store or education at the institution.

BLOG post #5 : At least 5 Scholarly sources in MLA Format

Brown, Frank. “Privatization and Urban Education : More Political and Less Educational.” Education and Urban Society Volume 29 (1997) Print.

Clive, Belfield. "Education privatization: causes, consequences and planning implications." Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 74 (2002) Print

Elert, G. (1994). “School privatization and choice: A sociopolitical analysis.” E-World. (1994). Print

Farrell, Walter. "Will Privatizing Schools Really Help Inner-City Students of Color?" Educational Leadership The New Alternative Schools Volume 52. No. 1 (1994) Print.

Whitty, Geoff. "Creeping Privatization And Its Implications For Schooling in the Inner City." The Urban Review Volume 22. No. 2 (1990) Print.

Romer, Jennifer. "Attacking Educational Inequality: The Privatization Approach." Boston College Third World Law Journal Volume 16. No. 2 (1996) Print.

Research Question: Will inner city schools benefit more by increasing its number of privatized education institutions?

BLOG POST #4 : Research Proposal

Emil Severe
Professor Goeller
Research in Disciplines: College!
October 9, 2012
Research Proposal

Working Title : The Privatization of Urban Education: Good Deed or Business scheme?

Topic:

My research paper will explore the possible causes for increasing privatization within inner city schooling. I will also investigate the methods used by traditional universities and for-profit colleges, as well as the societal consequences of such actions. Further, I plan to introduce the privatization of higher education from another perspective: the student.

Research Question: Will inner city schooling benefit more by increasing its number of privatized education institutions?

Theoretical Frame:

My paper will explore some motives behind supporting for-profit schools and the results of such actions. Of course, some motives are purely based on creating income, but other information suggests that some proprietary schools have done more than just create income for private investors. One speculation suggests that for-profit schools, by offering subsidized education opportunities, have the ability to create movements of high academic achievement within their own schools, “[spurring] surrounding schools to make [improvements]" (Whitty 107). One can assess question the improvements in the community’s education are solely because of competition between the schools, or just a push to improve schooling.

Another perspective of privatization, based on societal influences rather than an academic point of view, creates a more negative outlook on for-profit education. It introduces the class and race distinctions, stating that they will become “greater than ever before” (Elert 9). Students and parents are speculated to become increasingly interested in their own advancement at “whatever the cost to other people children” (Elert 9). In this case, questions can be raised about the welfare of the poor inner city communities that are already in need of aid from the public. With the importance placed on receiving high grades to receive an expensive education, students may be exceeding only because they need to get ahead of others.  Even if more students begin to exceed academically, will they decide to bring back to the community in which they were educated? One can assume that the capitalist nature of this system can potentially change students’ view on education.

Research Plan, case or Additional Questions:

More information can be researched about traditional schools and their adopting of some methods common to for-profit education. What opportunities are being made for students so that they do not have to invest in expensive education? If some schools and administrator believe that for-profit schools have become a detriment to student education, why not try to create strategies that allow for students to feel the same convenience that they would at proprietary schools?

Another perspective that I plan to briefly discuss concerns the parents of inner city students. How much do they influence the school choices that are made by students? More importantly, how has students and parents’ perspectives on for-profit schools allowed the business of privatization create billions of dollars of income? What type of students in the urban areas benefit the most from this education and what can a for-profit degree really do for those students? I believe some of these answers lie in graduation rates for select schools as well as employment statistics for students that graduated from these schools. Since most for-profit education institutions provide a limited array of career opportunities, I plan to compare the quality of education and success rates of for-profit and nonprofit schools in one state. In this case, “success” is described as receiving a career opportunity, whether it is a job or additional schooling, related to one’s major within two years of graduation. Hopefully, with this method I can somewhat show and compare the significance of receiving a degree from a for-profit to receiving the same degree at a traditional school.

Bibliography

Brown, Frank. “Privatization and Urban Education : More Political and Less Educational.” Education and Urban Society Volume 29 (1997) Print.

Clive, Belfield. "Education privatization: causes, consequences and planning implications." Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 74 (2002) Print

Elert, G. (1994). “School privatization and choice: A sociopolitical analysis.” E-World. (1994). Print

Farrell, Walter. "Will Privatizing Schools Really Help Inner-City Students of Color?" Educational Leadership The New Alternative Schools Volume 52. No. 1 (1994) Print.

Whitty, Geoff. "Creeping Privatization And Its Implications For Schooling in the Inner City." The Urban Review Volume 22. No. 2 (1990) Print.

Romer, Jennifer. "Attacking Educational Inequality: The Privatization Approach." Boston College Third World Law Journal Volume 16. No. 2 (1996) Print.

Literature Review Blog #1

   

(2) Whitty, Geoff. "Creeping Privatization And Its Implications For Schooling in the Inner City." The Urban Review Volume 22. No. 2 (1990) :101-114. Print

(3)   Goeff Whitty discusses the government's response to the issues facing education in the inner city. He includes the "assisted places scheme", the establishment of city technology colleges with aid from business  sponsors, and the cultivation of schools through the use of federal grants.

(4)   Whitty was Goldsmiths College's Professor of Policy and Management in Education before he became Director of the Institute of Education, Professor Whitty is Chair of the British Council's Education and training Advisory Committee. Whitty has directed  research projects on the impact of education policies, such as the assisted places scheme, city technology colleges, Education Action Zones and changes in  initial teacher education.

(5) "Assisted Places Scheme" - system structured so that poor students could attend expensive proprietary schools by scoring within the top 10-15% of applicants in the school's entrance exam.

"City technology colleges  (CTCs) " - secondary education with a strong technological element thereby offering a wider choice of secondary school for inner city students. 

(6)    "Instead, he justified  CTCs  by  pointing  to  what he  perceived  as  the success  of magnet  and  other specialist schools  in  the  United  States,  notably the Bronx  High  School  for Science,  in  transforming  the  achievements  of inner-city children  and  acting  as  "beacons  of excellence"  to  spur surrounding  schools  to make similar improvements" (Whitty 107).

The achievements of students aided by the assisted places scheme has had an influence on the education of  nearby schools, leading to the improvement of the institutions of the whole community. In this case, we see the positive outcomes of establishing a for profit school on the public.

"Despite  the  government's  refusal  to  date  to  widen  the  scheme  beyond  the  academically  able,  there  have  been  persistent  attempts  to persuade the government that the scheme's  apparent success in filling its places   justifies  more  extensive  measures  to  provide  alternatives  to  mainstream  state  education" (106-107).

The assisted places scheme is only available to poor students that exceed academically. The government does not see the benefit of offering more students free or cheaper for-profit education opportunities.  The article is rather old, so maybe this has changed. I will research this more.

"These schemes all help most those children with parents best able to play the system to escape from poor schools. They do nothing for the quality of education of the majority who remain behind" (Whitty 105).

The students that do not exceed academically seem to be regarded as less important, as they are not "assisted"  by the "assisted place scheme". However, city technology colleges were made in response to this flaw.

(7) Other than researching the possible success of inner city students through privatized higher education, I also wanted to explore the causes of failure of students as well. More importantly, I wanted to find out what the government was doing to help the inner city and how it planned to use privatization to do so. This article has given good insight into the improvement of education with government established proprietary colleges. Also, it has shown the flaws in their efforts, such as the disregarding of average students by the "assisted places scheme". This article was merely a starting point that raised my curiosity. I want to go further into the education of the inner city youth who did not make the goals set by the assisted places scheme. What other help were they provided? Also, why wasn't the current public education improved with the budget used to create additional proprietary colleges?

BLOG POST #2: Scouting the Territory

I want to explore the effect of for-profit schools on the success of inner city students. Not only their academic achievements, but also their financial success as well. Does proprietary education manage to provide better career opportunities than traditional education? Or, is it just bring a large bill for cheap education? Is it both? What if students are given cheaper education, but offered easier employment opportunism? How far can a degree from a for-profit school take a student? 

Most searches included terms like "privatization of higher education" and "inner city" or "urban areas". Then I added "proprietary schools comparing to traditional schools" to the previous terms. Results included journals and articles related to the privatization of education and its positive effects on the inner-city and the sense of community brought back by an educational intuition. Also, results included debates on how propriety schools are lacking good education.

Other search results included journals and articles related to the privatization of education in the US as well as other countries. I may compare America to those countries, but as for now I have limited the searches to the American education system.

One article from Google New presented the racial and social inequities influencing education. (http://inthesetimes.com/article/13828/affirmative_action_debate) Although some believe that cities can benefit from privatization, this article favored public education. It also gave some idea of the correlation between educational institutions and prisons. Maybe better analysis of the effect of privatization on inner city students can be made by comparing the rates of graduation and imprisonment in select cities.

Another article showed some positive effects created by for-profit schools, not for just urban schooling, but all schooling. Apparently, "a competitive market may cause competition and encourage both schools to raise educational quality. (http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/250786/session5EduPrivatizationBelfieldand%20Levin.pdf)

BLOG POST #3 :Drawing connections to inner city kids

        From a business perspective, urban areas seem like the best place to advertise and build for-profit education institutions, mainly because of the potential revenue. Every American student is worth an estimated $117,000 in student aid (Parker 2). Also, undergraduates from the inner city are usually entitled to more government aid that the average student. Although for-profit colleges have limited array of course selections, the structure of their education system is one that allows for a student with a full time job to continue their education as conveniently as possible. Proprietary colleges have done their best to have students' education fit their busy lifestyle  For example, the University of Phoenix includes online courses and schools that are conveniently close together -approximately "twenty minutes apart to accommodate for rush hour" (Mark DeFuso, College Inc.) Students, especially those in urban areas, are finding that it has become more convenient to work while getting an education. But at what cost? Is the convenience worth spending 3 to 4 times as much as you would at a community college?

BLOG POST #1 :The Effect of Privatization on Inner City Kids

With my research paper I will attempt to describe how the privatization of higher education effects urban areas.