If President Obama wants to achieve his goal of returning the United States to its former place atop all countries in higher education attainment by 2020, he is going to need the help of for-profit universities like the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, Corinthian and DeVry, as his own Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said recently. (Disclosure: the author has consulted for some of these companies.)
These schools have grown graduates three to four times faster than public and non-profit universities over the last decade; they disproportionately serve a hard-to-serve student population and out-perform their peers in so doing; they have driven innovation in online learning, student services and career services; and they have invested two to three times more in learning technologies per student than other universities.
Yet internally, the administration seems to be struggling with how to treat the for-profit universities. Some--and not just people in the administration--have proposed regulations that exclusively target the for-profits' funding. Although their frustration with specific bad actors, aggressive enrollment practices and high debt loads for students is understandable, ignoring the sector's capacity for innovation and its ability to organize and move quickly to satisfy market demands is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just as there are good and bad non-profit and public universities, there are also good and bad for-profit ones.
Some of the sector's faults are the result of a few deplorable offenders; some are a result of the government's own funding policies; and some are a part of the growing pains seen with any disruptive innovation. A disruptive innovation is one that transforms a sector by offering a new value proposition around dimensions that include convenience, accessibility, simplicity or affordability. These innovations generally start as not as good as the dominant products or services in a field as judged by the historical dimensions of performance, and as such they cannot initially serve mainstream customers. Disruptive innovations therefore start at the fringes by serving people who cannot consume the leading products or services because they are too inconvenient, inaccessible, complicated or expensive, and as they predictably improve, more and more consumers flock to them.
Many of the for-profit universities fit this definition as they have taken their offerings online to propel their growth and serve adult learners and others who have historically been overlooked by traditional universities. An often-heard charge levied against these providers is that their educational service is a poor substitute for the "real thing." Yet without the convenience of these online offerings that allow them to learn anytime and anywhere, many of these students would have no alternative to gain a formal education given the demands of work and family.
The for-profit universities are not the only disruptive players to have been disparaged historically. When Japanese companies in several industries first began to make disruptive noise in the 1950s and 1960s, Americans of all stripes mocked the quality of their products and services. Within a generation, however, "Made in Japan" had become synonymous with high quality.
Drawing on these lessons, if the Obama administration really wants to change education and make it more accessible, reasonably priced and of higher quality, it should use the momentum and know-how of the disruptive innovators and prod them to move "up-market"--so as not just to expand access but also to improve quality. Historically the mantra and measurements from Washington have been about access to higher education, and the for-profits have largely delivered over the past decade. If the mantra has changed, the administration should work with the for-profits to move the metrics in a productive way.
Not only that but the administration should also find a way to make the metrics apply to all colleges regardless of tax status. The market forces that drive the for-profit institutions can put pressure on the entire market, including the non-profit and public universities, to become better. The question ultimately should not be one of for-profit versus non-profit versus public. Discriminating between these providers in this way is discriminating along the wrong category.
The goal of policy should be to unleash innovation by setting the conditions for good actors--be they for-profit, non-profit, or public--that improve access, quality and value to succeed. Tamping down on that innovation and competition will not help individuals nor will it help the country.
Michael B. Horn is executive director of Innosight Institute, a nonprofit think tank focused on education and innovation. He also is co-author of "Disrupting Class" (McGraw-Hill, 2008).
Yes, much good can come from for-profit programs, and some of that has to do with the student and some with the institution's own controls, guidelines, policies, and oversight. Making generalizations and globalizations from one or another experience is not helpful, nor is ad hominem type attacks or blaming current shortcomings on a government administration.
As I tell my students in graduate courses in marketing, defining the problem is more than 2/3 of the solution. In other words, if you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So if you find fault exclusively with one or other aspect of a situation, you may likely think the solution is in some change in that aspect and no other.
But we know complex problems like the ones about education currently in the US do not come with simple solutions. And blaming doesn't solve anything.
Here's what it all means to me: the profit motive has its place as does the non profit motive. In a complex world, no one answer fits all questions. What is the question? More importantly, what is the problem?
It is also worth noting that the report only talked about ONE community college turning students away increasing demand for the for-profit racket. There are 1000's of community colleges that have an open door policy and they serve these "under represented' students for a fraction of the cost. The community colleges around here will admit a student without a diploma or GED if they can prove an ability to benefit from upper level courses.
I personally believe that 'for profit' schools should not be allowed to receive federal grant and loan funds. That money should be saved for public and well established private school. And they should not give aid to schools that are not regionally accredited. These schools are the worse offenders offering worthless degrees.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177064219731.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=bigimage&utm_source=bigimage
When it became obvious that the for-profit school I was attending only cared about getting their fees quickly, even though it cost me money (if I had waited I could have gotten a grant instead of a loan) I bailed. The financial advisor was apathetic, unknowledgable, and down right mean. I am glad I transferred to a community college.
These are choices people are free to make or not make, don't limit them. Aren't Progressives supposed to be in favor of choice? Or does that apply only to one area? You don't want to go, don't go. But don't deny other people the choice simply because you might not like the one they make. It's their life, not yours. I'd think people would have better things to do with their time than limit options for other people. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am then this country is in a lot more trouble than I ever even thought to fear.
I will grant that for-profit institutions have introduced some much-needed innovations. For example, offering more starting points for classes throughout the year can help students who have family or work responsibilities. Offering more courses online can also help such students. But public and not-for-profit institutions can do things things as well, most often with higher quality.
The for-profit education sector should be viewed in the same way that for-profit health insurance companies should be viewed: as an unnecessarily expensive way to deliver needed services. Let's not overlook the fact that the profits that such institutions skim off the top could be used to increase quality or decrease expenses for students.
Are these schools for everyone? No. Are they for some people? Clearly, or else no one would go to them. It's called making choices, and those choices are up to the individual, or at least they used to be. If you get your way we'll all be making honey after you turn us into a collective beehive. No thanks, count me out!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
Here's an idea - you don't like for-profit schools, don't go to one. Don't send your kids to one. I would never seek to impose my will on another person yet that seems to be right in your wheelhouse. Shame on you!
The reason for profit schools cost more is that they are heavily subsidized by tax dollars like not for profit schools. And I don't know if you've looked lately, but non-profit universities aren't cheap.
It's the individual's choice, not yours. Taxpayers should be able to use their financial aid money to attend whatever school they want. Anything else is obscene.
Horn gets it exactly right in this piece and that has some people worried. If the light of day shining upon your agenda makes you uneasy, well, then maybe you need to rethink what you're doing, and that seems to be what's going on here with these attacks on these good schools.