Carey Essay
For-profit universities such as University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and DeVry University may be taking over the education system. For-profits are private universities with high tuitions that offer degrees in specific fields. They are run more like businesses than public and private non-profit universities. These colleges have been around for a long time, but recently their benefit to society has become controversial. Debates are occurring between several educational experts on whether for-profit universities negatively or positively affect American students, tax-payers, and the economy. In 2010, multiple lawsuits were filed against certain for-profits for fraudulent activities. Many believe that these “colleges” are just big businesses scamming students and the U.S. government to increase profits. Others think that they are legitimate universities that provide a convenient way of obtaining a higher education to those often forgotten by the traditional non-profit universities. However, a lot of people, such as Kevin Carey, are on the fence about the subject and see both the good and bad in these universities. Carey is the director of the Education Policy Program at New America and is widely considered an expert on education issues. Carey has written many articles published in many magazines and newspapers, including the New York Times and is currently publishing a book about higher education in 2015. Most of his publications focus on higher education in the United States. In his article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?”, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2010, Carey explains his views on the for-profits. He starts out by insisting that these colleges have become money-making machines that prey on less-fortunate people in order to get the tax-payers’ money in the form of government grants. However, Carey later goes on to argue that these schools aren’t all bad because they are a convenient way for the working person to get a higher education and may be no worse than non-profit schools. In this essay, I will dive further into the details of Carey’s claims and discuss other publications that challenge, complicate, and extend his arguments.
Carey starts out his argument with one of his overall claims, which is that the for-profit universities are just in it for the money and will do almost anything to increase their profits. He gives an example of Michael Clifford, the CEO of Grand Canyon University, one of the more egregious for-profits. Clifford, surprisingly, never even attended college and is now running one that enrolls tens of thousands of America’s college students. Many do not consider him as an expert on how to educate students, but he certainly knows how to run a business. Clifford has made millions of dollars, a majority of which comes from government funds, while running this college. Carey explains that “Entrepreneurs like Clifford, meanwhile, have been snapping up dying nonprofit colleges and quickly turning them into money-making machines”(Carey P 3). For-profits are very profitable investments; they actually have large stocks in the market. Looking at Clifford and his luxurious house located on the beach in Southern California, it’s easy to see why people with business backgrounds are scooping up these opportunities and turning failing non-profit universities into money making for-profit institutions. It doesn't seem as though these CEO’s are very concerned about providing people a legitimate education, as long as they make money during the process. This brings me to Carey’s next few claims.
Carey claims that recruiter’s aggressively target low-income kids who are eligible for government aid. The federal aid comes in the forms of Pell grants and unsubsidized student loans. He reports, “a quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”(Carey P 4). This seems to indicate that the college only wants certain people enrolled at their school so they can make more money. This isn't where it stops, though. After a few lawsuits in 2010 against for-profits on the count of fraudulent activity, the government sent undercover investigators to 15 for-profit schools. The GAO report states, “four of the 15 colleges we visited encouraged our undercover applicants to falsify their FAFSA in order to qualify for financial aid”(GAO report) and that at others the advisers gave false information on what you are required to report on the FAFSA application. This extends Carey’s claim by saying that they don’t just target low-income people, but convince people to lie to the government and report that they have less money than in actuality. But how does this get them more money? If a person is able to go to school without having to pay out of their own pocket, they are much more likely to enroll and stay for longer, which brings the business/school more money. These actions demonstrate that these for-profits truly care more about money than about their students’ education because they convince them commit fraud, which is punishable by the court of law. The for-profits are encouraging students to break the law to increase profits for them. As long as these big businesses get their money, they could not care less about the risks people are taking to get these grants and scholarships.
Carey’s next claim is that the for-profits don’t offer a legitimate or valuable degree. Most for-profits have regional accreditation just like non-profits. Accreditation is a process used to asses schools for quality and efforts toward improvement. Carey explains that “accreditation has become like a taxicab medallion, available for bidding on the open market”(Carey P 15). This means that any college can buy it and we have no real standards to hold the for-profits to. Of course, any CEO of a for-profit would ensure you that their education is up to standard and that it’s a great school. However, Sarah Ann Schade complicates Carey’s argument by claiming that the for-profits don't offer up-to-standard courses on purpose, not just because they don't have the tools. Schade gives an example of the for-profit, Arizona Summit Law School, who “proposed curriculum changes that would reduce students’ ability to transfer to better law schools” and made “first-year classes incompatible with other law schools”(Schade 326). This further extends Carey’s main claim that they will do anything for money. This also makes it difficult for students to transfer, therefore they are stuck at the for-profit for a few more years if they hope to get a degree. For-profits aren't just simply incapable of offering standard classes, but the administration purposely offers sub-par classes just to trap students into paying tuition a few more times. This, again, shows that the for-profits do not care about the students well being, just the money.
Carey proceeds to argue that the for-profits need more government regulation. He asserts, “the federal government has every right to regulate the billions of taxpayer dollars it is pouring into the pockets of shareholders. The sooner abusive colleges are prevented from loading students with crushing debt in exchange for for low-value degrees, the better”(Carey P 11). Carey mentions one of the already existent regulations, the “90-10 rule” , which only allows 90 percent of the college’s money to come from aid under the Title IV. However, the for-profits have found a loophole. The GI Bill, which is government aid for veterans, is not under Title IV. Therefore, for-profits are able to get 100 percent of their money from government funds. Carey imposes that stricter and more regulations need to be made in order to prevent for-profits to find loopholes and continue their ways. Brian Darling challenges Carey’s proposal for more regulations. He says that the for-profits are under attack by biased bureaucrats “who are trying to make it hard for students to arm themselves with the education needed to find a job”(Darling). Darling suggests that the proposed regulations from the Obama administration unfairly hold for-profits to higher standards than non-profits. Traditional universities are not required to report statistics on graduation rates, loan defaults, or the ability to get jobs after graduation. A non-profit could have equally as bad statistics as a non-profit, but with these regulations, only the non-profit would have to report them and risk getting shut down. He explains that this would simply make the for-profits unable to operate rather than just fix their bad ways. Since for-profits are often the only option for minorities and people with full time jobs, if these regulations were put in legislation, thousands of potential students would not have any options for post-secondary education.
Even though Carey spends a sufficient amount of time explaining corruption of for-profits, he goes on to claim that they aren’t actually “inherently evil”. In his second overall claim, Carey insists, “the reputable parts of the industry are at the forefront of much technological and organizational innovation”(Carey P 11). What he means is that the for-profits may be corrupt in their business activities to increase profits, but have educational aspects that are beneficial. The way they educate the students could revolutionize how education is done and help the United States get back on track to be one of the most educated countries. According to Carey, the for-profits allow more people to attend school and do, against popular belief, offer valid degrees.
Carey claims that the for-profits are necessary to give minorities and people who work full-time the opportunity to get an education or training for a better job. He declares that for-profits serve “students that public and private nonprofit institutions too often ignore”(Carey P 11). Most for-profits have many campuses located near freeways, offer night classes, and have an online option for courses. They also usually offer degrees in more specified degrees, such as design or computer graphics, that the non-profits do not. For-profits also have been making deals with bankrupt community colleges and offering courses that they are unable to provide. Schade complicates this by claiming that even though it does let more people get more schooling, a majority of these people are unhappy with their education. She claims, “even if students manage to graduate from for-profit colleges, critics note that their graduates still are less likely to find their degrees to have been worth the expense and are less likely to secure employment compared to their peers at traditional public and private colleges”(Schade 328). Yes, more people are getting degrees, but Schade argues that they aren't valid or worth it. As I mentioned before, she states that the for-profits classes can’t be transferred to the mainstream universities because they don't meet the standards and have different curriculums. People with for-profit degrees usually have a difficult time finding employment in their field or make less money than their traditionally educated counterparts. Also, even if the student at a for-profit received the same instruction as someone from a traditional university, a bias still exists. For example, my father is a hiring manager at an engineering company and says that if someone applied for a job with a bachelor’s degree in engineering from ITT Tech, for example, he and his coworkers wouldn't consider him for an engineering job over someone with a degree from a traditional university.
In conclusion, Carey makes many claims about whether or not for-profits are good or bad, however some of his claims are better than others. Carey gives multiple reasons as to why he believes that for-profits are corrupt and need more regulations. He supports these with statistics, examples, and analysis. However, when he argues the opposite and tries to prove that for-profits aren’t all that bad, his argument seems to weaken. He doesn’t provide much evidence or reasons as to why they are beneficial to have around. Rather, he states that there isn't proof that non-profits are any better. This is not a strong argument, because, in my opinion, although traditional non-profit schools may be just as corrupt as the targeted for-profits, the traditional higher educational university offers a balanced education and more opportunities to obtain future employment.
