Rethink College Inc.: A Response to Frontline’s Documentary on For-Profit Colleges
If you watched the recent Frontline documentary, College Inc., which PBS aired on May 4, 2010, and you had no prior knowledge of for-profit colleges or the debate that surrounds their popularity, you might be inclined to view these institutions as opportunistic.
If, however, you watched the documentary after logging off from your current college course – a course that enables you to study from home, maintain your full-time job, and work towards a professional degree in far less time than you’d be able to earn a credential from the community college down the road … If you watched College Inc. from that perspective, you might be wondering why more screen time wasn’t devoted to you and your classmates – people who asked for this education, in exactly this format, and who are succeeding because of it.
The other side of the story
While College Inc. makes some effort to represent the student’s side of the for-profit story, students in this documentary are viewed largely as victims, instead of as informed consumers. According to College Inc., for-profits are thriving because students are hoodwinked by marketing ploys and because community colleges don’t have enough room.
In reality, for-profit and online colleges (the 2 types do overlap, but they’re not interchangeable) offer welcome innovations in the world of higher education. Just like automobiles changed transportation, and microscopes changed medicine, new developments in technology and telecommunications are expanding our education options.
Is education a business?
College Inc. ultimately boils down to this specific point. Correspondent Martin Smith presses former University of Phoenix Director, Mark DeFusco, for an answer, and DeFusco is forced to admit that for-profit education is, in fact, a business. The admission – perhaps Frontline’s intended coup de grace against the industry – is doubly flawed.
Firstly, why should this be a reluctant admission? Why are we disdainful of the idea that higher education could be widely available, efficient, functional, and self-sustaining? Are education and enterprise mutually exclusive concepts?
Former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, didn’t think so. Paige created the Office of Innovation and Improvement in 2002 in order to develop a “nimble and entrepreneurial” arm of the Department of Education. In a speech given at Stanford University, former Deputy Under Secretary, Nina Rees, lamented the “sluggishness,” the “excessive caution,” and the “rule-bound, slow to change” nature of the public school system. She called on audience members to study both business and education, so that future thought leaders could inject entrepreneurship and business models of success into the world of education. [Source: www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2004/03/03062004.html]
Secondly, DeFusco’s answer draws distinctions between “places in the world where people sit down and think,” and other places (ostensibly for-profit colleges) for the “vast majority of folks who don’t get that privilege.” This imagined dichotomy – between “real” learning and learning that prepares for-profit graduates to go out and make money in the world – is more about traditional, liberal arts bias than it is a grounded critique of how well investor-backed colleges can educate nontraditional students.
For-profit colleges could develop any kind of department or program that met student demands – including French poetry, renaissance architecture, or pottery making 101. Campus colleges are not the exclusive domain of “sitting down and thinking.” The fact that for-profit colleges don’t develop these programs is used to indict the entire category of for-profit schools as “fast food-ized,” instead of acknowledged as an indication that most of today’s college students no longer want or need the curriculum that was subscribed in The Yale Report of 1828.
Why do we generalize about for-profits, and not about other categories of schools?
The Frontline documentary is accurate in certain respects. Some colleges have used unethical practices in recruiting new students and/or promising professional credentials that their programs could not deliver. However, just as the entire category of “not-for-profit universities” has not been sullied by isolated incidents of campus violence, student suicides, or the statistic that most of their students take 6 years to graduate, critics cannot condemn the entire category of for-profit schools, based on the practices of a few irresponsible institutions.
Some might argue that for-profits are run by investors, and that investors are more inclined (than not-for-profit board members) to make decisions and policies based on financial return. But if you think that “traditional” schools are more willing to forgo a profit in order to operate with students’ best interests at heart, then you haven’t read many newspapers lately – or ever. The following examples represent just a few of the money-motivated news items attached to not-for-profit colleges:
- NCAA student athletes at not-for-profit (public and private) schools are only eligible for one-year scholarships. If they get injured or cut from the team, the rest of their education is unpaid for, and many are forced to drop out. Many of these athletes come from low-income backgrounds. Why aren’t not-for-profits more concerned with finding ways to graduate their former stars? [Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/colleges-must-stop-killin_b_180133.html]
- Not-for-profit schools often admit wealthier applicants ahead of applicants who need financial aid. Rather than spend their own reserves in supporting low-income students, these schools opt to admit students who can meet full tuition costs.
A report from U.S. News & World Report shows that only 7% of students at Washington University in St. Louis (for one example) qualify for federal Pell Grants, even though Washington University “was reported to have the nation's 16th biggest college endowment last year, with over $4 billion in reserve as of June 30, 2009.” In other words, the university could afford to support more qualified, low-income applicants, but it still favors self-sufficient prospects.
Another U.S. News & World Report article observed,“less-than-stellar students who don't have much money will have a tougher time getting into many types of colleges this year, including some flagship public universities and some private colleges. Thus, there is a danger that the economic downturn could reduce college opportunities for low-income students while giving even more advantages to the wealthy.” [Source: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/paying-for-college/2010/03/22/do-colleges-prefer-rich-applicants.html?PageNr=2, http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2010/01/15/rich-students-will-get-more-college-acceptance-letters-in-2010.html]
- Students at California State University are suing the CSU system for tuition hikes on summer and winter classes. Due to limited availability, some students are forced to enroll in summer/winter semester courses. The deferred students are then forced to pay more than their classmates. [Source: http://cbs5.com/local/CSU.student.lawsuit.2.1650632.html]
None of this is to say that bad practices should be excused. Instead, these examples are offered to highlight the public’s willingness to dismiss individual stories of schools cheating students, when the schools in question are well-known private universities or public colleges that host popular sports teams. For-profit schools, however, are routinely lumped together, and judged as a single entity.
Are not-for-profits really providing a better education?
Much of the case against for-profit and/or online education is derived from the observation that it’s “different.” Critics rally and rail to point out that degrees should require 4 years of study, that traditional college professors have tenure as opposed to adjunct status, and that students are fundamentally disserviced without a classroom experience.
Some of those assumptions are incorrect. For example, according to the American Association of University Professors, non-tenure-track positions now account for 68% of all faculty appointments in American higher education. So, courses taught by tenured professors are becoming a rarity at non-profit schools, too.
But some of the differences noted between for-profit (online) models and not-for-profit models are absolutely correct. For-profit schools deliberately altered traditional course designs, course content, and semester schedules. The contrasting format is not just economical, it’s also effective.
Course Design
Even though College Inc. only profiled the in-class experience of one satisfied student (Kevin Trsinar, from Chancellor University), Frontline was comfortable characterizing all online education with the following statement: It’s just instructor-led discussion groups. There’s little in the way of video or graphics.
Even if this generalization were accurate, and if all online classes were merely comprised of written lessons and instructor-led discussion groups, the required student interaction would still rival what’s required – by way of discussion and participation – in most traditional classrooms.
Online students are routinely required to post their thoughts, questions, and responses to classmates’ comments. The instruction is often thoroughly dialogic – something campus classes can’t duplicate, excepting the occasional seminar course for upperclassmen.
Education experts have long questioned the ballooning size of today’s campus-college lecture halls. A 2007 USA Today article noted that 33 of the University of Colorado’s classes enrolled 400 students or more. And the National Center for Academic Transformation estimates that 35% of traditional college enrollment is represented by just 25 specific courses. In other words, a lot of students are taking the same classes.
“ ‘Big lectures have their place, but it's too easy for students to hide,’ said Lee Shulman, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.” [Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-24-giantclasses_N.htm]
Professional Applicability
No college recruiter or enrollment counselor should ever misinform a prospective student. That said, some level of responsibility has to lie with the student, in terms of realistic earnings expectations and knowledge of licensure requirements. The Frontline piece highlighted 2 clear examples of degree-related misinformation at for-profit schools. What about traditional schools? Tens of thousands of students are ushered through 4-year degree programs at expensive private schools without mandated warnings about being “undecided” or majoring in unprofitable subject areas.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education’s 2010 Almanac issue, over 13% of college freshman at 4-year colleges plan to major in arts and humanities subjects. Of the same students surveyed, more than 56% said they chose their college based on their desire to get a good job upon graduation. This means, 13% of students who are primarily concerned with getting a good job, are paying up to $200,000 for a 4-year degree in an arts and humanities subject – like psychology, for example.
In 1999, fewer than 5% of 1997 and 1998 psychology BA recipients were employed in psychology or a field related to psychology. This information comes from the APA (American Psychological Association.) Fewer than 5%! There are no statistics to prove the conclusion, but a reasonable assumption is that the other 95% could have spent their money elsewhere, or not at all, with a better return. Was anyone required to inform these students that most psychology-related jobs require at least a master’s degree?
The ABA (American Bar Association) recently published an article, questioning the development of more law schools, as the number of existing lawyers is already well above the number of jobs available. Some sources estimate that 45,000 students graduate from law school every year, while only 30,000 jobs open each year. When you consider the fact that 45% of professional degree graduates (including lawyers and medical school students) graduate with more than $80,000 of tuition debt, the inability to find a job is a very serious concern.
Program Length
A study conducted at the University of Texas at Austin found that learning outcomes are comparable in traditional semester courses and in short-term courses, which are usually offered by for-profit and online colleges. Expressly, researchers from UT’s Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment reported “considerable evidence” that student learning outcomes are comparable in intensive and regularly scheduled courses. Moreover, UT researchers found that most students preferred the short-term course model.
The findings support previous research conducted by the Commission on Accelerated Programs and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. [Source: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/28/intensive]
Accelerated course offerings are another example of for-profit/online schools’ operational dexterity, as compared to traditional counterparts. Given that learning outcomes are comparable, and that one-at-a-time compressed courses are better suited to the lives of nontraditional students, for-profits and online schools are meeting the demand, allowing working adults, military members, and other nonresidential students to make faster progress towards a degree.
Many traditional colleges operate on a quarter schedule, rather than a semester schedule, and are clearly not opposed to compressed course structures. But the administrative logistics and curricular redesigns are costly. Traditional faculty members don’t agree on the ideal schedule, so campus colleges stick with the existing modes and models. And by dint of being “traditional,” semester-length courses are assumed to be more rigorous or effective.
Conclusion
For-profit education and online education are more than just money-making imitations of the “real” thing. For the most part, these schools offer newfound access and opportunity, while maintaining the high standards set forth by their accreditors. Just like any population, the for-profit cohort will include some stories of failure and misguided pursuits. But the greatest injury felt by students of for-profit colleges and online colleges is the one that reopens every time agenda-driven critics and educational traditionalists dismiss their learning experiences according to reports of the lowest common denominator.
Elizabeth O'Neill holds an MFA in Creative Writing. She is a contributing writer at eLearners.com, EarnMyDegree.com, and GradSchools.com.
The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by Project Working Mom or EducationDynamics, LLC.
Comments for Rethink College Inc.: A Response to Frontline’s Documentary on For-Profit Colleges:
4 comment(s)
Reese On Thursday, June 24 2010
i just wrote about how I feel about the school I am attending (a for-profit school). A very me-centered opinion of what to expect when attending for-profit schools as well as how I perceived the College Inc. documentary that aired on PBS! theeducationlottery.blogspot.com/.../for-profit-scho
Pamela On Tuesday, August 17 2010
I am working on my Masters at present. I have attended (and done well at both on(for the AS and BS) and off(Capella)campus universities. Although I do not think that all DL schools are created and administered equally, I have been impressed by the quality of faculty and staff of Capella. I have received more support and attention to my success than I ever received at my state (non-profit) university. Learning in an online format is convenient but my courses have not been easy. I have worked very hard for every good grade. The ability to "meet" my course mates and learn from them has enhanced my education, and the free exchange of academic and personal perspectives has enhanced us all. It's an excellent format for learning and I am pleased to have been able to take part in this innovative idea.
Mark Defusco On Friday, October 29 2010
Prof_mp Plenty of Fish
Übersetzung On Wednesday, April 13 2011
I have attended (and done well at both on(for the AS and BS) and off(Capella)campus universities. Although I do not think that all DL schools are created and administered equally, I have been impressed by the quality of faculty and staff of Capella. I have received more support and attention to my success than I ever received at my state (non-profit) university. Learning in an online format is convenient but my courses have not been easy. I have worked very hard for every good grade. The ability to "meet" my course mates and learn from them has enhanced my education, and the free exchange of academic and personal perspectives has enhanced us all. It's an excellent format for learning and I am pleased to have been able to take part in this innovative idea.