There are various ways in which for-profit colleges are negatively impacting the the lives of people who are striving to acquire a college degree, and there are few ways in which these universities serve in these people’s favor. The people working for these establishments are only interested in their own well-being and will do anything to get ahead, no matter who they hurt in the process. In Kevin Carey’s article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” he states all of the ways in which for-profits turn the opportunity to receive a college education into a path full of stress and hardship. Carey’s article helps the world to realize how corrupt and heartless for-profit colleges can be. These colleges use the very few positives that they have to trick people into enrolling in their college’s classes. The government has even caught on the tactics that these universities are using, and various advocacy groups are opposed and others support the idea of passing an amendment to limit the latest of government spending on for-profit education. Carey claims that there are some positives to for-profit colleges, but that there are also aggressive recruiters that are tricking students into enrolling into classes they will not be able to afford therefore trapping them into countless amounts of debt. There are many articles by other authors that illustrate, extend, challenge, qualify, and complicate Carey’s arguments. In my analysis of Carey’s text, I will examine how these outside sources illustrate, extend, challenge, qualify, or complicate his text and argue how his claims are affected.
Carey claims that for-profits higher education is not inherently bad. There are some aspects of for-profits that pose as beneficial to certain students. Carey states that, “they profit by serving students that public and private nonprofit institutions too often ignore,” (55). For example, many for-profits have basic campuses that are located near freeways so that working students have easy access in order to attend evening classes. Many for-profits also offer courses that bankrupt public colleges do not offer. The article, “For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect,” by Michael J. Seiden extends how for-profit colleges provide some positives to their education system. Seiden states how many for-profits are sanctioned for overly aggressive marketing and enrollment tactics, but he rebuttals that conception by introducing the idea of how for-profits offer the quality education that everyone deserves to have an opportunity for. There are various reasons why so many people do not obtain college degrees, such as dropping out of college, failing to achieve high enough grades, or stopping schooling after graduating from high school. The article discloses how people who immediately start working after high school acquire knowledge and skills that are more relevant than good SAT scores, and for-profit institutions provide open admissions requirements and flexible course scheduling; therefore, these types of college appeal more to already employed students. For-profits’ flexibility and appeal to these working people gives them the opportunity to earn the meaningful college degree that these people were never able to obtain. Business oriented degree programs also serves as a positive to for-profit education. Degree programs and curricula are more market-driven than public institutions. The reason for this is that for-profits view their students as customers and in order to retain those customers, they must provide things that will attract them. Students more than often are motivated to earn their degrees because they want to move up in their careers; therefore, these colleges offer both general-education courses and courses that students’ employers demand. For-profits operate with the idea that they must appeal to students in ways that their competition does not. They appeal to students through their exceptional services, flexible schedules, strong faculty, and market-driven programs. This article by Seiden introduces other ways in which for-profits offer positives to their students. Seiden illustrates examples of how Carey stated that for-profits do have their appeals and that they do offer students things that public colleges do not.
Another one of Carey’s claims is that aggressive recruiters will do anything they need to to succeed at their job and to get students to enroll in classes at their university. These recruiters tend to trick students into enrolling when they already know that the students will not be able to afford it. Carey states how he has heard of, “Horror stories of aggressive recruiters’ inducing students to take out huge loans for nearly worthless degrees…” (53). In the article, “Faculty at For-Profits Allege Constant Pressure to Keep Students Enrolled,” Kelly Field states how even though some for-profit institutions have revived awards for their work, many of the reasons of how they have achieved all that they have are through negative means. The article states how some former faculty members say that the honors of their schools came at a steep price. Those faculty members revealed how in order to keep their numbers high, administrators pressured employees to falsify attendance records, raise grades, and manipulate job-placement numbers. Dolores A Howland-Justice says, “We were constantly told to lower the bar, that we were helping poor people.” Howland-Justice later filed a lawsuit against her former employers for fraudulently obtaining millions of dollars in financial aid by inflating its graduation and job-placement rates. This event exemplifies how institutions would make their employees do what ever it took to achieve the success that they institution “needed.” This article illustrates how recruiters and universities will do whatever is necessary for their institution to succeed. The tactic of getting students to enroll in classes they could not afford was what caused many student to get trapped in countless amounts of debt that they will never be able to pay off. Sometimes parents would even be dragged into their child’s debt because they are part of the loan or financial aid that the students received. The quote “…a large and growing number of graduates of for-profit colleges are having trouble paying those loans back,” (53) stated by Carey shows how even after college students continue to struggle to pay off their debt. In the article, “Excerpts from Government Accountability Report on For-Profit Universities”, it illustrates how colleges will do whatever it takes to make money and get students to enroll in their classes. An undercover applicant was encouraged by four out of the fifteen schools that he applied to to falsify his FAFSA in order to qualify for financial aid. He was told to not report how much he obtained in his bank account because it would affect how much money he would receive from financial aid. The admissions representative at one of the schools also encouraged the student to change the FAFSA to falsely add dependents so that the applicant would be eligible for grants. These recruiters will not change their strategies no matter how much they negatively affect the students. This lack of consideration for others shows how far these recruiters will go to succeed and make money.
Carey brings up the event of speaking with Michael Clifford about his business deals. He states that, “Clifford will concede…to the abuses in the for-profit industry. But that he rejects the Obama administration’s proposal to cut off federal aid to for-profits at which student-debt payments after graduation exceed a certain percentage of the graduate’s income,” (54). Carey informs others about how Clifford denies that colleges have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back. Clifford will not even acknowledge that student borrowing is related to how much these colleges charge for classes. Carey shows how business men, such as Clifford, turn situations around to blame the students for their inability to pay off debt when in reality, those students would not be in those debt situations if their schooling did not cost as much as it did. In the article “House Passes Amendment to Block Funding of Oversight Measure for For-Profit Schools” by Sharona Coutts, she illustrates how the issues with for-profits has gotten back to the government, and she informs readers about how an amendment was passed by the House that could restrict the Department of Education’s attempts to regulate for-profit colleges. The amendment was aimed at the Education Department’s rule that would regulate schools from accessing federal student aid if too many students could not repay their loans. It has not yet been finalized, but there have been various advocacy groups that either support or oppose the rule that are making their opinions known. Advocacy groups that oppose the rule claim that “it unfairly affects schools that serve greater numbers of poor and minority students and will deprive those students of the full range of educational opportunities available to more affluent, traditional college students.” Meanwhile, there are many advocacy groups that support the amendment. They agree with tightening restrictions on for-profit colleges due to the college’s questionable recruiting tactics that leave students in large amounts of debt and lessen their job opportunities. Nearly fifty civil rights consumer and student advocacy groups wrote a letter to President Obama urging the administration to adopt the rule. They believe that it would “eliminate waste, fraud and abuse” by education programs that leave students in endless amounts of debt. Coutts’ article relates back to Carey’s introduction of how business men work the system to their benefit and oppose people who get in the way of their work, as shown by Clifford when he reject’s the Obama administration’s proposal. The article also shows how major the problems of for-profits are because the government is starting to get involved.
These claims about for-profit institutions by Carey state how these schools can both negatively and positively affect currently enrolled and future students. There are some aspects of for-profits that attract students to these institutions, such as exceptional services, flexible schedules, strong faculty, and market-driven programs. These features make it possible for already employed students to earn the college degree that they were never able to obtain. Although there are some positives to for-profit institutions, they are easily cancelled out by the amount of negatives that these colleges cause. Recruiters of for-profit colleges aggressively persuade students into enrolling in courses at their institutions that they know the student will not be able to afford. This starts the path that many students fall into when enrolling in these schools. They become trapped in a lifelong amount of debt that they will probably never be pay off, and sometimes their parents get dragged into the debt as well for being co-signers of their child’s loan. These recruiters will go to any length to achieve their goal of enrolling as many students as possible to make money and to contribute to the success of their university. The problems with for-profit colleges has become so well known that the government is starting to get involved in trying to regulate how much government aid is given to these institutions. The government is aware of most of the tactics that these colleges use and how they manipulate students into acquiring money from the them to pay for schooling. There are both strengths and weaknesses to Carey’s claims. He proves to be effective when explaining how for-profits are negatively affecting their students and when he provides examples of how aggressive recruiters can be. He seems to be less effective when informing readers about how for-profits provide some positives. Carey does not go into very much detail when explaining how for-profits provide things that public institutions do not. The examples that Carey uses to show the positives and negatives of for-profits do not balance each other out well. The examples used for negatives are more eye opening and shocking to readers than the examples used to illustrate the positives; therefore, more readers will be drawn to and affected by the negatives than the positives.
No comments:
Post a Comment